Jump to content

Talk:Ceremonial pipe

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

Expansion

[edit]

I think this article needs more information about the cultural aspects of the peace pipe. The information on materials and craftsmanship is excellent, but it's not quite what I was hoping to learn about when I visited this page. —ptk✰fgs 07:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Though I would like to contribute, unfortunately there are restrictions and I'm afraid to face any law suits from Prentice Hall Press if I was to quote anything from Sun Bear's book "The Path of Power" (1983, Prentice Hall Press, New York, ISBN 0-13-653403-1)where he gives an excellent explanation of the spiritual meaning of the peace pipe in his chapter called "Ceremonies and Medicine Objects" as it's mentioned that all rights are reserved on the first page.

I'd like to point out that the person known as "Sun Bear" is not a reputable source, and quoting from that book would be useless anyway.

The [citation needed] points neglect the fact that some of this knowledge is oral in nature, and an elder with known good reputation and knowledge would be able to confirm / deny those, and be considered "expert knowledge" (the cultural differences here are wide, but not inescapable ;) ). According to what I was taught, however, those statements are true.

Um, you want all the cultural aspects here? :). Which culture? We're not exactly a homogeneous mass here. We do share some similarities, but things can differ from nation to nation, and from tradition to tradition. Be careful with this "pan-Indianism" thing. SimonRaven (talk) 21:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have the impression that the tribes and those who know are reluctant to share their most intimate customs with outsiders. We probably don't know "all the cultural aspects". I believe there is a certain amount of disinformation dispersed also. Lynxx2 (talk) 08:19, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at the verifiability policy. Addhoc (talk) 22:08, 19 January 2I 008 (UTC)

Marijuana vs Tobacco

[edit]

I just changed the article to say that the most common herb smoked was tobacco. Marijuana was only introduced to North America fairly recently. I can provide plenty of citations if necessary. Please don't change it back to marijuana as marijuana is a huge misconception.

Marijuana does make some sense, because it has a calming effect. but the pipe was smoked before war just as much as after it 24.254.141.144 18:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

here are some online refferences

24.254.141.144 18:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eagle Feathers

[edit]

According to the Wikipedia article on the subject, the Ruppell's Vulture is the highest flying bird, not the eagle, having been sighted at 37,000 ft (albeit briefly as it smacked into the airplane that also happened to be flying at that particular height. I don't know in what way that section should be reworded so I started the discussion page topic to discuss. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.228.171.140 (talk) 02:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, biological facts and traditional religious legends or tales can differ sometimes. In religion, it's usually all about symbolism. If we measure religious things along scientific evidence it'll all fall apart, I'm afraid. Then we'll get to unanswerable questions like: Did Adam & Eve have navels? How did Eve ever come out of his rib? How did mankind survive if Adam & Eve had no daughters and Caine slayed his only brother? How did the Egyptian plagues come about? Etc. etc. In religion we're not supposed to take everything literally. Furthermore, I don't know about the Ruppell's Vulture and whether this bird would be indigenous to America, so that Native Americans could have spotted this high flyiong bird? Besides, would you expect the Great Spirit to sit on a cloud there at 37,000 feet? Please don't appraoch spirituality too scientifically? Theo, Amsterdam —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.162.133.112 (talk) 18:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've just been checking now and found out that the Ruppell's Vulture is an African bird, so that only underlines my argument that we really should be seperating religious symbolism from biology. Why bring it up in the first place? Native Americans didn't see this vulture and if they'd do now it's by visiting a zoo where the bird is even unable to reach these high altitudes (how large would the cage have to be?). Conclusion: eagle feathers are only rightly used in religious ceremonies. Theo, Amsterdam —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.162.133.112 (talk) 07:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both of you are right, it just depends how you look at it. However, for the context of this article, the 'eagle' is fine. Even if this vulture lived on the great plains of America I'm sure the symbolism of the eagle would take priority over the biological facts. I do find it strange that you went to all the trouble to find this out, yet did'nt decide an African bird would be of little relevance to a native American tradition. Elcaballooscuro (talk) 19:51, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is anyone willing to work on this page?

[edit]

I found a decent reference, and probably can find more. Email me (from my user page) Ling.Nut (talk) 03:37, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename and Restructure

[edit]

"Peace Pipe" is an inappropriate name for an article that attempts to cover ceremonial pipes in general, and is a bit offensive in this usage. Need to look over related articles and do some serious restructuring and sourcing here. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 19:44, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ceremonial Uses

[edit]

I changed the word "drugs" to "materials" as I feel it is more fitting in a ceremonial setting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.175.233.162 (talk) 05:16, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Name

[edit]

So we know 'calumet' is a norman word and 'peace pipe' is an overgeneralization.. shouldn't we hear the names the actual natives used? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.182.130.241 (talk) 22:30, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Peace Pipe"

[edit]

