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

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

Sciences humaines.svg 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.

Above undated message substituted from assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:00, 17 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unnecessary and somewhat wrong info[edit]

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[reply]

Jovitz, I do agree that that section is problematic, for those reasons, failing WP:UNDUE and WP:10YT, and because WP:CONTROVERSYSECTION says not to have "controversy sections". If you don't remove it, I will soon. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:54, 3 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Can someone tell me why this is in Wikiproject Anarchism? Is this not simple a corporate mascot akin to Yuru-chara? I am new to wikipedia and struggling to understand. Many thanks. W1tchkr4ft 00 (talk) 17:16, 5 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For posterity, this was discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anarchism/Archive 5#Gritty ?? czar 20:04, 1 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Taken care of. Removing references to leftist politics. Someone is vandalizing the page and undoing my edits though. Belregard (talk) 19:51, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Restoring valid sourced content is not "vandalizing" the page. You removing it for whatever reason is. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:19, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[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[reply]
How is it biased? It's what is said in the reliable sources. In what way does the article text add bias? – Muboshgu (talk) 21:41, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[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[reply]
You never gave the conversation a chance to begin. This is bad form. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:30, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RFC about Gritty Reception section[edit]

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.

Does the Gritty mascot's reception section seem too focused on politics?Belregard (talk) 20:08, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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[reply]
See WP:RFCBEFORE. Getting feedback without an RFC is the first step. And you seem to be deleting sourced content about Gritty's left-wing ties because WP:YOUDONTLIKEIT. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:19, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[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[reply]
The reliable sources describe the left wing ties. You can't just ignore them because, again, you don't like them. You're not presenting a valid reason to not have them included. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:42, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[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[reply]
No - it seems to be pretty balanced and neutrally worded; I don't really see the issue here? (Summoned by bot) Remagoxer (talk) 21:37, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[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[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[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[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. czar 16:31, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No as other editors have mentioned everything is reliably sourced and weighted appropriately. BogLogs (talk) 12:00, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[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/whereis 14:15, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[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.