Talk:Ceremonial pole

Work under progress
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)

"Worship"
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. - Co rb ie V  ☊☼ 17:52, 25 September 2015 (UTC)




 * PoV ?
 * Mahitgar (talk) 18:22, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Article information some one deleted due to PoV
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)


 * Your additions of content need to be sourced to WP:RS and WP:V standards, and written in an encyclopedic tone and structure. If you contribute good content in that manner, your edits will stay. :) It's not personal; it's WP policy - Co rb ie V  ☊☼ 19:19, 25 September 2015 (UTC)


 * 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:RS and 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)

Explanation towards difference between 'Ceremonial poles' and 'Totem poles'

 * 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)


 * 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. - Co rb ie V  ☊☼ 15:21, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi, once again, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahitgar (talk • contribs) 19:44, 26 September 2015‎ (UTC)
 * 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

May Pole
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)

procession of the Prangstangen
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.

KathiKawadi tradition Translation from Marathi language to English language
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.

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.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahitgar (talk • contribs) 19:43, 28 September 2015‎ (UTC)
 * They will be? When?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  12:02, 23 October 2015 (UTC)


 * 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)

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? - Co rb ie V  ☊☼ 20:58, 2 October 2015 (UTC)


 * 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)

First introductory sentence of the article
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)
 * It's not necessary to record edits on the talk page. That's what the page history is for.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  12:21, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Only central poles?
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)


 * 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  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 ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  12:21, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Need to represent global presence
Pole celebrations, festivities and devotions are obsrved from north to south and from east to west almost on all continents either in past or present so it would be better that first sentence highlites this global aspect.

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)
 * 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 original research problems already apparent in the article, such an analysis/interpretation/evaluation/synthesis should not be done by a Wikipedian, but taken from a reliable secondary source by a subject-matter expert who has already published such an analysis, under external editorial oversight.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  12:21, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Whether wording "different world religions" is not too narrow
Anthropologically what it is also likely that stick/stake/pole related reverance and celebrations would have been started even before inroduction of formal concept of religion to human beings, by this narrow definition human ancestors are being put with a burden of being religious what might not have necesssarilly existed then.

In present times also all individuals / families and and communities may not necessarilly be religious they might be participating just because a matter of culture or matter of indiviual faith in an object. So I note my difference of openion and I prefer to belive that term faiths and cultures will be broad to be inclusive of facts and apropriate

Rgds

Mahitgar (talk) 04:40, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 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 animism and 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 ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  12:21, 23 October 2015 (UTC)


 * 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 -, , ,  , , , , . 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)


 * I think the article creator's intention here is WP:OR. I concur with what SMcCandlish said above, "It's original research to equate every dissimilar use of a lengthy piece of rigid plant material, across every culture in the world." I think WP:TNT is the eventual destination here, and has been ever since this started as an unsourced essay called, "Pole worship." - Co rb ie V  ☊☼ 23:32, 28 October 2015 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 1) Since wikipedians are not expressing or creating any new inference in this article, intention of the article does not amount to WP:OR
 * 2) Encyclopedias being Compendium putting simillar things together (without deriving any new specific inferences) is encyclopedist job so my openion this article is within encyclopedic definition and objective.
 * 3) We need to search for more anthro definitions but need to research more WP:RS books, many of them may not be avialable as open resource and need to be searched in paid resources so I have made application to WP:library but this is ceratainly a long process.
 * 4) After a wider discussion if wikipedian community feels that splitting the article on ritual/religion based and non ritual/religion based then may not be best but I would accept it; But the reality is "Traditions seem to exist or existed is the fact; world wide getting specific religious or other symbolism is always going to vary across global communities over the centuries and across differend regions some variations are going to be there." So having a boader definition like just as a human culture should suffice for a common article.
 * 5) Still after wider discussion community feels that article needs to go back to sandbox I will accept it as inevitable. But since many things are related to world cultures in different different languages article remaining in mainspace and getting transalated from english to world languages and back would give betters justice what wikipedia can afford to do for co-ordiantion of global knowledge, as long as english wikipedian community is willing to take on this honourable job.


 * So if needed please seek wider community consultation for consensus so we have lesser ambiguity on the issue.