@Paine Ellsworth: I'm not sure what to do about you wanting a source about the misnomer "peace pipe" being offensive. It's a common misnomer in non-Native sources, that has sometimes been repeated by Natives from nations that do not use sacred pipes, or who are not part of traditional ceremonial culture. But that doesn't change the fact that those it's referring to find it offensive. When sourcing things on Indigenous articles, and you can check our wikiprojects on this, we sometimes have to be a bit different from other WP topics with sourcing, due to the nature of so many sources having been written by cultural outsiders, combined with the fact that most ceremonial things are simply not discussed with outsiders. Because the misnomer is so common, I agree it deserves mention and redirects, but it's really a slap in the face to traditional people to have it right up top like that. I'm sorry if "slap in the face" sounds overly adamant or overly emotional for a discussion on WP, but I don't think downplaying this is appropriate, either. - CorbieV☊☼ 19:20, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Be careful about how sourcing is treated, because reliable sources are an important part of this encyclopedia's life blood. The term "peace pipe" is treated in the article as just what it is. It is not a "misnomer" so much as it is a phrase constructed by outsiders, "Europeans", and it does not apply across the board to all calumets, but only to "one type of pipe and one way it was used". So to me, this article plays down the phrase "peace pipe" very well, especially when you consider how heavily it was used in "cowboy and indian" films of the mid- to latter-20th century. It is imperative, though, that if there are any bad feelings among people as regards the term, and any mention of that is to be made either in the article or at the disambiguation page, then it must be shown precisely who is offended, when and where they live (or lived) and so on. The "who, what, when, where, how and why" details coupled with reliable sources to verify them are so much better than vague allusions that something is offensive with no such details offered. – Painius  21:17, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thoughts: who/what/when, etc., might be OK for an actual controversy, but for European "noble savage" stereotyping, just don't do what is generally offensive. Montanabw(talk) 06:32, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Paine Ellsworth, um, I didn't bring this up because I don't understand how to source articles on Wikipedia. I brought it up because this is a systemic bias issue. Peace, - CorbieV☊☼ 15:14, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, the systemic bias issue is a huge problem on the Native American articles; there's a lot of nonsense out there are the editos working on it do not need to be forced to prove a negative - or to prove that blatently obvious nonsense is, in fact, nonsense. Montanabw(talk) 18:52, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't see the bias of which you write. The article explains quite well that the term "peace pipe" only applies to a single type of ceremonial calumet and only to one of several aspects of the meaning of that single type of "calumet". Where's the bias? Don't concern yourself that I've been a member of WikiProject Countering systemic bias for several years. If there is truly bias here, then I am all for eliminating it. I am definitely not for eliminating an informative bit of material just to satisfy the descendents of the makers of one single type of calumet who may be offended by the term. That would be bias in the other direction, if I'm not mistaken, wouldn't it?

