Battle of Chustenahlah

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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 proposal was procedural close; move previously carried out by Dr. Blofeld.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:22, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dan George → Chief Dan George — There are several grounds/precedents for this move, including:

• WP:COMMONNAME There is no way he is referred to simply as Dan George, either in Canada or elsewhere; the Wiki title is an aberration. "Chief Dan George" is always how people will search for him, not "Dan George". This is borne out by:
• WP:MOSFOLLOW Follow the sources, though I know MOSFOLLOW is for MOS rather than TITLE, but the principle is the same; look at the provided sources; one (My Heart Soars doesn't have "Chief" on it, I don't know why that is, but 99% of the time any material about him will call him "Chief Dan George". This is also his name appears on the credits of Little Big Man and also, I think, in the Cariboo Cowboy episodes he was in.
• Standing/evolving precedent for native leaders who commonly bore the sobriquet "Chief" (for which there is generally no equivalent in the original languages, other than Tyee in Chinook Jargon) is for it to be included in titles. Examples: Chief Kamiakin, Chief Leschi, Chief Seattle, Chief Shakes, Chief Concomly. This is not an across-the-board rule, e.g. Sitting Bull is without it, and Maquinna and Wickanninish, but Chief is included in cases where there is any ambiguity (Shakes, Seattle, or in the case of Kamiakin his legacy also left other meanings) or too-ordinary of a name ("Dan George" without "Chief").

In summation, the current title is just plain wrong-looking, and wrong-sounding. He was/is not known as Dan George, he was known as Chief Dan George (Dan George in fact is a son, or grandson, who's also a chief but not known as such). There is no valid reason to exclude this honorific from this title, especially when it's because of it and by it that he's notable enough for this article to be here at all.Skookum1 (talk) 08:46, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Usually I'd oppose adding the honorific like this, but in this case he is invariably known as Chief Dan George to the public. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:59, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility). — kwami (talk) 22:00, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility) doesn't seem to address this directly, though articles of leaders of nations are titled by their name and not named King Whoever, so it seems the guideline would lead us in this case to drop the "Chief". Other than leaders who have historically been widely known as "Chief Something", Wikipedia does not appear to have articles with Chief in the title. Contemporary chiefs like Wilma Mankiller are not titled in such a manner. Category:Cherokee_leaders, for example, has no articles with Chief in the name other than as a parenthetical addition used as a disambiguation aid. Gamaliel (talk) 00:32, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is a VERY famous person, not just well-known but famous AS "Chief Dan George", and as per sources of all kinds. And Wikipedia does have articles titled "Chief X" - in addition to the examples cited above there are Chief Buckskin Charley, Chief Comas, Chief Blackbird, Chief Blackfish, Chief Garry, Chief Gomo, Chief Chicagou, Chief Perryman and many others. And as noted "Dan George" is also one of his descendants, and a band chief (i.e. government chief) of the same band, but never styled "Chief Dan George" as was his grandfather (as I believe is the relation, too young to be his son, I think). Another cite is his IMDB profile, and he was introduced at the Oscars as "Chief Dan George", not as "Dan George". I was honoured/blessed to meet this sparkly-eyed man three times in my youth, and there's no way it's possible to think of him as just "Dan George".Skookum1 (talk) 00:58, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • All of the people you have cited are historical figures - largely 19th century and a couple early 20th - while George died in 1981. Gamaliel (talk) 04:40, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not sure where you are from, Gamaliel, but I will try to contain my derision (which others know I am very capable of). Chief Dan George may have died in 1981 (and I'm extremely uncomfortable calling him only by "George") but he is a VERY important historical and political figure in Canada, and probably one of the best-known - and most-loved - of British Columbians of the 20th Century. His speech at Empire Stadium in 1967 is a "given" for what touched off both a wave of intense suympathy for the fate/status of native peoples in Canada, and also inspired a whole generation of native leadership which has since pursued live in the arts, politics, science, and business and been in the forefront of political change and reform in Canada as a result. Saying he is not a historical figure is utterly, utterly laughable. And in case you hadn't noticed, 1981 was almost thirty years ago; that's historical; he was born in 1899, when Queen Victoria was still alive, 13 years after the founding of Vancouver, in a time when his people's culture was still relatively alive and before a whole bunch of decidedly "historical" events/change both locally and internationally and lived a very very long time and achieved a whole lot more than you probably ever will; touching more lives than can be counted, but apparently not yours. Your loss. I'll leave off before others here call me down for "personal attack", but I'm aghast at the logics you're presenting and the ignorance they display. Saying he is less of a a figure than Chief Gomo or Chief Joseph or Chief Concomly is just "not on" - he is one of the most significant native leaders in Canadian history, and that's without a doubt.....Skookum1 (talk) 09:54, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I do appreciate what restraint you have exercised, but I must confess my bafflement that you seem to have taken my interpretation of WP article naming guidelines and my presentation of that interpretation with supporting examples as some sort of expression of derision or disdain for this man's positive accomplishments. I'm sure he was quite gratified that he touched so many lives, including yours, but I doubt he'd be gratified at being the inadvertent catalyst for a nasty fight over article naming guidelines. We all edit articles about things we are passionate about, but you shouldn't turn that positive passion into negative emotions for no good reason. Sometimes on Wikipedia, we have to be dispassionate and look at things with a cold neutral eye to prevent situations like this. I understand your position and the position of others on this issue, I just happen to disagree with that position, and that fact should not be a threat or a source of anger to you. I've found myself on your end of this situation before and it's usually a sign for a wikibreak or time to remind myself that it's just a minor dispute and not something worth getting angry about. Gamaliel (talk) 00:38, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Per nom, per COMMONNAME, per common sense.--ShelfSkewed Talk 06:47, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. He was known as "Chief Dan George" – it's clear, commonly used, recognizable, and most appropriate. -Uyvsdi (talk) 07:05, 11 March 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.