Talk:Ceremonial pole

This article was nominated for deletion on 9 December 2015. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Anthropology Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology 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.AnthropologyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthropologyTemplate:WikiProject AnthropologyAnthropology articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. Religion Low‑importance Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article has been marked as needing immediate attention. Mythology Low‑importance Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Culture Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of culture 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.CultureWikipedia:WikiProject CultureTemplate:WikiProject Cultureculture articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.

There is enough encyclopedic info to have a separate article on this subject. Contribution from other wikipedians is welcome.

Mahitgar (talk) 10:24, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When creating articles and redirects, make sure that the English definitions and connotations of the word really make the word "worship" the best choice. I have moved "Pole worship" to "Poles in mythology" for instance, as people don't worship poles themselves; the consecrated pole is a symbol for various concepts or spirits in the religion. -

PoV ?

Mahitgar (talk) 18:22, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some one deleted follwing information (to which I wanted to add references one after other, I had already written on talk page that work is in progress) from the article due to personal interpretation and PoV. Pole/Stick/stake worship word have been used by authors and references are given.

All pole worships are not necessarily central poles nor necessarilly coming with mythological background either. Some tribal cultures are worshipning poles without any known religious background. Usually I get defeated in these wikipedian debates so I will not be debating the issue atleast immidiatly but this is not encouraging enough either.

(Because some one thinks that content is offensive) I dont know what is offensive in this or retained content and when content is with references and encyclopedic then why does subjective criteria of being offensive does matter ? God knows)

Deleted portion: Since ancient times poles (many times of bamboo) are revered as sacred totem pole at the same time poles are worshiped as devine spirits, ancestor spirits or as deity in some other instances. Instances of ancient pole worship are cited in case of Mære Church in Norway, Asherah pole in Israel ...Jangseung poles in korea, Bamboo festival of Chedi as mentioned in Adiparva of Indian Epic Mahabharata are cited.

Mahitgar (talk) 18:47, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your additions of content need to be sourced to

☼ 19:19, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Dear friend, I am not only old and aquient enough of wiki culture but also have been one of the advocate of the same policies you are referring to. I have already researched this topic atleast for two years and written with references at par with

WP:V

and encyclopedic values (emphasis added) in my own language. :I do admitt that my english is not at par with standard american or british english since I am not a native speaker, unfortunately that invites initial backclash from few editors unknowingly, actually once I complete substantial phase of writing then I do on my own invite fellow wikipedians for the review of the article. Wikipedia is a continuously developing encyclopedia and can and is supposed to bear with the process and needs to allow enough breathing space for improvement process to take place, correct if I am wrong.

While writing preferably initial paraphrasing I do write in my own words along with its inherant linguistic limitations to save my self from copyright issues. and I further improve upon it and as said above I keep inviting people to support me on linguistic aspects.

As far as references are concerned those are already researched and available with me either in the language of my mother tounge wikipedia or are saved in my browser, and some references are available in some other en wikipedia articles too and I am updating them one by one on my own. Like you I am also involved in multiple wiki activities and articles and time taken for some relevant translations that is why it is taking time from my side.

Now you will ask me why I have not first built the article in user sand box, the reson is my research indicates that the topic has been researched and written by various sociology and anthropological scholors in various native languages too. Besides some other language wikipedias may already have related articles or info included in some other article. So all the way my intention was to begin a stub article and find establish interwiki links and build this article collaboratively along with other language wikipedians.

While I understand your concern, and you would not know to whom you are following is a experienced fellow or a new one but frankly you do not need to wory about encyclopedic and reference side about my writings. The real support I do need is in content research and development for which library resources or different language resources are needed. I need support in english grammar part too.

Thanks any way for your efforts, had you been aware of all my good intentions both of us could have focussed on some different aspect, may be, but in such a large wiki community we wont know each other This article made come across each other, god willing.