To illustrate, suppose there were a single group of people who made a type of doll. This doll was called by many names, but only two names became historic, "Tandai" and other-language construct, "Evil doll". The doll had actually been made by several similar types of people. It actually had more than one meaning and application, some of which were "good" and some of which were "evil". Some editor decides to write an encyclopedic article on the "Evil doll", then later another editor decides that the article should be titled "Tandai". A disambiguation page is created called "Evil doll (disambiguation)". Keep in mind that this is all treated in an encyclopedic manner. It is explained in the Tandai article that the term "Evil doll" is a construct that applied to one type of tandai and only one meaning of several meanings. A hatnote is placed to inform readers who come to the Tandai page that a page that disambiguates the "Evil doll" term, which has records, albums and bands named for it, exists. That is just in case a reader has come to the Tandai page, but is looking for a different meaning of "evil doll". Then several years later the descendents of the people who made tandais become offended by the "evil doll" term. Many of those offended are not even descendents of the original small group! They are offended because their ancestors also made tandais, and the term is now sometimes confused with "evil doll". So the systemic bias question arises, should the encyclopedia delete the informative hatnote and redirect "Evil doll" to the dab page? Should a note be made on the dab page that "evil doll" is an offensive term? Perhaps we should; however, I don't feel that it is responsible of us to do so unless there are reliable sources that confirm both the offensiveness and the bias. The irresponsibility lies in the fact that without reliable sources, it is still just non-neutral POV (a Five Pillar issue). – Painius  02:17, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, my view is that the article probably should be titled something more accurate like ceremonial pipe or ceremonial pipe (Native American). "Calumet" is also a European word just as is "peace pipe." Neither are as offensive as, say "redskin" or "squaw" but they are both an annoyance. The reality is that smoking a cremonial pipe was used for a variety of sacred purposes, which varied from tribe to tribe, and smoking to seal an agreement may have varied in ceremonial importance from one tribe to the next—not all ceremonies were fully understood by whites. I won't say that "peace pipe" is inherently offensive, but when the Native folks I know are making jokes about the topic (Native humor would be if someone said, "hey, those guys must have/not have been smoking the peace pipe" in an ironic tone meant either as sarcasm-implying the opposite- or mockery), I've certainly never heard someone who is actually Native say "Calumet" unless they are talking about the horse farm or baking powder (which had an original logo that was, in fact rather offensive in the "Cigar store Indian" way). Pipes would have different words in each Native language. Montanabw(talk) 06:30, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I respect your view, and yet this article is actually about the Native American pipes seen by the Norman-French settlers in Canada, the "calumets". There is also the article on ceremonial pipes found in the image caption that links to the Chanunpas of the Lakota people. If other names are known, maybe articles can be written about them and some type of index/disambiguation page would be needed? – Painius  23:33, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There probably is a need for an overview article on ceremonial pipes and spinoffs for some of the major types. This article tries to be both and fails; the first bit is as you say, but the it goes on to describe pipes from other cultures and nations. It's a mess, actually ;-) Unfortunately, I'm not an expert on pipes. Montanabw(talk) 09:36, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And here I felt that this article did a good job both describing its subject, the calumet, and its relation and connection with other similar types of ceremonial pipes of other nations. Depends on how its "spun"? – Painius  13:57, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No one in Indian Country refers to a ceremonial pipe as a "Calumet." The page only wound up at this title as it was less offensive/inappropriate than "peace pipe." - CorbieV☊☼ 19:12, 17 August 2015 (UTC) Paine Ellsworth, I don't think you have consensus for the redirect. I also propose we rename this to something like Montanabw has suggested, such as ceremonial pipe or ceremonial pipe (Native American). I don't think we need "smoking" in the name. - CorbieV☊☼ 19:21, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am confortable with a rename. "Calumet" is a word of French origin, and definitely not a word used in the west. Montanabw(talk) 04:43, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In the first place, the redirect is fine because it operates as a search term, this is the article where it is mentioned and this is the best article on ceremonial pipes on Wikipedia. As for renaming this article, I see no reason nor logic for it. If you truly want to rename it, then I suggest you begin the process to request a page move. – Painius  16:53, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Let me also suggest that since calumet (pipe) is not really the primary topic for peace pipe, you might consider renaming Peace pipe (disambiguation) to just Peace pipe and then redirecting the dab title to that page. You may already know that the "Peace pipe" redirect will have to be deleted first before "Peace pipe (dab)" can be moved to it. That might be a solution that would be better than renaming this page? a page that is mostly about the "calumet" and its relations with other ceremonial pipes? – Painius  17:22, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
PS. I have in fact begun the process to move the dab page to the redirect title. PS left by – Painius 

Paine, you don't have consensus to keep this as it is, and we don't need permission to move it. I brought this up a while ago, and your views here are not in the majority. Quit reverting the changes unless you get consensus to do so. - CorbieV☊☼ 19:38, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to be bold and move the page. - CorbieV☊☼ 19:53, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody said anything about "permission", but you yourself have been adamant about "consensus". Look it up – consensus is not about having things your way, it's about a meeting of the minds, and you don't have a meeting of the minds to rename this page. That is why I suggested the RM – to get consensus (not permission) if you are able. Please don't move the page back until there is consensus to do so. Until then, it all goes back to status quo. – Painius  00:47, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I really think that this article is suited to the more descriptive title of Ceremonial pipe (Native American). So I've been bold and moved it back. Cheers, Pigman☿/talk 01:36, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
While there was no edit conflict, I did not see your response until I had opened the new section below, which is more about the page move rather than just the "peace pipe" redirect and disambiguation page. Under WP:BRD, you boldly renamed the page, now it is time to revert to status quo and discuss it so as to garner consensus one way or the other. – Painius  01:47, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus for page move

[edit]

To editor Pigman: It is appreciated that you may not be aware of the dispute that is presently ongoing in the above #"Peace pipe" thread, on the Peace pipe (disambiguation) page, and with the Peace pipe redirect. So please return this page to status quo so that another involved editor can, if it is wished, begin a request for move of this page to garner consensus for it. As it is now, there is no consensus to move this page from Calumet (pipe). Thank you for your consideration in this matter. – Painius  01:43, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken care of this for you, as I'm sure you must be away temporarily or you would have self reverted based on the fact that this is a contentious issue on this talk page. Joys! – Painius  10:22, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My contention is that this article is indeed about the term "calumet" as it was used by the Norman French settlers in Canada. It is also about the relation of calumets to other similar ceremonial pipes used by Native Americans in Canada and the US territories. I shall be happy to use this rationale as an oppose !vote if a requested move process is begun. And if support rationales can be shown to outweigh my views, then I shall be happy to go along with the consensus. – Painius  10:37, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no consensus for it to stay here. Consensus doesn't mean unanimous. You have reverted two of us now, you don't have consensus to keep us from improving the article. - CorbieV☊☼ 15:40, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Paine, your edits are also re-introducing offensive, racist material like past-tensing Natives. I realize you are attached to this outdated, colonial term for the article name, but to simply revert all improvements is inappropriate. - CorbieV☊☼ 15:45, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's true – I do like the ring of the term "calumet" and perhaps will write an article just on calumets in the future (Britannica has one, so why shouldn't we?). At any rate, what must be understood here is that the "Calumet (pipe)" page title complete with all its relative content is the status quo, and one doesn't need a consensus to maintain status quo. A consensus is needed to change the status quo to something else! So when in informal discussion you found that there was even just one editor who disagreed with a page move, then it was highly inappropriate of you to move the page without more discussion and a move request. You are hereby forgiven since I have done far worse; however, that does not excuse your willingness to ignore a contentious issue and just go and do as you please. You appear to be making it right with the RM below. I hope and expect that you will find the outcome to be a mixture of both our wishes and great improvement to this article. – Painius  17:57, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Peace Pipe" (2)

