Template talk:Infobox Native American leader

Move?

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. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Page Moved to Template:Infobox Native American leader.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:47, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

---

---

Template:Infobox American Indian chief → Template:Infobox indigenous leader –

• Support as nom. I don't really care if the name is changed or if the template is eliminated and just put back into infobox person. But "chief" has got to go, it's a white people's term applied without discrimination to various leaders regardless of their actual role (some were religious, some diplomats, some war leaders, etc.). Montanabw^(talk) 23:10, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose as US-chauvinist. There are indigenous leaders all over the world, did you know? ☺ Why not Template:Infobox Native American leader, or whatever else will be politically acceptable and not offensive to Australians, New Zealanders, South Africans, and all the rest? Noetica^Tea? 00:07, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment I would not oppose "Native American leader", though some people who are Native American prefer other terms; I was actually thinking that "indigenous leader" would allow the infobox to be used for people from other nations too. Which might be a good thing(?) Montanabw^(talk) 01:45, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment shouldn't this be language neutral between US and Canada at the very least? -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 03:40, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Reply: That's why I suggested "indigenous," but I am flexible about what the ultimate title becomes. There are differences between the US and Canada (Canada uses "First Nations" and "aboriginal"; the US uses "Native American", "Native people" or "Native" (upper case), and in some situations (particularly law) "Indian" less often you see "American Indian". Maybe "North American indigenous leader" could work though that's long and clunky, but the WikiProject IS named "Indigenous people of North America" (which also would include Mexico, by the way). Montanabw^(talk) 18:20, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Reply Not necessarily. Canada's history and traditions are somewhat different, in that many First Nations are small local governments at a village level, similar to a Ranchería in California; and my impression is that Canada differs from the US in that it has more people in traditional settlements, who have not have not been displaced to larger reservations. Different terminology is to be expected with a somewhat different historical experience. Djembayz (talk) 14:53, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Reply:

Comment Prefer "Native American leader" so that less experienced editors have a chance of finding the infobox. Since local usage varies throughout the world, makes more sense to make additional templates for "First Nations leaders" and "Indigenous leaders" so that different communities can use the terminology that's considered respectful in their jurisdictions. Djembayz (talk) 14:53, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose I have never heard of the word "chief" being offensive or pejorative, and I would guess it to be difficult to find a source suggesting it is. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 00:13, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment Start here: http://mcc.osu.edu/articles/things-never-to-say-to-american-indian-coworkers Further, WP MOS states not to use honorifics in article titles, so ditto for templates, IMHO. (we have an infobox monarch, I think, so any form of "leader" would work here OK). Also, unless we have a RS that says that a particular individual was given the title "chief" in his lifetime, by his/her own people (which primarily applies to modern, not historical tribes, some of whom do now select a "Chief" or a tribal chairman/woman) we are engaging in WP: SYNTH or WP:OR. Montanabw^(talk) 01:44, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

That source says to avoid it "Unless the person you are addressing is actually chief of a tribe or nation". This is quite correct. "Chief" in most article cases is going to be the most commonly used English term (and therefore match RS), and not be intended as pejorative when used for one with the actual rank equivalent to chief. In a case where there is no source calling a subject "chief" then it would certainly be questionable for an article to refer to him as one, however. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 02:28, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

But that's precisely the point; "Actual rank equivalent to chief" is the very problem- there is no such single rank - the white man just labeled every apparent leader as "chief" regardless of whether they were really a true "supreme leader" or not- and most tribes didn't have a supreme leader, most had divided authority for war, religion/dispute resolution, diplomacy, etc... A person dubbed "chief" might actually be a holy man, sachem, military leader, diplomatic leader or whatever; Native people had a wide range of leaders with a wide variety of titles and responsibilities within those titles. We sometimes have to use a catchall term, hence "leader" is what I suggested - but the infobox should not use a term that could be viewed as inappropriate or even condescending for certain people so labeled. Each individual article might or might not call a particular individual "chief" but, by keeping the ifobox name, we are perpetuating a stereotype that is not applicable in all situations. And it's an infobox, which can be used in (potentially) thousands of articles (right now, it's on about 120, other Native leaders have infobox person, a few have infobox "monarch", which is even less appropriate). Montanabw^(talk) 18:20, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