Best wishes and Rgds

Mahitgar (talk) 06:19, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1. Ceremonial poles ritual or perfomative processes
2. Usually objective of 'Worshipped poles' are likely to include an aspect of reverence/veneration/adoration/devotion; towards a faith, religion or cultuaral celebration amongst family or community. Where as 'Worshipped poles' Totem pole objects's are not or lost any objective of reverence/veneration/adoration/devotion aspect towards faith, religion or cultuaral celebration of family or community.
3. English wikipedia article notes Totem poles are monumental sculptures; where as are not necessarily monumental sculptures, In few instances worshipped poles may have significance like toem poles simmillarly in few instances totem poles are or may have been worshipped in past still Totem poles and worshipped poles leave a marked difference among themselves.

• Why this is written here and not included in article itself:

1. This attempt to explanation is important in writing intro line and maintaining apropriate information in apropriate article and avoiding any likely mix-up of the concepts
2. Atleast as of now this differentiation has not been seen in any reference book in exact words and for this particular article is being followed up to be precise to follow wikipedia reference policy.

Mahitgar (talk) 08:06, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You need to source this stuff. You've once again put in a lot of unsourced content that has many grammatical errors, and some of it is incorrect. You don't seem to understand what a totem pole is, for one, and much of the Maypole section is wrong. I'll give you some time to source this, then it's going to need cleanup. -

☼ 15:21, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

1. First of all I am not including this section in the article, take it I am trying to understand it and you are one of the experts on the subject and you are most welcome to make me understand what is right with apropriate of references , I am open minded from my side. I am just here to take note of encyclopedic aspects of certain tradition without any PoV or conflict of intrest for that matter.
2. Second just for your info what I have mentioned about totem pole in this section is, one from Totem pole article itself two I googled term 'Define "Totem pole"'
3. Since I am not including this section in the article atleast i near future. This section is just a noting for kinda reference. Ofcource your difference of openion with reference is most welcome. May be I will learn some new things which I did not know.
4. About may pole I will begin a new section, Letus not mix up the issues we shall go one by one, I have no reservations any where

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahitgar (talk • contribs) 19:44, 26 September 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

What I have added is from Maypole article itself, I thought your goodselves have added link to Maypole so you might have done some clean-up already there so I copy pasted same content here. I suppose it would not be the case that what is right in another article becomes wrong in this article. In any case part of Maypole section has relevant references already if you want to veryfy them at this juncture you are most welcome :) As said earlier I will be working on unreferenced areas too even without your follow up :)

It is also ok thit If you have some special intrest in this article you are welcome to research and develope the article. I will take break for a while from this article and come back after some months and keep you informed of my come back to this article to request your critical support. Please let me know.

Thanks and Regards

Mahitgar (talk) 19:44, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Muhr-Zederhaus: A local custom is the annual procession with Prangstangen, up to 8 m (26 ft) high wooden poles which are decorated with flowers and carried by local bachelors on the Feast of Saints Peter and Paul, June 29 into the church.

Following paragraphs will be translated from marathi language to english language

विरगावची काठीकवाडी

डॉ. सुधीर राजाराम देवरे यांच्या अहिराणी लोकपरंपरा या ग्रंथातील काठीकवाडी लेखानुसार, नाशिक जिल्ह्याच्या सटाणा तालुक्यातील विरगाव येथे गुढीपाडव्या पासून अक्षय तृतीयेपर्यंत येणाऱ्या प्रत्येक सोमवारी (सहसा चार किंवा पाच सोमवार येतात) रात्री संपूर्ण गावात काठीकवाडी मिरवणूकीने मिरवली जाते.

काठीकवाडी मिरवणूकीसाठी एक भगत असतो, डफ नावाच्या वाद्यावर शंकराची लोकगीते म्हटली जातात. काठीकवाडीच्या पूजेसाठी घरोघरच्या अंगणात पाट मांडून ठेवले जातात. दारासमोर कठीकवाडी आली की गल्लीतल्या पाटावर ती उभी केली जाते. स्त्रिया शंकराच्या पिंडेची व मुर्तीची पाण्याने अथवा दुधाने अंघोळ घालून पूजा व आरती करतात. भगताजवळ दक्षिणा देतात. त्यानंतर काठीकवाडी उचलून पुढच्या घरासमोरच्या पाटावर घेऊन जातात. आळीपाळीने काठी एकमेकांकडे देत मिरवणूक संपूर्ण गावात फिरते. ^{[Deore Sudhir 1]}