[edit]

The usage and topic of Peace Pipe is under discussion, see talk:Peace pipe (disambiguation) -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 04:45, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 19 August 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: Moved to Ceremonial pipe. VQuakr (talk) 02:00, 27 August 2015 (UTC) VQuakr (talk) 02:00, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Calumet (pipe) → Ceremonial pipe (Native American) – No Native people, nor anyone familiar with the topic, refers to a ceremonial pipe as a "Calumet." The page only wound up at this title as it was less offensive/inappropriate than "peace pipe." We had a discussion. Three established editors, two of us admins, agree it should go at the less colonial, more contemporary name (Ceremonial pipe). I also made improvements to the article to stop placing Native Americans solely in the past, and to stop privileging an outsider, colonial view in both the descriptions and naming conventions. Paine Ellsworth went against the three of us to repeatedly move the page back and revert all improvements to the text, pushing a POV that Native people and ceremonies no longer exist (Diffs:[1] [2] [3]). I don't think this move is controversial. I have to stress that there are systemic bias issues here, and I humbly request that anyone commenting here be at least somewhat familiar with the issues we deal with at Wikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America - CorbieV☊☼ 15:55, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. You make me sound like a real villain, CorbieV! And yet, I am just as concerned about the improvement of this article as you. If you're going to rid the article of its present title, then you are going to have to go through the article and change the tone that continues to refer to a title of "Calumet". As a page title I have to wonder why the parenthetical disambiguation of "Native American" is needed? Why not just call it Ceremonial pipe or Smoking pipe (ceremonial)? Are there other peoples in the world that make such smoking pipes? So I oppose not only the page move per se, but also the choice of a page title and see another redirect from unnecessary disambiguation in our future if the proposed title is used. – Painius  16:55, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well darn! I just noticed that I'm as guilty as everyone else here of not actually providing a good rationale for my position, so I guess I'm not a very good "wikilawyer" after all. I feel that this page should retain its stable name of six years and be improved rather than trashed because: The term "calumet", as outdated and colonial as it is, is also a historical term that is included in all good encyclopedias. This article should truly be mostly about that historical term, its origin, its usage history and its relations with Native American smoking pipes in general. Such a term and its description, however brief and concise, should always be a part of any good reference work. – Painius  07:07, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And have I mentioned that there are streets, towns, ships, even colleges named "Calumet" all over the US and some in Canada? There is a street named "Calumet" in my city. We should not lose an article about the origins, the history of that term, should we? – Painius  08:44, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As seen in the diffs above, I did make all those changes in tone and language, and you wholesale reverted me. Then another admin fixed the tone and content, and you reverted them as well, along with insulting commentary "assuming" that said admin doesn't know how to read a talk page and look at an edit history before deciding to revert you. - CorbieV☊☼ 17:02, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The two of us who moved the page chose one of the titles that Montana suggested above. It seems to make the most sense. I think there are other cultures who see their smoking of various substances as sacred, such as some Rasta cultures and Middle Eastern people. I don't know enough about those cultures to write articles about them, but as the person who had to move this from "peace pipe", I'm trying to forestall unrelated content being dumped in the article by those who consider other types of pipe smoking to be sacred. - CorbieV☊☼ 17:06, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Understood, and the "wholesale" business was only essential to make the point that the page move was not well thought out. Nor should it have been performed while there is contention about it on the talk page. It was almost as if you had purposefully picked a fight with me, although I did my best to assume your good faith and still do. – Painius  17:24, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have no interest in fighting you, but this started with you implying that I didn't know how sourcing works, and then with insulting another admin. You are the only person who has participated in this discussion who wants this at Calumet and Natives in the past tense. - CorbieV☊☼ 18:34, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If those were the messages received, then that is just a perceptual issue, because that is not how the messages were intended. It doesn't help matters to be offended by every little thing said by someone who merely disagrees with you. And I explained in the previous thread about how wrong it is for any editor or admin to ignore a contentious issue and "boldly" do their own thing. – Painius  19:05, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How is this contentious when you're the only one blocking consensus? As I said on your talk page[4], we discussed it and three out of the four of us want this moved. That's consensus as far as WP goes. - CorbieV☊☼ 19:17, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, because WP is not a democracy. I believed my rationale was the best of four, and of course, you and the other three believed your rationales to be the best. Hence contentiousness and the need for more discussion before any action against the status quo may be taken. – Painius  19:45, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't really seen a very good rationale for your position, Painius. Most of what I've seen is wikilawyering and that a single person (you) opposing the move is enough to block consensus. Your suggestions for changes essentially represent a different article, not the article/subject we are discussing. Pigman☿/talk 00:56, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I haven't really seen a very good rationale for renaming this article, Pigman. This article  is  was essentially about the Norman French term "calumet" and its association with ceremonial pipes in general, and I understood CorbieV's actions when that editor moved the article from "Peace pipe" to "Calumet (pipe)" back in 2009, then went on to make informative improvements to the content and categories. Now that editor is back with an agenda that includes the fact that "calumet" is an "outdated and colonial" term. Since when is that a good reason for deleting a title from an encyclopedia? There is no lawyering involved, I assure you, when I say that I believe it is wrong to use "I don't like it" as a rationale to rename a page. And that is pretty much the only rationale I've seen on this talk page to move this title away from "Calumet (pipe)". And what was your rationale, Pigman? From your edit summary, "Really makes more sense", all I see is more of the same "I don't like it". So where is your rationale? You who are so quick to accuse me of something simply because you mistakenly see me as some kind of enemy in this context? We are all here doing essentially the same thing – the improvement of an interesting article in an encyclopedia. CorbieV made some great improvements back in 2009, then now all of a sudden six years later, that editor comes back to trash this article and get rid of a title just because it's an outdated and colonial term? I really must stop now, before I say something that actually would be wikilawyering. Just show an acceptable rationale rather than simply to agree that "something less colonial" is needed. You might try reading all the other encyclopedias' articles on the "calumets" of yore. – Painius  06:33, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A calumet is a calumet, not a ceremonial pipe. Most calumets found archeologically were used and traded by colonists, and they used for general everyday tobacco spmoking, not for ceremonies. Many of them were made by Natives but many were made by colonists. A ceremonial pipe is a calumet used in a specific function, and not all ceremonial pipes are calumets.