Talk:Indian Chief (motorcycle)

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

Any particular reason why this was moved?[edit]

I notice that the article Indian Chief has been moved to Indian Chief (motorcycle). Is there any particular reason for this? Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 19:28, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, accuracy (as per WP:PRECISION). —Loginnigol (talk) 17:50, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Looking further down in WP:PRECISION will get you to WP:DIFFCAPS, showing how minor details may be used to disambiguate articles naturally. In this case, the capitalized title Indian Chief refers to a product while the simple title Indian chief refers to a position within a society or a government (and itself redirects to a more general case).
Further, WP:NATURAL (another subsection of WP:PRECISION) says: "If natural disambiguation is not possible, add a disambiguating term in parentheses, after the ambiguous name." As I have stated in the earlier paragraph, natural disambiguation using capital letters to indicate the title of a product provided natural disambiguation, making parenthetical disambiguation unnecessary.
Is there any other reason for the move? If not, could you please move it back? You seem to have the ability to move an article over a redirect, which I do not.
Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 18:20, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The word is not just a generic noun - it's also a position title, in which case it always begins in capital. So there's no basis to exclusively claim the capitalized version for a brand product in the first place. —Loginnigol (talk) 20:54, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The position title would be "Chief", not "Indian Chief". One does not refer to an Indian Chief named X as "Indian Chief X", he would be referred to as "Chief X", or, more specifically, "Chief X of the Y Nation" or "Chief X of the Y Tribe". Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 23:14, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The motorcycle is also actually named "Chief" not "Indian Chief" :) —Loginnigol (talk) 08:50, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The full brand name of the motorcycle is "Indian Chief", with "Indian" being the make or marque and "Chief" being the model name. As such, when the full brand name is used, it is always capitalized as "Indian Chief". As stated above, the term "Indian chief" is not capitalized in that manner, and therefore the article title as it was at first is naturally disambiguated and does not need parentheses. The relevant hatnotes are already in place to guide those who don't get this. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 09:45, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, Chief is a position/rank AND a corresponding title, in which case it gets capitalized. So there simply is no need to pretend as if the capitalized version is an incorrect or an obscure meaningless random alignment of letters just waiting to be appropriated by a commercial product. —Loginnigol (talk) 21:04, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Chief", on its own, is a title and is capitalized, e.g. Chief Joseph. "Indian Chief" is not a title any more than "European King". "Indian Chief" is not capitalized as such for chiefs of North American Indian tribes or nations, and therefore Indian Chief as an article title for the product meets the requirements of WP:DIFFCAPS. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 21:31, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 24 March 2015[edit]

The following is a closed 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: Not moved Mike Cline (talk) 20:02, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Indian Chief (motorcycle) → Indian Chief – The original title, Indian Chief, which currently redirects to this page, is sufficiently disambiguated as a brand name by being in title case. Chiefs of Indian tribes or nations have the title "Chief", not the title "Indian Chief". relisted --Mike Cline (talk) 13:48, 1 April 2015 (UTC) Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 22:57, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support per WP:DIFFCAPS. And since this page was moved without consensus a few days ago, a no consensus close should default back to the original title. Calidum ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 00:03, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom, WP:DIFFCAPS. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:10, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. "Indian chief" as a non-brand name is not an equivalent title to e.g. "Iowa Governor" but rather analagous to "state governor" which is not capitalized. The March 2015 move was erroneous and unnecessary. — Brianhe (talk) 05:24, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, "American Indians" is and has historically been used as a description of Native Americans in the United States. "Indian Chief" is clearly a reference to leaders that were historically described as "Indian Chiefs". I don't see that a motorbike which exploits this name should now be given priority to it. An image search on "Indian chief" almost exclusively gives results for chiefs of "American Indian" tribes. GregKaye 06:39, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Indian chief currently redirects to Tribal chief, which includes information on chiefs of American Indian tribes that could eventually be split off as a separate article under that title. The capitalized term Indian Chief refers to the motorcycle. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 10:09, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Far too ambiguous. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:05, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. An offensively-named motorcycle is not the primary usage. Both "Indian Chief" and "Indian chief" should redirect to the relevant Native American articles. - CorbieV☊ 20:12, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: While both "Chief" and "Indian" are generally disfavored in modern use, the term "Indian Chief" clearly refernces a person and not a motorcycle names after a person. This RM is flat out offensive to Native People. Montanabw(talk) 23:53, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • RE: offensiveness. There's universal agreement that words like n***** are offensive, yet we don't give the article title any special treatment to express Wikipedia's disapproval. The Washington Redskins have the most widespread, organized opposition, yet we continue to follow the usual protocols for the title. The Atlanta Braves and Cleveland Indians too, have titles which are accurate -- we don't have anything in parentheses to express our own opinions about the names. Offensiveness is not relevant to article titles. This is a question of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, that's all.

      If you want to punish Indian Chief because you don't like it, you can add it to Category:Cultural appropriation along with Indian Scout and Indian Prince, but you can't take your feelings out by putting (motorcycle) in parentheses. I don't even understand how the (motorcycle) suffix does anything to show it's offensive. How are readers supposed to interpret that? Do we need to change The World's Fastest Indian into The World's Fastest Indian (film) or The World's Fastest Indian (motorcycle) because it is offensive for the same reason as Indian Chief?

