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]

• Support - moving to Ceremonial pipe (Native American) or at least to something less colonial. Pigman☿/talk 00:59, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Ceremonial pipe (Native American) or Ceremonial pipe, noting, though, that we may need to look a the globalization question with the latter. If the move concept is OK with the group, we can refine which version to use. But let's get rid of Calumet as the overview, though possibly once the move is done, the bits on trade goods might be worth restoring. Montanabw^(talk) 04:43, 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]

• Support per Montanabw. The pipe is not a "peace pipe", it is used in ceremonies, such as the Menominee or Ojibwe Dream Dance. GregJackP Boomer! 07:31, 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]

• Ceremonial pipe. Parenthetical disambiguation is a last resort. VQuakr (talk) 07:24, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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]

• No, per Montana. GregJackP Boomer! 17:33, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• No, per Greg and Montana. - CorbieV^☊☼ 18:07, 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.