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:27, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can you source this? Because most of this article is about other kinds of pipes used by Native Americans, and we have colonial sources calling pipes like Chanupas and Cheyenne ceremonial pipes by the name "Calumet," which is incorrect but in the outdated sources. So I disagree that it's clear-cut like that. Maybe most of this needs to be split into a Ceremonial Pipes article and just leave those short bits about colonial era views here. But if you only include colonial views, it won't be a very long article. And I have to ask why those outdated accounts are even valuable except as footnotes for how outsiders described cultures they knew little about. - CorbieV☊☼ 18:34, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this article has become an article on ceremonial pipes and needs to be moved to that title (along with Peace Pile). But, a narrow, specific article on the trade goods issue might be worth moving back to this title once incoming links are fixed and such...Montanabw(talk) 04:52, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Neither of the support rationales above give good reasons to rename this page. The first is just because "calumet" is too "colonial" a term ("I don't like it!"), and the second gives no rationale for renaming at all. Editors, if you really want this page moved (which I don't – I think it should stay at this historic title that has been stable for six years, and it should be improved rather than trashed), then you're going to have to do better than that. – Painius  06:52, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand, GregJackP, what exactly in Montanabw's words lead you to think that this is about moving this page from "peace pipe"? That was done way back in 2009. What is your rationale for moving away from the historic name "Calumet"? – Painius  08:25, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Calumet and peace pipe are synonymous, the former is a French word that was used in the same manner as the English term peace pipe. Why do we need to use foreign words to describe Indian ceremonial objects? Why don't we move it to Asinii-opwaagan? At least that would be an accurate name, if not one that anyone here would understand. That's also more historic than the French name "calumet" for it. It's a ceremonial pipe. Call it that. GregJackP Boomer! 09:02, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand, thank you! And it's a bit like saying why do we need any descriptive word that people see on street signs and maps all over North America. So you're saying that Wikipedia should not have an article titled with such a much-used name like "Calumet"? An article that does so much more than the disambiguation page, an article that informs readers of the history of the word "calumet"? Well, this encyclopedia does have an article with that title, this one, and we should keep it, not scrap it. – Painius  09:52, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It is important to note that I feel this page, a historic page that describes the origins of the much-used term "calumet", should be the primary topic. This is the page that people, after reading this word on street signs, maps and such, should first see after typing "calumet" into their search field. So in my opinion the disambiguation page should be titled Calumet (disambiguation), and this page should be moved from Calumet (pipe) to Calumet as the primary topic people will want to see first. This is only relevant because it hinges on the outcome of this RM. People will want to see this page and the historic origins of the term and its connection to the history of Native Americans when they search for "calumet". They should not be sent to a disambiguation page with a long list of legacy items for them to sift through. And many of them probably won't know to search for "ceremonial pipe". This is part of the Native American heritage that should not be lost. – Painius  10:40, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The name "calumet" has pretty much nothing to do with Native American heritage. It's a term used solely by colonists. - CorbieV☊☼ 23:43, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's not entirely true and you know it, CorbieV, or you wouldn't have moved "Peace pipe" to this title 6 years ago. Now at this time for some reason you deem it important to rid our history of this important term. It is not only strongly connected to Native American heritage, it is an important part of North American heritage. This well-sourced origin found in many reference works should not be made invisible by Wikipedia. – Painius  09:15, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just stop with the dramas, accusations and forced-teaming already. The word will still be included in the article, it just won't be the title. What you think is "our" history clearly does not apply to the rest of us; it's your fixation. And you have shown repeatedly you don't know enough about Native American culture to write on the topic. Accusing editors in good standing of lying is a violation of wikiquette, as is you messing this page up again after I made it more readable, as is your edit-warring with admins. You are being disruptive, and have been disruptive throughout this process. Why you feel free to repeatedly revert admins who are doing cleanup work is beyond me. As for your accusations that I'm lying about the page move... dude, I've already said, I moved it *temporarily* to something less offensive than the noble savage "peace pipe" and then forgot to follow up. Chill out. - CorbieV☊☼ 16:26, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if I'm too much of a "drama queen" for you CorbieV. I base my opinion about "our" history on what I read, both here in Wikipedia and in other reference works. It is you who are trying to spin this to relieve this encyclopedia of a historical term, and while I do understand what happened many years ago to Native Americans, I think you'll be supporting systemic bias by removing this title from this encyclopedia. It is not enough just to be mentioned in a general article. People will search for calumet and have to jump all over the place just to find its original usage in North America. I think it is you who bring drama to this discussion with your own unfounded accusations and your once again being offended by mere words that were not meant to offend. I do sympathize with your sensibilities, but this is an important historical term as seen by its extensive usage throughout North America, and this article is better than the one in Britannica or any other encyclopedia. I don't understand why you or anyone would want to rid Wikipedia of this article title. Interesting also is the way you continuously bring up that this is a "fight" between myself – a non-admin – and admins. What is that supposed to accomplish, CorbieV? Why is that so important to you, and why is it germane to this discussion? Anyway, you cloud the issue with what you say above, and that can only hurt your purpose. Turn it around, because its time you accepted the vital importance of this term and the need for its own page in this reference work. As for the indents, you placed responses back to the left, so a reader was unable to see to whom the writer was responding; you altered without the sanction of commenters the comment positions and titles; you made a few good corrections and they were kept. You should stop worrying about these little things and get more joys in your life! (That was my wish that you receive them, no matter how this turns out.) – Painius  00:52, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Complicating this is the fact that most uses on the calumet disambiguation page relate to the name of the river in Illinois/Indiana which may not be related to the French word "calumet" at all. [5] on pages 8-10 has an (old) detailed discussion of the possible sources of the river's name. Rmhermen (talk) 16:46, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The primary uses I've seen for "Calumet" are the place names, and the river. I'd never heard the name used for a ceremonial pipe until I came across this article. - CorbieV☊☼ 17:57, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What CorbieV said. GregJackP Boomer! 19:09, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