      I think you also have a burden to cite who has voiced any offense. Polaris did mention in their PR campaign that they "did their homework" on the issue and received approval from tribes they spoke with[23] -- though you'd expect them to say that. So far I haven't found any evidence that any groups have publicly announced that they think Polaris should change the name, or the fender ornament[24][25] Which is what I think you'd most likely object to; it looks like a racist caricature IMHO. I can understand if you think the primary topic is not the motorcycle, and I can understand if you want the article to say something about cultural appropriation or stereotypes, but I don't get what the (motorcycle) suffix has to do with it. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:22, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Dennis and would like to point out that three out of four of the oppose !votes here refer to exploitation or offensiveness or other non-policy arguments. This should be taken into consideration by the closing admin. — Brianhe (talk) 16:57, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are missing the point, which is a WP:PRIMARY argument. I am not debating the name of the motorcycle, it is what it is. I am saying it is not WP:PRIMARY. The words "Indian C/chief" reference human beings, not motorcycles. To move the motorcycle to primary is an insult that degrades human beings on top of a term viewed as controversial and often inappropriate for those same human beings. Montanabw(talk) 00:07, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can you give an example of the capitalized term "Indian Chief" being used to signify an Indian chief? Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 03:39, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
When used with anyone's nam, "Chief" is viewed as an honorific and capitalized. Human beings should not be reduced to motorcycles. Montanabw(talk) 17:31, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In that case it is as I first said: "Indian Chief" is not used as a title any more than "European King" is. Chief Joseph is in fact referred to as "Chief Joseph" and not as "Indian Chief Joseph" and the same would apply to Sitting Bull and other chiefs. The capitalized term would therefore apply to the motorcycle as per WP:DIFFCAPS Q.E.D. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 17:44, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is improper to call Sitting Bull a "chief" - that's your cultural insensitivity showing here. Montanabw(talk) 05:14, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, you might want to edit the article Sitting Bull, which identifies him as a chief. I didn't include Geronimo because his article does not identify him as a chief. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 12:43, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Google News seems to support that: capitalized it's always the motorcycle, except this instance where it's a letter writer being quoted. In Google Books you see "Indian Chief" in book titles, so of course that's capitalized, but outside of titles it's not. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC would tell us the capitalization doesn't make enough of a distinction, but only if one usage is "highly likely—much more likely than any other topic". To me it looks like a tossup, not highly or much more likely to refer to the person.

Arguments like "Human beings should not be reduced to motorcycles" are editor's personal opinions lacking in support outside Wikipedia. The rest of the world appears to be pretty comfortable with the motorcycle name. If that wasn't the case I'd sympathize but if it's only coming from Wikipedia editors we should not be guided by it. Show me who outside Wikipedia has voiced offense and I'd support the (motorcycle) suffix. We are not reducing people to motorcycles, we're following our sources. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:25, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(sigh)OK, the Capitalization issue is not really relevant, WP uses title case, Just as "Indian" should not be WP:PRIMARY to the motorcycle, neither "Indian Chief" should b primary to the motorcysle. This is not "just my opinion" that "Chief" has racist overtones - let's look at a couple analyses [26], [27]. Is this clarified for you now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Montanabw (talk • contribs) 05:14, 30 March 2015‎
You've cited two sources that don't mention the motorcycle in any way, which confirms what I said: nobody has complained about the name of this motorcycle. Your sources reject the use of any Native American references in product names. Is this supposed to give us guidance in article naming? Because if it does, then The World's Fastest Indian sounds like it's a person, so we need to change it.

You don't have facts to support that this can't be the primary topic, and you don't have facts saying this name has caused a problem. Lacking facts, you bluff, accusing other editors of cultural insensitivity in the hopes of silencing further debate. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:27, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - clearly not the primary topic for "Indian Chief", capitalised or otherwise. Since honorific titles such as President, Queen, Chief etc. are frequently capitalised, it's entirely reasonable that someone would type in "Indian Chief" when searching for the tribal leader, and far more likely than that they're looking for this old motorcycle.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:35, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America has been notified of this RM. Motorcycle project was notified earlier at start of RM. --Mike Cline (talk) 13:56, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support, wIth both capitalized seems far more likely to mean the motorcycle. The fully capitalized term "Indian Chief" is no more a title than "European King".older ≠ wiser 14:00, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. "Indian Chief", "Indian chief", or any other capitalization of this phrase refers primarily to a chief of an American Indian tribe. Even supposing it did not, there's no evidence provided that it primarily refers to a motorcycle brand that has been defunct for sixty years. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 17:20, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
1, Google news says half the hits for this term refer to a CEO or premier in the country of India. 2, Indian motorcycles has not been defunct for several years. Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:30, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • To me in England, "The World's Fastest Indian" first suggests an athlete from India. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:41, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Per Montanabw . Though, it looks like this user likes to move around pages without previously asking at all. For the better or worse. Hafspajen (talk) 12:38, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nah. Seems to me that someone could absolutely expect "Indian Chief" to be about chiefs, especially since it sounds like a title. Red Slash 00:11, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Indian_Chief_(motorcycle)&oldid=1199821702"