Talk:Ceremonial pipe

message: 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)
thread_title:  Marijuana vs Tobacco 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Eagle Feathers 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Is anyone willing to work on this page? 

message: "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)
thread_title:  Rename and Restructure 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Ceremonial Uses 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Name 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: "Peace Pipe"

message: 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  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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  No consensus for page move 

message: The usage and topic of  is under discussion, see talk:Peace pipe (disambiguation) -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 04:45, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Peace Pipe" (2) 

message: :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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Fine-tuning the page name

message: has twice reverted my prose (); the first time was stealthy: (), and the most recent one: () 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)
replies: text: Your edit is the better one. Let's keep it. Caden cool 04:34, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: 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  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: As talk pages are for improving articles, and per Mahitgar's statement, "5) As such this discussion was intended for meta rfc page." I have moved Mahitgar's long discussion to the talk page there. - CorbieV☊☼ 16:07, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Certain sacred ceremonies 

message: 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)
replies: text: As talk pages are for improving articles, and per Mahitgar's statement, "5) As such this discussion was intended for meta rfc page." I have moved Mahitgar's long discussion to the talk page there. - CorbieV☊☼ 16:07, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Rfc at meta