Jump to content

Talk:North Dakota Fighting Hawks

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Criticism

[edit]

This page should be integrated into a larger page on mascot naming controversy. It's not proper to start an article on something simply to criticise it. --Alexwcovington 07:12, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Amusing.

[edit]

It apparently only takes 70 years for people to be truly offended? Yeesh. The debate seems a little off. Its not like it is wimpy or surrendering Sioux. Many Indians fought on despite enormous odds. Hardly a character flaw to be steadfast in the face of such. On the bright side, a ready made replacement for Fighting Sioux could be Spineless WASPs... which would probably garner no outcry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zotel (talk • contribs)

Actaully it did not take 70 years. this controversy has been ongoing for some time. It is not somuch the use of the word "Fighting" that some find offensive as it is the word "Sious" which was a name given to several tribes by European Americans. The Native American community has always ben didvided on the use of that name. Some oppose it and some embrace it. And I suspect that the use of the term "Spinelss Wasps" would also be seen as inapporpriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.20.221.71 (talk • contribs)

Just so everyone is aware, Wikipedia talk pages are primarily for discussing the article and changes to it. Talk pages are not for airing personal feelings on controversial issues. --MatthewUND(talk) 01:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To me this is a pretty good example of an ongoing controversy and how people and groups line up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.20.221.71 (talk • contribs)

I felt that the section on controversy was rather one-sided, focusing only on those who are opposed to the Fighting Sioux mascot. I would suggest that someone balance this article so that it conforms to a more NPOV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.74.112.215 (talk • contribs)

This article absolutely needs balancing. The entire paragraph regarding the controversy of the mascot was obviously written by someone against what the NCAA and some activists are doing to bad the mascot. Markgerard2020 (talk) 01:42, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move (January 2012)

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus in this discussion to make this mass move, however since none of these are over redirects, any editor can made the individual moves if sources support the new title Mike Cline (talk) 23:15, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

– With the abandonment of the Fighting Sioux nickname, the university has expressed the wish to have no athletic nickname for the time being. Reliable (non-fan) sources have been quick to comply with the change (for example: USCHO). We should likewise follow reliable sources and remove the Fighting Sioux name from the title of this page and its sub-pages. North Dakota Fighting Sioux men's ice hockey has already been moved to University of North Dakota men's ice hockey (not by me, and I didn't know it had been moved until I started formatting this request). relisted -Mike Cline (talk) 15:33, 12 January 2012 (UTC)Powers T 01:25, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think WP:COMMONNAME would still probably come into affect until they had a new name. -DJSasso (talk) 14:36, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:COMMONNAME does not require us to title an article according to vernacular fan usage. It asks us to look at reliable sources, and reliable sources are making the switch to comply with the results of the NCAA/UND settlement agreement. Powers T 15:56, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Right, they are making the switch, but all won't have made it yet. It also doesn't only require current sources. So all the old reliable sources which call them the Fighting Sioux also come into play. -DJSasso (talk) 16:07, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Switch should be made. ND Leguslature has said they could go w/o a nickname until at least 2015 (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/01/sports/fighting-sioux-no-more.html?_r=1) so it would be foolish to wait... Ckruschke (talk) 16:34, 3 January 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke[reply]
That doesn't make sense. Old sources from before a name change cannot be taken as evidence that the old name is still in use, since those old sources could not use the new name. (I'm generalizing here; obviously in this specific case, a source could easily have used "North Dakota athletics" at any time.) Powers T 20:16, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Common name is about making the title the most likely to be searched for. To help readers find the article. As such old sources still go to show this. A user is more likely to type "North Dakota Fighting Sioux" than "University of North Dakota athletics" currently is my guesstimate even though the official name has been changed. I could obviously be wrong. I am just pointing out we go by common names not official names (or in this case lack of official name). I haven't opposed the move, was just bringing up a point to consider. -DJSasso (talk) 20:40, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's more to it than just that, though. (I bet you, for example, that Obama is searched for more often than Barack Obama.) Other factors have to be taken into account, such as what a person familiar with the topic would expect to see as the article title. People familiar with UND athletics are well aware of the nickname controversy, and would likely expect Wikipedia to follow what reliable sources are doing and stop using the obsolete nickname. Furthermore, if we don't change it now, when do we change it? Powers T 21:33, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Jafeluv (talk) 09:12, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