When I see the word, I think of a famous horse farm started by the guy who sold baking powder with an Indian head logo. Montanabw(talk) 02:06, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The first time I ever saw the word many years ago, before Wikipedia, was on a streetname sign. I looked it up in my Encyclopedia Britannica to discover its origin and meaning. Many other encyclopedias have entries for this origin of the term, and this seems the most well-sourced origin of the term. It should not be swept under the rug for any reason. – Painius  09:15, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think I should add that origins are sometimes tricky to establish. Sometimes people name things for other things that were named for still other things. It took some digging to come up with this particular earliest usage and origin of "calumet". There are few words like this that don't have origins shrouded in a veil of history. There is no reason to be offended by this term any more than we are offended by the French word "fleur" that means "flower". "Calumet" is just a word in another language that was used by speakers of that language to describe a special pipe they saw that was used by Native Americans. It's just a word, and it cannot cause pain any more than the word "Cobra" can bite you! – Painius  09:49, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Giiwanaadizi" is also a word. GregJackP Boomer! 21:12, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, GregJackP, and a picture is worth a thousand of 'em. – Painius  01:03, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you go somewhere else, where you won't be insulting Indians? I'm tired of dealing with your BS. You might try reading WP:1AM, and get a clue. Calument is not a word that is used by the tribes, and is not an English word. We don't need to import French words to describe our stuff, we can either use our own words or English ones. In the meantime, stop denigrating our culture by imposing a foreign culture on top of it. GregJackP Boomer! 03:12, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
GregJackP – you would like me to disappear from here, much like the old ex-Europeans wanted Native Americans to just "go somewhere else"? I am not against any peoples, nor am I against any person; I am against wrong and will fight forever for what I see as the good and the right. Many Native Americans did the same thing, as I recall, and against far worse odds, after all. – Painius  15:20, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Paine, your losing a content dispute on Wikipedia is totally equivalent to the genocide of Native Americans. - CorbieV☊☼ 15:29, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Small correction – the dispute here is about what this article should be titled; I like and respect the content, to include the content you have added over the years. My only dispute is with the title, and it is beneath you to belittle me for that or any reason. But go ahead if you must, because I am done with it. (Native Americans committed quite a bit of that genocide thingy themselves, no? both against whites and other red men, no?) Those wars are long over, so why do you keep fighting them? – Painius  15:49, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So it's on his page for the record, and as this goes to problems affecting his general conduct on WP, I've responded to this over on Paine's talk page:[6] - CorbieV☊☼ 16:21, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: To me, the big problem here is WP:SYSTEMICBIAS; and in the Native American articles, it is about as bad as anywhere on wiki. Here, the "Colonial" word is a problem, we mention it, but we don't have to "preserve" it. Just as "red Indian" or "tomahawk chop" is a problem - mentioned, but not "preserved" - save as an anachronism. Here, pretending a colonial-style word is a term of art when it is not, it is a type of racism that implies that 1) All Native cultures are identical ("Calumet" is confined to a narrow geographic region, and if used at all today, is only used there - not as the general English term for a ceremonial pipe by Native people today to any great extent, if at all - certainly not in the west, where a tradition of sacred smoke ceremonies still exist) 2) Implies that Native people and their culture don't exist today and their culture(s) are irrelevant in the modern world (when in fact ceremonial use of tobacco still occurs) and 3) The European made-up-words (as opposed to a simply descriptive term) for things are "right". For these reasons, Paine, regardless of any past history between you and Corbie, I think it is wise to move away from a colonial word of uncertain value to a neutral, descriptive title. Montanabw(talk) 02:27, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Since you addressed your comments above to me, I shall be glad to respond, although I must tell you, I truly tire of all this. CorbieV had some good instincts 6 years ago when he renamed this article from "Peace pipe". That term, well, it just doesn't cover the entire spectrum of what it is to be a ceremonial pipe. And "calumet" does not make the same distinctions. "Calumet" is a very basic word that the Norman settlers in Canada used to refer in their language to the smoking pipes they saw used by the indigenous peoples in the areas where they made their new homes. This was long before there was war between the red and the white men. Since then, the word "calumet" has taken on several applications, as I've mentioned above, and some can be seen on the dab page. That word is now used all over N. America, and when people see that word, they probably won't know that its origins on this continent were as described in this article. The word intrigued me and it will intrigue others. Others will want to know more about the word. This is what encyclopedias are all about, Montanabw! Information – others will come here to Wikipedia to look up the meaning and origin of this word, and what will they type into their search fields? It is unlikely that they will type "ceremonial pipe", no, they will type "calumet", and this is the article that should be on top when they do. – Painius  15:41, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's what redirects are for. GregJackP Boomer! 17:15, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oy – if left a redirect, this title will probably be pointed to the dab page, and the entry under "Other uses" will have its link changed. So if you were one who had no idea what the origin and meaning of "calumet" is, just which "Calumet" entry on the dab page would you choose to find out? You would have to hunt and hunt for what you're looking for, and that should not be how we treat our readers. – Painius  17:34, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to bother to respond to your racial harassment any more, and I would recommend that other editors ignore you also. GregJackP Boomer! 19:12, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But of course! You won't respond because you know I'm right and you want to turn this into something it's not. You want to fight the old battles over and over again. It is sadly funny to think anything I've written here may be construed to be "racist" or harassment in any way, shape or form. But you won't change your mind because it is set on a fight. I won't fight you, GregJackP – such verbal aggression is way beneath both of us. Best of Everything to You and Yours! – Painius  00:10, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fine-tuning the page name