"most tribes didn't have a supreme leader" Who says most tribes didn't have a supreme leader? It seems from the record that with few exceptions (like perhaps the early Cherokee who were sort of like a network of small city states under their own chieftaincies), most tribes did have a supreme leader at all times, and the title 'chief' was almost always given, only to those who had attained this rank, not to priests or mere tribal elders. Tribes actually had their own laws and systems of governance and these were headed by political leaders whose name was sure to be recorded as such. If the native term is known, like ekowah, weroance, it should probably be included, but chief is an acceptable English term for the equivalent rank used in most literature. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 19:06, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

• We are talking about HUNDREDS of different cultures over thousands of years. Most tribal nations had some form of election or selection for their leaders, and often those people only served while there was a need (a war chief until a conflict ended); monarchies were rare. Most people who the whites labeled "chief" were the war leaders, but they often were not the overall leader of a people for the long term, most Native cultures were really quite democratic or consensus-based. I like the way this article put it: " ...we need to keep in mind that we are traveling in a semantic world created by one group to rule another. " The word "chief" is one that some tribes have grudgingly accepted because it's terminology that the white man understands, it doesn't mean they are happy about it. And because it's a case by case basis with each tribe, we shouldn't have an overall infobox apply a term that not all recipients would find applicable. Montanabw^(talk) 00:47, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
• So for details, who says? Well, here is a summary, which includes, "Indeed, most American Indian 'chiefs' were never chiefs. Europeans projected chiefdom onto Native Americans because they could not easily conceive of people living in a civil society without permanent formal rank. Also, making a 'chief' of a respected Native (and sometimes any Native who happened to be handy) gave a European leader an opposite with whom to deal—someone who could sell land, for instance." If that isn't enough, will the New York Times help?: "American Indians were politically diverse, by the Revolution their most common governance structure consisted of multiple chiefs with limited power, advised by councils of elders." Or perhaps the national humanities center's original documents collection of the views of early writers: (you have to scroll down a bit to find this which is from the 1750s, hence the language and use of "chief") "It may be said and written that they have kings, but they are nothing except chiefs in war, namely the most courageous and daring, also possibly the most reasonable. Otherwise they cannot order the other Indians around. He who has the most followers achieves most among the Indians and has something like an honorary title." A simpler explanation is here if you click on the link that says "Native Americans lived in societies ruled by Chiefs" Montanabw^(talk) 00:47, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

That last source may have been written in 1750 but it contains the most ignorant statements imaginable. The other sources look okay until you start looking at specifics. We have articles for many of the specific political leaders who are called "chiefs" in the sources. Which specific historic figure whom the records call "chief" would you dispute was the actual political leader of his tribe? Can you name even one example case? These articles you cite only speak in generalities. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 01:15, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't want to debate this endlessly, and I'd like to see some more votes, as we are actually at a 2-2 tie at the moment. But an infobox IS about generalities; yes, we will find many examples of people being called "Chief" this-or-that because the English language imposed this title on them. But the concept was based on a European norm, not a Native American one. I provided the 1750 example deliberately - absolutely ignorant statements, and sadly, a lot of the same attitudes exist today! But also, did you see how often people back then labeled leaders as "king" this or that - when the actual tribes did not have "kings" at all? Ditto "chief." My point we should not on-wiki perpetuate fuzzy terminology imposed upon a conquered people by the conquerors who tried to assimilate them and erase their native languages and culture. If I show you multiple examples, I am concerned that you will simply do as you have done so far, which is to pooh-pooh everything I present. However, a classic case is "Chief" Joseph, who was a diplomatic leader, not a war chief, yet was dubbed as a great war leader ("the Red Napoleon") by white society primarily because he had been given a "white" name that people could pronounce, plus he had been the diplomatic liaison with the whites and was the only leader still alive after the war chiefs had all been killed. As noted here, "...his people never considered him a war chief. And even within the Wallowa band, the warriors were most likely led by Olikut, Joseph's younger brother, while Joseph was left in charge of guarding the camp." Thus, Joseph would not have thought of himself as a "chief" but rather as an elected civilian leader of his people and a diplomatic liaison, a role he continued to play after his surrender by consent of those who wanted him to continue to lead them. He also had not been named "Joseph" but, like his father, who tried to meet the white man partway, allowed the name to be attached to him as a convenience to whites. Montanabw^(talk) 19:25, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Chief Joseph was elected to succeed his father as political leader, which is usually how it went with most tribes. His tribespeople would have thought of him as whatever the native term is that is equivalent to chief, so the title Chief Joseph is perfectly normal. Much the same as Chief Powhatan, though his native title was mamanatowick. But since we may be stalemated in debate and we may not be able to attract a closing admin, perhaps we should follow procedure and relist the proposed move at Templates for Discussion? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 19:41, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I guess my real question is why you oppose a move from a controversial title to a more neutral one, and one that potentially could be used more widely for more people than just Native Americans? Montanabw^(talk) 23:21, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Because in the US the neutral term "Indigenous" is not used by indigenous peoples themselves the way it is in Mexico. In the US, "indigenous" is a more modern term, most common among academics. I'd use it myself, but the average non-indigenous American wouldn't; they're still working on moving to "Native American" from "Indian." If we want high school kids to be able to find things, we need to use the terminology they recognize. Djembayz (talk) 14:53, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

