This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ice Hockey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
ice hockey on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ice HockeyWikipedia:WikiProject Ice HockeyTemplate:WikiProject Ice HockeyIce Hockey articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pennsylvania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Pennsylvania on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PennsylvaniaWikipedia:WikiProject PennsylvaniaTemplate:WikiProject PennsylvaniaPennsylvania articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philadelphia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Philadelphia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhiladelphiaWikipedia:WikiProject PhiladelphiaTemplate:WikiProject PhiladelphiaPhiladelphia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anarchism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
anarchism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnarchismWikipedia:WikiProject AnarchismTemplate:WikiProject Anarchismanarchism articles
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
James.fusco28.
This article has some weird phrasing. Namely "...including Penguins fans despite the fact that Pittsburgh's Major League Baseball team, the Pittsburgh Pirates, had their own mascot controversy with the Pirate Parrot back in 1985". The Pirates' mascot history has no importance on an article about Gritty. Seems like an unnecessary shot at Pittsburgh fans on an article presumably written by a Philadelphia fan.
It's also curious that it's stated that "On February 3rd, 2020, Gritty was officially cleared of any wrongdoing". Gritty isn't a real person nor was he under investigation by police - the Philadelphia Flyers team employee who wears the costume was under investigation by police.
Instead of editing these myself I'm putting it here for discussion since I don't want to make changes just to see them instantly rolled back.
Jovitz (
talk)
21:44, 3 February 2020 (UTC)reply
Removing content because it is biased and ideologically driven is not "For whatever reason". Check the appropriate behavior of wikipedia editors page, thank you.
Belregard (
talk)
20:25, 27 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Conversation is over. Currently reaching consensus in RFC discussion. If you would like to present your argument, please reply within the recommended discussion field under the RFC section. Thank you.
Belregard (
talk)
21:46, 27 January 2023 (UTC)reply
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I say Yes, it is. There are numerous references and direct links to political pages, comments by political figures, and references to his iconography being used in protests, though I fail to see the significance of it, and it appears to be motivated by direct attempt to associate the mascot with political leanings. More neutral wording can be used to describe exactly what is already there.
Belregard (
talk)
20:10, 27 January 2023 (UTC)reply
He has no left wing ties because he was created as a corporate mascot. You are ideologically reverting appropriate edits because, ahem "You don't like it".
Belregard (
talk)
20:21, 27 January 2023 (UTC)reply
He has no left wing ties because he was created as a corporate media mascot. If the creator or organization promotes a left wing political belief, left wing ties could be substantiated, but the equivalent of mindless rabble going around stealing his copyrighted likeness does not constitute a direct connection with said figure.
Belregard (
talk)
21:47, 27 January 2023 (UTC)reply
The use of the formal noun "reappropriation," alongside direct mentions and links to various political ideologies is a direct attempt to indirectly link the mascot "Gritty" with the political left, with tenuous usages of his likeness online by select few individuals attempting to ratify this concept. The usage of him online is neither significant enough, nor is the off-hand remark to him by a minor political figure, substantive enough for its inclusion. Furthermore, unless his usage becomes more significant and identifiable outside of sporting events, his reception should primarily detail his reception among sporting events and among sports fans.
Belregard (
talk)
21:58, 27 January 2023 (UTC)reply
No - It's only a paragraph of the article and it seems due based on the coverage. It shouldn't be any longer, but I don't see a real issue. Agree that
WP:RFCBEFORE could have avoided this discussion. Thanks -
Nemov (
talk)
05:35, 28 January 2023 (UTC)reply
No, and bad RfC. I agree with those above that there is no cause for concern with the text the nominator is disputing. It's all reliably sourced and relevant. Not enough prior discussion was had before opening the RfC. ––
FormalDude(talk)06:48, 28 January 2023 (UTC) (
Summoned by bot)reply
No. It's
reliably sourced and
within due weight. Gritty's use as a reappropriated symbol is well documented, not original research. If you have additional sources that counter-balance those refs, let's see them. And to reinforce the above, it was improper to jump from valid discussion straight to RFC. czar16:31, 28 January 2023 (UTC)reply
No. The reappropriation is in fact one of the most notable things about the mascot and failure to cover that would be a substantial failing for a reference work. --
(loopback)ping/
whereis14:15, 2 February 2023 (UTC)reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.