This page is within the scope of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Native Americans, Indigenous peoples in Canada, and related indigenous peoples of North America 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.Indigenous peoples of North AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaTemplate:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaIndigenous peoples of North America articles
This page is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views articles
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights 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.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights articles
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Oregon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Oregon 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.OregonWikipedia:WikiProject OregonTemplate:WikiProject OregonOregon articles
The claim that other indigenous American nations ever used the term "king" for their leaders is dubious, at best. Indigenous Americans did not speak English natively, so the titles they gave their leaders are unique to the languages that they spoke. The translation of any such title to English is a matter of interpretation. In the examples given (Metacomet / King Phillip and the Four Mohawk Kings), the appelation "King" was given by the English, it was not assumed by the men themselves. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!!12:28, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can't sit here and say "so the titles they gave their leaders are unique to the languages that they spoke. The translation of any such title to English is a matter of interpretation." And then say we use chief because it's native? CHIEF IS ENGLISH LivingWellat50 (talk) 16:01, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
YOU are trying to change history. Dan, all you have to do is go on wikipedia itself and you will find DOZENS of referenced articles talking about Native American Kings. At least the Una Nation is not claiming to be a Native American tribe. LivingWellat50 (talk) 16:05, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the article, I say "Throughout history, various Native American leaders have been CALLED Kings." I did not say that Native American tribes natively called their leaders Kings. I did go on to say that "Today, most Native American tribes that are federally-recognized, use the English terms Chief or Principal Chief". Are you trying to say that CHIEF is an indigenous title? Because HUNDREDS if not THOUSANDS of wikipedia articles refer to CHIEFS, an English title pushed on the native population. LivingWellat50 (talk) 16:28, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And certainly you're not saying that you will not approve a wikipedia article because it references when native leaders were ACTUALLY called kings by the English in history? LivingWellat50 (talk) 16:32, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And if you are saying that, then you better start deleting HUNDREDS or THOUSANDS of wikipedia articles for referencing the "Four Indian King" or reference to KING Philips War........ LivingWellat50 (talk) 16:35, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you even know that the Una Nation has a NATIVE title for the leader? It is Tekahyihakem (tek-uh-hi-yee). However, in the english speaking world they choose to use the english title king instead of chief. We would NOT be having this conversation right now if the Una chose the english word CHIEF for their leader. However, it is their decision. Not ours. LivingWellat50 (talk) 16:41, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@LivingWellat50: My point here is that earlier indigenous leaders who became known as "King" did so not by their own choice but by the choice of others who applied that name to them. But the Una Nation leaders have taken the title of King upon themselves. And that's fine; they can call themselves anything they want. But don't try to make an argument that this choice by the Una Nation leaders parallels earlier indigenous leaders. It does not.
That being said, the use of the term "King" is not the reason for me rejecting this draft. That comes down to the sourcing: almost all of the sources revolve around a single incident wherein the Una Nation offered membership to Elizabeth Warren. A single incident does not make an organization notable. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!!12:16, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to comment, coming from the article City-recognized tribes in the United States, there is a very sore lack of information on this group. I've done my best to extract everything, but the vast majority of sources on this group are blogs and facebook posts. Personally, I think it could either be an article or wait until there are more sources, either way. It's just not a very notable topic at the moment. PersusjCP (talk) 17:56, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good thing there is more than the Elizabeth Warren articles. And I am not about covering history up. Native American leaders did not use the title Chief. That's an English title. The Native Leaders eventually CHOSE to keep that title. LivingWellat50 (talk) 18:50, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@LivingWellat50: I have reviewed and declined again. You still have not provided any evidence that this organization has received significant independent coverage.
This appears to be a press-release, published by Una Nation themselves.
This was a political stunt, and The Washington Times is considered a marginal source, at best. (See WP:Perennial sources.)
Right now, you're pulling at strings to deny this group entry on wikipedia. It's actually shocking, given that you are an admin. Your personal beliefs should have no baring here. LivingWellat50 (talk) 16:17, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@LivingWellat50: I will apologize about characterizing the KVAL piece as a press release. It has more of the "hey, local news team, come cover this thing I'm doing" feel. It almost certainly was set up by Una Nation as a publicity item. Any time a news story ends with instructions on how to contact and join the covered organization, you have to assume that the organization has asked for (and possibly paid for) the coverage. And that is only one source. My refutation of the remaining sources stands.
It is clear to me that you and I cannot continue to have a respectable discussion about this matter; the blood between has gotten too heated. I will refrain from further review of this draft and leave it to other editors to manage. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!!17:12, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