After further consideration, I would not oppose Template:Native American Leader^*, to include the rare cases where no valid source calls them "chiefs". But clearly chief remains a commonplace term in all the literature I read, including by Native American historians. I don't care for "indigenous" and I have known many others who don't like that one at all either, so please let us not use that one. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 23:32, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, of course many valid sources use "chief" - that doesn't mean that it is the best term to use here. As was put well, it is "a semantic world created by one group to rule another." While I'm open to ANYTHING other than "chief," I am curious if you have any particular reason other than "I don't like it and neither do other people I know." I hope you are OK with "Native American," as while many Native People say "Native" by itself, using it here by itself may raise yet other issues of condescension and racism (sort of like how African-Americans can use the "n-word" but white people cannot). Just out of curiousity, what is your issue with "indigenous?" (The whole wikiproject is named this, reached after a lengthy discussion and is now a longstanding consensus). I know it's a word that usually will "fly" in Indian country. Heck, I even know of a popular Lakota rock band by that name. Also a pretty good comedian who named his web site with a play on the word. (Hm, the guy is WP:NOTABLE too, needs an article). Montanabw^(talk) 19:57, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

It depends which Indian country. The Mi'kmaq, Cree, Ojibwe in eastern Canada I'm thinking of would probably slap you one upside the head if you called them 'indigenous' to their face. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 21:33, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

And a similar reaction would occur with some folks I know if I said "aboriginal." It is a minefield. One place in Montana used "First people" as a compromise term, but not sure how widespread that usage is yet. Montanabw^(talk) 00:39, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

According to Native American naming controversy, the two most popular with Natives are 1) Native American and 2) American Indian. And that squares 100% with my own observation and experience. 'Aboriginal' and 'indigenous' are just not terms one often sees a Native using in casual speech, who probably would not use such condescending sounding terms unless required by the situation. Also conditions are unique on each continent so the idea of watering down this template as some kind of one-size boilerplate solution to be applied to other continents is probably bad. Let other templates be made for the conditions on other continents, and let this one be simply Native American leader or American Indian leader. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 00:27, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

^* Note: I have also slightly altered my choice above to 'Native American Leader', concurring with all of Djembay's observations below. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 16:14, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support but not per nom. Generalization allows use for a wider range of articles for indigenous peoples that are not in the lower-48; -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 03:40, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support The concept of "chief" does not translate to all U.S. tribes in any case, so it's not accurate there. I seriously doubt that Wikipedia is capable of capturing the nuances in leadership roles within the Apache peoples, or the Kiowa for that matter. Leader fills that role better, IMO. Intothatdarkness 20:09, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support, but "Native American Leader" per Montanabw, modern tribal government often uses "Chairman" or a similar term as the title of the tribe's leader. "Chief" is archaic. GregJackP Boomer! 00:02, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Which "modern tribal government" are you purporting to speak for? All of those I am familiar with use Chief because that is the traditional title (or traditional translation) passed down for centuries, and not "chairman". For example, the Mi'kmaq have always had a Grand Chief since at least 1600. A "chairman" is something quite different, and not at all cultural or traditional. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 00:13, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