 * Thanks to every one for open discussion and regards
 * Mahitgar (talk) 04:00, 29 October 2015 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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 WP:OR.  You need to have a clear idea what your article should be about and whether it is the best way to approach the topic, for example, you may want to write an article about animals with stripes, but perhaps it would be better to write it as part of an article on 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)
 * And where did "consecrated" come from?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:40, 31 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks Hzh for continuation of the discusssion to find a solution. I hope you have already visited Change_of_article_name discussion on this talk page. Besides User:SMcCandlish another descriptive openion is from User:Kendrick7; He says I quote, "...although I can see that the article is taking a more worldwide cultural perspective (which is nice to see, of course)." He acknowledges, "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."  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 .."
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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:CONCEPTDAB page about the ceremonial use (broadly defined) of ground-mounted, upright poles. The purpose of such an article is to help people find further material about the particular instance they're looking for, e.g. the article Maypole.  It is not to try to advance novel ideas that there's a connection between European maypoles and Miao flowering poles and poles used in ancient Assyria.  This article is also not a WP:COATRACK upon which to hang every mention of a stick or staff used in some kind of ceremony, ritual, rite, myth, or inscription.  This article should be close to devoid of any analytic material, because there really isn't anything to analyze, much less any reliable sources for such an analysis.  Probably the closest you're going to find is excessively synchretic material from Graves, Fraser, and Campbell, that 20th century school of thought that everything about all religious, spiritual, mythological, and ritual beliefs and behaviors throughout the worlds' cultures can be reduced to a set of universal, shared Jungian archetypes. No one takes that idea seriously any longer; it's a bunch of WP:FRINGE "newage" (rhymes with "sewage").  I'm skeptical that we need this quasi-article at all. PS: There is no need to use a redundant title like "ceremonial and festival poles" (the requested move below considered such an approach and consensus was not in favor of it) or split the article in two; "festival" is already included within the broad meaning of "ceremony", and any attempt to distinguish these uses of poles into two categories (please cite the source for such categorizations!) is going to be an obvious exercise in WP:OR.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:40, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Is it ok to add Nantosuelta image holding a pole ?
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)


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

List of references to be confirmed before use
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahitgar (talk • contribs) 12:44, 8 October 2015‎ (UTC)
 * Native American Mythology By Hartley Burr Alexander
 * Please sign your posts; I've had to dig up and insert attribution for at least four of your posts here.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  12:26, 23 October 2015 (UTC)


 * 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 WP:RS for those cultures. The linked text is sourced to DeSmet, a French Colonist who wrote inaccurate, biased and denigrating portrayals of First Nations people. - Co rb ie V  ☊☼ 18:05, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Change of article name

 * The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the proposal was move to Ceremonial pole , per cogent analysis by SMcCandlish, as ratified by all following.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 20:49, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Poles in mythology → ? – Actually when I started name of the article Poles in mythology was some thing different, due to some misunderstanding some one changed name of the article to Poles in mythology. Actually I wanted to cover cultural aspects and festive celebrations as an umbrella article and wanted to have historical mythological, worships wherever concerned as a small part.

Poles in mythology is altogether a different subject when I am doing research and writing cultural aspects of festive celebrations are also coming up simultaneously and I am coming to a conclusion that for covering cultural aspects of festive celebrations of 'pole' we need to have a separate umbrella article altogether so we will not have more confusions and misunderstandings.

Please let me know your openion and if you are positive to my suggessions what should be the new articles name ?

Looking forward to further discussion and consensus

Thanks and Rgds — Mahitgar (talk) 09:38, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments

 * Chnage of name to 'Poles in traditional culture', 'Poles in folklore' or something along this line. suggested by User:Eleassar (discussion ref)
 * Comment - I'm not all that attached to what we call this, as long as it's not the original title, "Pole worship". I moved it here from "Pole worship" as that was inaccurate, especially given the content Mahitgar was adding. Not every culture that has a pole or stake somewhere in some of their ceremonies or customs "worships" the pole. Actually, I'd say few do. I've tried discussing this with Mahitgar, as I have to assume some of this is due language differences. I would really appreciate more eyes on this article to help deal with these terminology and content issues. - Co rb ie V  ☊☼ 16:00, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Move to Ceremonial pole or Ritual pole, for several reasons: 1) This has nothing to do with mythology (written or oral cycles of myths); 2) their use in festivals remains an essentially ceremonial/ritual practice even if secularized, and where it retains religious significance it's clearly ritual behavior (namely a phallic fertility rite), though "ceremonial" is a broader term than "ritual" and may be more appropriate here; 3) "Poles in ..." means "Polish people in ..."; 4) it has nothing to do with "worship" of poles (I challenge anyone to find any evidence anywhere of the ritual poles being actually worshipped as a form of odd idolatry, except where they are carved phalluses, not poles, really, in a phallic cult, as in rural Japan); 5) "in traditional culture" is too vague (all sorts of things, like building traditional forms of tribal housing, crafting traditional fishing rods, pole-navigating waterways on traditional rafts, etc., involve poles, but are not connected in any way to the subject of this article); 6) folk practices are not folklore (folklore is oral or written folk wisdom and tales); 7) WP:PLURAL: We do not use plural forms in article titles except rarely and with good reason (this situation does not qualify).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  11:58, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support move to Ceremonial pole or Ritual pole per User:SMcCandlish. I'm very pleased this was brought up as I keep having to reassure myself that this isn't about Polish people. Doug Weller (talk) 13:03, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support move to Ceremonial pole or ritual pole, per above. —Brigade Piron (talk) 14:18, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support for move to Ceremonial pole or Ritual pole.--Munich1158 (talk) 16:46, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Festival pole would also perhaps be the common name for the concept in English, although I can see that the article is taking a more worldwide cultural perspective (which is nice to see, of course). You could go with something long winded like Pole use in festivals and ceremonies. But, like others, when I first saw this title I assumed it meant Polish people who are also known as Poles. (Given yet another popular slang meaning of the term, "Pole worship" sounds like the title of the first in a series of adult films.) Just an unfortunate confluence of overlapping meanings here :) -- Kendrick7talk 20:42, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Looking for WP:RS
Following is listing of simillar (prima facia) tradition where in we may need further confirmation and/or citation from reliable sources Mahitgar (talk) 09:51, 24 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Rehue - (Chile)
 * Anshun -(China)
 * lantern raising ritual at Jui Tui Shrine -Thailand — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.215.23.200 (talk) 13:50, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Palo de Mayo - (Nicaragua)
 * Palo (religion) - (Practiced in Cuba to Puerto Rico, the Dominican Republic, Venezuela, Colombia, and Latino communities in the United States - Originating from Congo africa as per en wikipedia article)
 * Ningui - Ecuador
 * Kuturu, Larrakitj -Australia
 * rangga, of eastern Arnhem Land -Australia
 * mythical naldawata pole
 * Mäsqal-Pole -Gurageland
 * Akita Kantō -Japan
 * Pau da Bandeira - Brazil
 * Gawai Kalingkang -Iban ritual pole - Malaysia
 * Neu - Tet bamboo pole - Vietnam Please see the reference, Where this tradition can be classified in this article or trees in mythology ? (I am bit confused)