--Relisted Cúchullain t/c 16:04, 13 June 2012 (UTC)Relisted for further input. Aervanath (talk) 19:02, 31 May 2012 (UTC) Relisted for further input. Jafeluv (talk) 10:12, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

– Reverting a no-consensus move made in January 2012 per WP:COMMONNAME. As the most recent nickname for UND athletics is "Fighting Sioux", that is the nickname that should be used. Standard naming, as stated in the last RM, is <school> <mascot> <sport> for every other collegiate athletic program. (Also, the website for UND athletics is still FightingSioux.com, which indicates that the nickname is still in common use.) Six Sided Pun Vows (talk | contribs | former account) 14:54, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose; at the time of the move, the university had stated an intention to stop using the nickname, and media sources were rapidly following suit. While that intention has been stopped in its tracks by legal action in the state of North Dakota, the NCAA is not going to let this drop. Until the situation becomes settled, it's safest to use the current titles rather than continually switching back and forth based on the current state of affairs at any given moment. Powers T 23:55, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Reverting back to its old nickname

[edit]

I was wondering. Due to the controversy of North Dakota athletics' nickname and logo, should UND revert back to its old nickname as the "Flickertails"? Just my opinion.

Talk page isn't a Forum, but I'm sure UND will setup a committee on a new name with the Flickertails as one nominee. Personnally, I like the ring of Fighting Whities - it goes completely to the other end of the race spectrum and somewhat accurately reflects much of North Dakota... Ckruschke (talk) 16:12, 17 July 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke[reply]
Hope so too. Despite the Indian name/race nickname controversy within the NCAA, hope that UND would find a well-fit nickname to replace the "Fighting Sioux". It would be a shame if the institution would begin the academic year on every sport it sponsors without a nickname. jlog3000 (talk) 03:22, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The administration has already stated that the school will be nicknameless for at least the 2012-13 school year. Ckruschke (talk) 17:51, 10 August 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke[reply]
Well, it sucks to have a university to be nicknameless. And it's the first time in NCAA history that it has happened. :/ jlog3000 (talk) 01:28, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is what it is. Ckruschke (talk) 05:08, 22 August 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke[reply]
You're telling me. If only North Dakota had the guts of anticipation to plan a future nickname change back like a couple of years ago or so, then things would be a bit different for the institution. That's how I feel or understand. jlog3000 (talk) 20:09, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article should be about athletics, not the nickname issue

[edit]

There is no reason why the nickname stuff needs to be in the first paragraph of this article.--24.111.158.26 (talk) 01:50, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would tend to disagree with you that it doesn't belong AT ALL in the lead, as UND's nickname (which is obviously used during ATHLETICS) was national news for more than two years. I would agree however, that the nickname issue shouldn't comprise over 90% of the lead as it does now. Do you have a suggested revision? Ckruschke (talk) 19:41, 7 March 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke[reply]
[edit]

Several of the citation links go to a 404. The ones I tested are the ones linking to "B.R.I.D.G.E.S.", the others may be bad as well. 216.137.192.89 (talk) 21:16, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Split of controversy section?

[edit]

Now that a new nickname has been selected, is it time to move the controversy content to a new article, so that this could be only about UND athletics? I would not want to clutter the main Native American mascot controversy with excessive detail about one school.FriendlyFred (talk) 17:02, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, that would be where I would suggest you move it. I'm not sure the UND content has enough on its own, or the larger notability, to be its own page. However, there are other pages that have much less content/notability. I guess I'm fine either way, but I definitely agree that it should be moved out of this page since it is no longer germane. Ckruschke (talk) 20:29, 24 November 2015 (UTC)Ckruschke[reply]
DoneFriendlyFred (talk) 21:01, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:North_Dakota_Fighting_Hawks&oldid=1209419025"