The Navajo Nation uses "President", as does the Delaware Nation, the Jicarilla Apache, and the Menominee; the Bishop Piute uses "Chairman", as does the Citizen Potawatomi, the Crow Nation, the Fort Sill Apache, and the Grand Traverse Band; the Cheyenne & Arapho uses "Governor", as does the Chickasaw. Those are just a selected few. Chief is still used in some tribes, such as the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma, but it is not as common as the other titles. GregJackP Boomer! 00:32, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, and the Cherokee use "chief" today for women as well as men. (See Wilma Mankiller) As for "chair," add Confederated Salish-Kootenai, Coeur d' Alene, Souther Ute, shall I go on? Montanabw^(talk) 19:47, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

While the Alabama tribe of Texas has an elected Chief, it is a lifetime office with no governmental powers, which are exercised by a Tribe Council. The chief is sort of a head of state, like a king or queen of a parliamentary nation (like the UK). The Absentee Shawnee have a governor, while the Bad River Chippewa has a chairman. GregJackP Boomer! 00:24, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment For modern tribal chairmen/chairwomen and chiefs, the Template:Infobox officeholder works much better, because it covers the question of political jurisdiction, and contains more modern personal attributes. The point of breaking out a Native American leader infobox is so that you can add attributes more suitable for traditional people of the pre-contact, Old West, and Colonial eras. Djembayz (talk) 14:53, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose current proposal for name / Strong support for moving template to Template:Native American leader as per Montanabw above. Terminology and roles of leaders differ greatly among U.S. tribal groups, so the generic term "leader" is about as close as we can come to summing it up. Also, this infobox is useful for other traditional tribal figures who have never served as a "chief." If the Canadian and Australian editors wish, they can always create similar templates for "First Nations leader" and "Indigenous leader". The most important thing here is that we need to use a respectful term that helps editors identify the template, otherwise they'll just use the standard Template:Infobox person. Djembayz (talk) 14:53, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

  Comment and Support new concept : I can live with "Native American leader" if we also duplicate the infobox syntax to also have "FIrst Nations leader," that would address the Canadian issue. (Not sure what to do with Latin America, but I guess that's beyond the scope of this infobox anyway). I agree that Infobox Officeholder, which already exists, would work for modern leaders. This is, at root, probably a no-win, as I also know people who prefer "Indian" to "Native American, but people in their same tribe who prefer "Native" to Indian, and...on and on... Native American, at least, has the cachet of being widely used within Academe and is less prone to accusations of racism than "Chief." Montanabw^(talk) 20:58, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

• Query / support for "Native American leader" idea: Just checking that if this idea is taken up – it sounds reasonable (if / when templates such as {{Infobox officeholder}} don't suffice) – then this template will be renamed {{Infobox Native American leader}}..? CsDix (talk) 17:54, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that seems to be the consensus title nobody objects to, if I'm not mistaken, so we can probably proceed with renaming any time, and someone can do a "non-admin close" without requiring an admin close. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 19:30, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Support Native American leader (as nom of move request). Yes. Montanabw^(talk) 19:58, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

current title and "tribe" not suitable for Canadian FN articles

I found this placed on Annie York. Even though "Native American" doesn't display on the page, the title of the infobox is problematic i.e. {{Infobox Native American leader}}; and immediate solution would be to create an {{Infobox First Nations leader}} or because of the Metis and Inuit, {{Infobox Aboriginal Canadian leader}}. The current box's display of "Tribe" is very problematic in Canada, and the USian usage implied "federally recognized tribe". I note in the preceding RM the use of this box on Canadian aboriginal articles wasn't discussed, not that I can see, though "indigenous" came up, and would have been preferable, though "Indigenous North American" ....unless "indigenous people" for this box were to have been used for other continents also......Rather than wage another RM, I'm thinking the easiest solution is to create a Canadian version, and to ask American editors to desist from using this on Canadian articles for now, and to avoid the use of "Native American" in articles about Canadian aboriginal peoples, where it is not acceptable and contrary to CANMOS.Skookum1 (talk) 03:14, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I see no harm in creating Canadian templates. Just copy/paste the American ones and put 'CC-by' copy/paste from other template in the edit summary. Then adjust to our Canadian terms. If they are brought up for MfD then we can explain why we need our own.--Canoe1967 (talk) 10:02, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm supportive of creating the Infobox First Nations leader by the way. If we have an individual who could be "claimed" by both US and Canadian indigenous people, we can probably handle that on a case by case basis. Montanabw^(talk) 17:56, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

"Siwash Joe" is an unfortunate example to use in documentation.....