[edit]
Now that we have consensus on moving this to either,
1. Ceremonial pipe (Native American) or
2. Ceremonial pipe,
Let's make sure we have consensus on one. Per reasons already given in the discussion, I think the consensus is leaning more towards #1, but VQuakr also raises a good point about WP Naming conventions. - CorbieV☊☼ 14:52, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support #2 While the content of the article as it stands addresses the first option, WP naming conventions do tip the scales for me. If the article content becomes more culturally diverse, various specific geographical or cultural items can be spun off as separate articles if needed. Cheers, Pigman☿/talk 15:39, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support #2. If a parenthentical is needed, it should be Ceremonial pipe (American Indian), not Native American, per Russell Means fine essay on the issue. GregJackP Boomer! 16:26, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support #2. per Pigman. If a parenthetical is needed we can address that further down the road. WP Naming conventions favor #2. - CorbieV☊☼ 16:43, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support #2, per standard dab policy; if we don't need it, let's not use it. As for the "American Indian" versus "Native American" question, that is a no-win; aside from the endless drama it will create on wiki, I've had people from the same tribe jump down my throat for using either one, depending on whether they were more of a political activist sort (who don't like "Native American") or an academic sort (who don't like "Indian" or "American Indian"), or a legal sort (who only like "Indian"). "Indigenous North American" might be the only workable solution and that's horribly clunky. Montanabw(talk) 18:32, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. No offense to the nominator – according to WP:RM, "Any uninvolved editor in good standing may close a move request, [...] but there are certain procedures that need to be followed." This of course means that only the closer can determine the level of consensus for or against a move request. Participants, including nominators, are too involved to determine consensus. Just a gentle reminder. – Painius  00:45, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong; see WP:BUREAUCRACY and WP:IAR. Combined with the unanimity above (you suggested Ceremonial pipe in your oppose !vote), a formal closure per WP:RM is totally unnecessary here. VQuakr (talk) 01:53, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative proposal