काठीकवाडीच्या काठीची रचना

काठीकवाडी म्हणजे एक खूप उंच आणि जोड काठी असते,काठीकवाडीची रचना पुढीलप्रमाणे केलेली असते. सर्वात खाली चंदनाची एक जाड काठी असते. तिच्या वरच्या टोकाला एक जाड बांबू जोडलेला असतो. आणि त्या जाड बांबूला पुन्हा एक कमी जाडीचा पण उंच असा बांबू जोडलेला असतो. अशा पध्दतीने ह्या काठीकवाडीची रचना असते. माणसाच्या छाती इतक्या उंचीवर या काठीला एक आडवी फळी जोडलेली असते. या आडव्या फळीवर पितळाची शंकराची मुर्ती आणि पिंड जोडलेली असते. गुढीपाडव्याच्या दिवशी गावकरी ही काठी नदीतून स्वच्छ धुऊन आणतात. तिची यथासांग पूजा करून संपूर्ण काठीला लाल नवे कापड गुंडाळतात. काठीच्या वरच्या टोकाला मोरपिसे आणि भगवे कापड फडकवून ठेवतात. अशी ही संपूर्ण सजवलेली काठीकवाडी एका घराच्या ओट्यावर उभी करून हवेने पडू नये म्हणून दोरीने घट्ट बांधून ठेवतात.^{[Deore Sudhir 1]}

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahitgar (talk • contribs) 19:43, 28 September 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

They will be? When?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  12:02, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First, thanks for your supportive participation on this discussion page. With other concerns like article name I crossed my fingers and waited before touching these paragraphs. I will try to find out support for this translation from some one better in english language than that of me so other users can rest assured.

Thanks and warm rgds

Mahitgar (talk) 12:56, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Same issues as before

Mahitgar, May I gently but firmly suggest, once again, that you stick to editing articles in your native language. Your translations are lacking accuracy in English. It is not fair for you to expect others to fix these problems over and over again. I have held off on administrative action, but if you keep dumping in these inaccurate and unsourced or poorly-sourced translations, your ability to edit the 'pedia may have to be limited or taken away. Do you understand? -

This stance is neither unexpected nor surprising. I have already replied on this talk page itself in detail (emphasis added), and there is hardly any point in repeating the same point again.

I can not challange your administrative prowess, when some-one does not want to discuss and join in improving article point by point on the talk page and if it is specially an admin an ordinary wikipedian can hardly do any thing.

I am not sure if flexing muscles of administrative prowess for subjective views and purposes is best use of administrative prowess. If I have been the admin and if my attitude would not have been of inclusive accomodating, and if I have flexesed administrative power unnecessarilly sincerely I would have resigned from my adminship, ofcource I can not expect the same thing from others. I wish best luck to those who want to put administrative powers and rules to misuse.

Nothing more to say

Rgds thanks any way

Mahitgar (talk) 03:11, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As of now first introductory line of the article is as follows:

Central poles are used to symbolize a variety of concepts in several different world religions, for example in the Anshun & Miao culture in Yunnan China. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahitgar (talk • contribs) 04:12, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not necessary to record edits on the talk page. That's what the page history is for.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  12:21, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As far as my personal study goes all poles being discussed across world faiths, cultures and religions in past and in present are not necessarilly central poles. The poles are used in front of or inside of houses and temples too. So over a period of time we need to look for improvement in this aspect.

Mahitgar (talk) 04:12, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious. The potential problem here is that "a long piece of wood that might be associated in some way with ceremony or ritual" is not really a topic; it's

original research to equate every dissimilar use of a lengthy piece of rigid plant material, across every culture in the world. The holding of ritual/ceremonial functions around a central pole, however, is similar enough cross-culturally that it can be generalized about, without making up anything, jumping to any questionable conclusions, or mistaking something outside but nearby a ritual/ceremony as being intrinsically part of it. "Correlation is not causation", as it were.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  12:21, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Secondly I am doubtfull that only mention of for example in the Anshun & Miao culture in Yunnan China. in intro line is sufficient to understand what the article and the concept is all about to a novice who is not already exposed to pole related celebration culture and worship