This should be changed, and since there is no Siwash Joe article a name that does have an article e.g. Skookum Jim (though he's First Nations, not Native American) should be used. "Siwash Joe" is equivalent nowadays to "[N-word] Tom".Skookum1 (talk) 05:57, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

 Done. Changed to Skookum Jim.--Canoe1967 (talk) 10:04, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Parameters not showing up in Infobox

Per this current query - Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 134#Infoboxes - is there any possibility of exposing known_for and native_name_lang in the infobox? And can the language be expressed in the infobox as a plan description rather than an ISO code? Another parameter needed? --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:29, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Native_name_lang is for an ISO code, used only in the underlying markup. It should not be displayed to the reader. Another parameter might be an option. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:40, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I notice in passing that adding native_name and native_name_lang values results in a span class named "nickname" being emitted ... which seems wrong. There is also a nickname parameter. Some confusion going on? By way of example, in Minnie Evans (Potawatomi leader) the parameters are set as:

| native_name = Ke-waht-no-quah Wish-Ken-O

| native_name_lang = pot

| nicknames =

and the anchor "Ke-waht-no-quah Wish-Ken-O" atop the infobox is marked up as <span class="nickname" lang="pot" xml:lang="pot"></span>. --Tagishsimon (talk) 05:37, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

No. As noted in the template documentation, the class=nickname markup is part of the hCard microformat. It should not be confused with |nickname=. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:47, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Known for

|known_for= is now working. (Technical info: I had to add it to {{Infobox officeholder}}, for which this template is now a wrapper). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:44, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that; appreciated. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:08, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Further: As this template is now a wrapper, values like "Tribal President (1957 - 1967)" can better make use of that templates parameters, |office=, |term_start= & |term-end=. I've made this possible, and applied it at Bill Osceola. Any issues? Are we likely to need more than one such entry? |known_for= is still available. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:23, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

None from me, but I'll let Susun know of the new facility. Good work; thanks. --Tagishsimon (talk)

Languages

Do we want a visible label for |native_name_lang=, or would a separate parameter for the subject's mother tongue (or whatever we call it) be more useful. I note that Wikidata records that latter, as "native language", P103. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:51, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks also for taking this one. Based on User:SusunW's input on VP/T a seperate parameter taking a wikilink is preferred (by me). Susun was understandably dismayed by having to deal with ISO codes, and made a plausible argument for native anguage being a disambiguator between similarly named people. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:08, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

OK, done as |mother_tongue=. See example usage on Minnie Evans (Potawatomi leader). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:30, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Excellent. Implemented on Billy & Bill's articles. Very grateful for such responsiveness; thank you. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:13, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, one of the dramas at WP Indigenous people is some nations (such as the Salish) have created their own phonetic system that isn't entirely written in standard English (see example). Just to make life more interesting. Montanabw^(talk) 03:58, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Date of birth

The doc now advises use of {{birth date and age}}, which requires a full date. However, as per WP:DOB the exact birth date should normally not be included in articles about living people unless it is widely published already, or has clearly been published with the approval of the person. Many editors seem to be automaically following this documetation and inserting full dates of birth where they should not. I have now included a warning about this and a suggestion to use {{birth year and age}} in the doc. DES ^(talk) 20:24, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I'd agre, particularly for this one as many people's dob is speculative or unknown. Montanabw^(talk) 00:38, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Lead causing error

A number of infoboxes have |lead= populated. I tried replacing them with |term_start= and |term_end=, but I was instructed by TaivoLinguist (talk · contribs) that the two are not equivalent and the numbers are arbitrary anyway. [1] Could the parameter |lead= be restored? Auric talk 21:53, 13 February 2023 (UTC)