Talk:Washington Commanders

Based in Ashburn, Virginia

The Washington Redskins are headquartered in Ashburn, VA. I'm going to change to box at the bottom (similar to what the New York Jets have).

BRD for controversy section

Chahtaohoyo has recently made a bold edit see here. Opening this section to discuss it. In my opinion, it's a bit WP:UNDUE. The entire section can be summed up with the first sentence "Some notable NFL insiders have begun voicing their opinions on the team name" and incorporated into the rest of the section. Honestly the whole section needs trimming as WP:UNDUE. Likely got bulked up with WP:RECENTISM edits. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:34, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

It has been condensed to a single sentence & integrated into the other text, though the original edit added more context to the discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chahtaohoyo (talk • contribs)

Fair use or not?

This just in: the Redskins trademark has been revoked. Can anyone with expertise on the fair use issue kindly explore what this might mean for the use of Redskins images on this article? --Kaj Taj Mahal (talk) 18:35, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

If you read the news article they will appeal the decision and they retain copyright privileges during the appeals process. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:24, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Trademarks are totally separate and independent from copyrights. Although the trademark status may eventually change, copyrights will not. The logo will most likely still be under copyright, non-free usage. See also Wikipedia:Restricted materials. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:03, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Also note that there is a separate United States Copyright Office that handles copyrights in the U.S. But that is optional. While copyright in the U.S. automatically attaches upon the creation of an original work of authorship, the option to register with the Copyright Office puts the copyright holder in a better position to litigate. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:20, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Pardon my error but the underlying point is still the same: nothing has changed. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:23, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, apologies for my previous convoluted comments. Nothing has changed. The logos will still be under copyright and non-free, and thus must still be used under fair use. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:34, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Article title

Should this article be moved to Washington NFL team? The USPTO has ruled that they do not have a right to the trademark. Or should we wait until all appeals are exhausted? The title policy doesn't care that the name is offensive, but does ask that it be neutral. Which name accomplishes that better? Both are supported by reliable sources; "Redskins" currently has the majority, though there is a slow trend away from it. Ma^t_chups 01:33, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Matchups Nope. It's still using the name and still have TM over it while appeals play out. EvergreenFir (talk) 01:40, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Even if they lose all the appeals, they can still keep using the name if they want to. (And as long as they do, it should continue to be the article title). What the trademark does is give them exclusive rights to the name; without the trademark, anybody is allowed to sell Redskins merchandise and the team stands to lose lots of licensing fees. --ABehrens (talk) 04:02, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

American Indian vs Native American

A few IP editors have been changing American Indian to Native American but so far have not discussed the changes. I agree with the edits but wanted to start a discussion and develop consensus on the issue. In general, Native American appears the preferred and predominant term. Just compare American Indian (disambiguation) to Native Americans. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:36, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Both terms are acceptable and often used interchangeably. A 1995 census survey found that 50 percent of American Indians preferred that term over Native American, it can be found here Native American name controversy. But, that was 20 years ago. If multiple editors want to change it, I don't see a problem doing so. Dkspartan1 (talk) 18:36, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Poking around Google seems to suggest that Native American is the predominantly used term. Perhaps we should ask Wikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America? I'll post something there. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:23, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

First, Indian American refers to people whose heritage is from India who live in the United States, so that's completely irrelevant. "American Indian" and "Native American" are terms that mean two different things. "American Indians" are the Indigenous peoples of the Americas who are not Métis, Inuit, Aleut, or Yupik—so a linguistically-, genetically-, and culturally-related group of peoples spanning Canada to Chile. "Native Americans," especially here on Wikipedia, refers to Indigenous peoples of the United States—US American Indians and Alaska Natives (and occasionally Native Hawaiians). Which concept are you trying to describe? -Uyvsdi (talk) 21:14, 1 July 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Uyvsdi Thanks for the clarification. I've corrected the section header here. I believe that the article would mean all Indigenous peoples, but honestly am not sure. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:49, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

The derogatory term doesn't really apply to Indigenous peoples of Asia, Africa, and Australia, so you might want to stick with Indigenous peoples of the Americas. -01:06, 2 July 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Name Controversy Again...

I trimmed it down today, removing unessential details of the court case, etc. I'm sure some won't be happy about it. But, work with me and we'll get it done. It needs it. Especially now that it's protected. Cheers. Dkspartan1 (talk) 17:04, 1 July 2014 (UTC)