[edit]

I hope the people in this discussion don't mind; I would like to propose an alternative to renaming this page. This page contains the history, i.e., the etymology of the term "calumet", which is what I feel makes this page title so important. I propose that the move requestor create the page name of their choice – my humble suggestion would be to name it Smoking pipe (ceremonial) to make it a qualified Smoking pipe page – and use all, most, some of the content of this article to construct that page. Content that is used in the created article from this page may be deleted from this page at the creator's discretion, to except only the etymology of this term, "calumet". That should be the content that remains on this page and at this page title. It is my sincere wish that this alternative will be considered and performed, and that all here who feel I've in any way offended them will please forgive me. I am old and set in my ways and have been in many situations where my words were wrong even though I thought them to be correct, so I ask that I be forgiven for any transgressions I have made here on this talk page. Thank you for reading, and Joys to all! – Painius  14:00, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I favor some variant on ceremonial pipe. The sad reality is that the most frequent search is apt to be "peace pipe" and thus it is critical to focus not on the smoking part, but the ceremonial aspect. So no, I don't agree. Montanabw(talk) 17:30, 25 August 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.

Certain sacred ceremonies

[edit]

MBW has twice reverted my prose ([7]); the first time was stealthy: ([8]), and the most recent one: ([9]) leaves us with "certain sacred ceremonies". As much as I like alliteration, this lispy tongue twister is not something you would expect to find in our very best writing, and I don't want to edit war over this sentence. What shall we do? RO(talk) 23:45, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit is the better one. Let's keep it. Caden cool 04:34, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The solution may be to propose a third alternative. The sentence in question was over-generalized in one version, but precision does detract from "sparkling prose". So it's a dilemma. It is inappropriate to characterize an edit as "stealthy", as, obviously, all edits are in history, and I have a history of having been involved with this article and working on it a bit, though I am not a "lead" editor. Similarly, edit summaries such as this one, cast inappropriate aspersions. Frankly, the real need here is for additional research to explain the wide variety of uses in more culturally sensitive detail. This article is poorly referenced overall and requires more citations. If you are willing to roll up your sleeves and do some serious work reviewing the various traditions and different ways different cultures use ceremonial pipes, I am sure that both myself and CorbieVreccan would value useful edits. Once that occurs, the language and phrasing of the lead will probably be much easier to improve. Montanabw(talk) 15:00, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I said it was "stealthy" because you reverted my edit, but didn't describe it as such in your edit summary, which is required by WP:REVEXP. RO(talk) 15:51, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
One of the issues around sourcing here is that traditional people - the ones who know the full ceremonies - do not want details of ceremonies published or publicly discussed. Many of them would prefer we not have WP articles on these topics at all. One thing that happens on the Native ceremonial articles on WP is that well-meaning users add in incorrect details because they found them on a webpage, in a new age book, or even in an academic text where the anthro was ill-informed. When I see incorrect info I usually remove it, but I don't always have the option of putting in more specific details, both due to it not being sourceable to WP:V standards as well as ethical concerns and cultural boundaries. Some of the things I could source to WP:V and WP:RS are statements about these cultural boundaries, such as the requirements held by the Lakota about who is and isn't allowed to carry a pipe, or who is and isn't allowed to Sun Dance, or Jingle Dance, but non-Natives tend to freak out at that content. - CorbieV☊☼ 16:38, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Looking over the edits now and will attempt some compromise. I think we need to make it clear that not all ceremonies are pipe ceremonies, even in cultures with the pipe at the center of their ceremonial way. - CorbieV☊☼ 16:41, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rfc at meta

[edit]

To take above comment of User:CorbieVreccan in to account at Meta I have started meta:Requests for comment/Is their a failuer of wikimedia movement and wikipedia culture to take native american cultures and people in confidance? if so, then why ? Your inputs are most welcome Mahitgar (talk) 04:35, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As talk pages are for improving articles, and per Mahitgar's statement, "5) As such this discussion was intended for meta rfc page."[10] I have moved Mahitgar's long discussion to the talk page there. - CorbieV☊☼ 16:07, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ceremonial_pipe&oldid=1249764322"