Indigenous peoples of North America C‑class

This article 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 C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

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]

Have a look at the verifiability policy. Addhoc (talk) 22:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

• http://www.britannica.com/eb/topic-515612/Sacred-Pipe
• http://www.barefootsworld.net/chanunpa.html
• http://www.tobacco.org/History/sacred.html

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

According to the Wikipedia article on the subject, the Ruppell's Vulture is the highest flying bird, not the eagle, having been sited 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]

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]

"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]

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]

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]

@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]

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]

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]

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 the page move per se, but only 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]

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]

• 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]