Mahitgar (talk) 04:26, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, but it's also not necessary to cram a list of every case into the lead either. An example or two from major cultures on each continent is sufficient, if the lead even uses such an "examples" approach at all (it's not really necessary that it do so). It's probably more useful to outline the different types of ritual/ceremonial uses. However, given the

reliable secondary source by a subject-matter expert who has already published such an analysis, under external editorial oversight.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  12:21, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Mahitgar (talk) 04:40, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's more that former religious practices have often become secularized in various places into more vernacular, secular folk practices. They originated in religion. Archaeology has demonstrated pretty conclusively that religion in the broad sense dates back at least to the last Ice Age. "Religion" in English doesn't mean only "centralized, organized, authoritarian, dogmatic religion with a priestly class". It includes even the most rudimentary

totemism. The self-identification of "spiritual but not religious" is a thoroughly modern concept. That said, because some of the religious practices have in fact become secularized, the lead should be clear about this. Just not for the "it only became religious later" rationale that you're advancing, for which there won't be any reliable sources.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  12:21, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

At the moment I am not really sure what is intended for the article here. We have here example given of the flower pole of Miao people in China, but there is nothing in the source to suggest there is anything religious in the use of the pole. I feel that there is a need to establish what the point of the article is first, is it pole as object of worship (is there evidence that maypole was used for worship?), pole as religious symbol of some sort (apparently not the flower pole of Miao peole), pole that has some kind of cultural significance or symbolism (that would include totem pole), pole use in ceremony or ritual but not necessarily has any religious meaning by itself alone (e.g. Danza de los Voladores), or pole used in any cultural activity (that would be a huge category). If I understand your point correctly, what you are saying would be it would be about poles that are or were religious in the broadest sense (which may include totem pole). There is a need to clearly define first what is being discuss here, starting with a workable definition, before we get to the actual content of the article. I'm also wondering about the use of the term "ceremonial pole", the sources I can find are mostly on India, Nepal, North American Indians and a few others - [1], [2], [3], [4] [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. I haven't seen one that refers to maypole as a ceremonial post, so perhaps a different term might be necessary? There is by the way a ceremonial pole at the South Pole which is another use of the term. Hzh (talk) 22:33, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article creator's intention here is

☼ 23:32, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

I have no strong objections to an article about poles used in worship or ones that have some kinds of religious or cultural symbolism. There is some kind of commonality to justify an article like this, but it does need a clear definition, ideally sourced to something written by an anthropologist or something authoritative, otherwise it would veer towards to

WP:OR. I can see it being the subject of a scholarly study, we are however not the ones who would do such studies. Hzh (talk) 02:44, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks to every one for open discussion and regards

Mahitgar (talk) 04:00, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I went through the discussions uptil now,-may be it needs to be corrected and improved further for english grammar and consensus -Over all openions seems to be like following (this is my personal impression not binding over others in any way):

1) what this article shall not include: "No blind inclusion of each and every use of lengthy piece of rigid plant material or just a free-standing object staff/sceptre/Totem poles if does not fit in following definition" (mentioned in 2a and 2b)

2a) A ceremonial pole is a pole used in festivals, ceremonies and/or rituals to symbolize a variety of concepts in several different religions and/or cultures.

2b) Ritual pole is a consecrated pole which may represent as a symbol for various concepts or spirits in the religion which may include an aspect of respect/reverence/veneration/adoration/devotion; towards a faith, religion or cultuaral celebration amongst family or community.

2c) A pole can be a stick or stake too.

Please join in improving point 1 and point 2 a&b

Mahitgar (talk) 06:09, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid it is already original research in the first couple of lines - "A ceremonial pole is a pole to symbolize a variety of concepts in several different religions. For example in the Miao culture in Yunnan China" implies that the flower pole of Miao culture is religious in nature, when the source does not say it is. An article needs to start with a good definition, and for a subject like this, it is ideally a definition from a specialist in the field, defining terms yourself is original research (for example your definitions of ceremonial pole and ritual pole, you need sources for such distinctions). Putting disparate items together because you think they are related through your own definition is

animal camouflage. At the moment you are talking about two perhaps separate ideas (ceremonial and ritual poles), and you want to define yourself what the "pole" should mean. I would suggest that perhaps you have a look into anthropology books and see if you can find something so you can approach this topic in a more coherent manner. Hzh (talk) 11:58, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

And where did "consecrated" come from?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  22:40, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Festival pole would also perhaps be the common name for the concept in English,..." in next sentence he suggests,"...You could go with something long winded like Pole use in festivals and ceremonies."^[1] Before him User:SMcCandlish says "...2) their use in festivals remains an essentially ritual practice even if secularized, and where it retains religious significance it's clearly ritual behavior .."^[2]

After this discussion with you, I feel perhaps article name Pole use in festivals and ceremonies would have been better one? (although as of now is settled at ceremonial pole), one way is we put article name for discussion again along with your openion; Another way around is we split article into two articles one for ceremonial poles and second one for ritual poles, but I am not sure howfar splitting the article will solve the problem before us. Because most of these traditions whether you call them ceremonial or ritual are ancient without any official record or inscription to support and as far as anthropologists and historians are concerned they can keep disagreeing with one another for ever; if one anthro/historian says maypole is ritual in charecter the other historian will keep arguing otherwise and problem before me or you where to include a tradition shall remain never ending. Then there are certain religious faiths (that shall include some wikipedians too) who define some of these traditions as haieda/pagan and keep censoring anthro openions directly or indirectly, already couple of editors seem vociferous over the issue (unfortunatelly I did not realise/expected this aspect when I started article).

Practically before us seem to be three ways one is settle for article name Pole use in festivals and ceremonies, second is I take back the article to my sandbox, cross the fingures and wait that some anthro difinition becomes available which is agreeable to all the en wikipedians, third way is I discuss the issue at Wikiversity and request them to accept this article since that sister project is likely to have some additional flexibility over the issue, the only thing for them is value of this article is more encyclopedic than educational but no harm in discussing with them. In last two options inter-language wikipedia collaboration -indirectlly those tribal communities which usually do not get chance to project their culture effectivelly- may suffer a lot.

Uptill now we are having a frank and open discussion, I hope we can find a solution with some sort of consensus.

References in my comment

Mahitgar (talk) 13:32, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the issues and the arguments arose precisely because there isn't a clear idea of what this article is about. You need to start with how this subject is tackled academically and a workable definition that has been established in academic circles, so that we have a good idea of what this article is supposed to be. A title of "Pole use in festivals and ceremonies" is too clunky and suggests that it is a hodge-podge of items. You can continue to discuss what you want the article to be about here, in the interim, you need to trim the article to remove anything that does not quite fit the opening definition (e.g. the Miao), or you need refine the definition so that the article is more coherent as it stands. Hzh (talk) 14:45, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This thread is rapidly turning into a

WP:TLDR

pile of Mahitgar talking to himself, with increasing stridency. Let's cut to the chase:

• We have no sources that all ceremonial pole use is per se religious.
• We have no sources that hand-held sticks and ground-mounted poles have any particular cultural connection (except hypothetically in one case, according to Nuttall), much less that such a connection exists cross-culturally. Anyone with an anthropology background will recognize such an overgeneralization as unsupportable.
• We have no sources clearly distinguishing between different categories of pole use in traditional cultural contexts; the very idea of categorizing some of them as "religious" vs. "spiritual" vs. "ritual" vs. whatever is a Western labeling-exercise imposition.

What we do have is essentially a

WP:OR.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  22:40, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

[[:File:Nantosuelta HistMusPfalz 3482a.jpg|thumb|A depiction of Nantosuelta from Speyer, showing her distinctive sceptre and birds. The head of Sol]]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahitgar (talk • contribs) 16:00, 6 October 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

A staff/sceptre is not a pole in the sense of this article (a free-standing object).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  12:24, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Native American Mythology By Hartley Burr Alexander

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahitgar (talk • contribs) 12:44, 8 October 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

Please

sign your posts; I've had to dig up and insert attribution for at least four of your posts here.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  12:26, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

No. Vague overview by an outsider to the cultures he's describing. Nothing that refers to Native American religions as "sun worship" and Dineh spirit beings as "Navajo gods" is

☼ 18:05, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply

]