 * Spanish language
 * es:Baile de las cintas is it = Maypole dance ? or different ?


 * South asia
 * Yashim Guthi of 'Sankhu', Nepal
 * To be inserted after 'Hinglajmata Sindh'


 * Sasan Kathi सासण काठी Jyotiba Temple (Maharashtra) India and God Yedoba of Village Yerad, Taluka Patan, District Satara district (Maharashtra) India - looking for WP:RS for both.
 * Sirimanu (Tamil Nadu or Andhra Pradesh) Sirimanothsavam -

Section created by Mahitgar (talk) 14:26, 24 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Anshun does not mention poles.
 * Palo (religion) doesn't appear to have anything to do with poles. You seem to be confusing Palo de Mayo (an Afro-Caribbean mixture of European maypole ceremony and African ritual dancing), with Nicaraguan Palo, which has nothing to do with ritual poles, but with construction of altars out of sticks. It's blind coincidence that Spanish palo can mean 'stick' (something one can hold in the hand) and 'pole' (something much larger that one mounts in the ground). Given above discussions, the rest of the above material needs to be examined for similar mingling of distinct topics, this WP:COATRACKing of stick/staff/rod/scepter/wand material into an article about large, ground-embedded poles.  Not every wooden object longer than a toothpick is the  in every ceremonial/ritual context. Equating them is a serious WP:OR problem. We also have the related problem of including lantern-carrying ceremonial behavior, which is not likely to be related to, nor is comparable to, ritual or festival behavior centered on a pole in the ground.  Something like Akita Kantō involves a pole only incidentally, as a structure to support additional lanterns. Next someone's going to want to include Dragon dance because it involves puppeteering sticks that someone may want to defined as a "pole".  I think I'm just going to take this to WP:AFD.  [Going with RfC instead, below.]  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  23:04, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

About Anshun at this ref (seems from Anshun university) bamboo worship is reffered. some wikipedian might have reffered the same in Anshun article. I remember online I have seen one more ref some where I need to locate again, the bestway is it gets confirmed from chinese wikipedians along with wp:rs

Thanks for your informed feed back. Rgds Mahitgar (talk) 12:03, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Scope of article
What should be the scope of this article? 00:15, 1 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment by RfC poster: This is not presently a cohesive article, but a multi-directional WP:COATRACK, that is mix-and-matching at least five unrelated topics (counting both its current text, and the proposed expansion in the thread immediately above this, and some previous ones):
 * Ceremonial use of large poles mounted in the ground (e.g. Maypole dance, Totem pole, Rehue)
 * Ceremonial use of a carried stick/wand/sceptre/rod/staff/branch (being confused, in turn, with possession of one by deities in carved images, e.g. Nantosuelta with sceptre and birds)
 * Ceremonial use of lanterns, figures, animal puppets, etc., that happen to be mounted on sticks, sometimes long ones that can be called "poles" in one definition of that word (e.g. Akita Kantō, Dragon dance, Candle-pole)
 * Ceremonial use of things such as altars built out of sticks (e.g. Ovoo, and in Palo (religion))
 * Carved wooden effigies of actual deities, e.g. of the Maori Rongo
 * Religious and mythological beliefs about holy trees (e.g. Yggdrasil, Bodhi Tree, etc.)
 * This is exactly the same as having an article called "Ceremonial water", and including everything from Catholic holy water to worship of the sea as a deity. We really do not need a pseudo-article that amounts to "List of ceremonial uses, in any way, of pieces of wood longer than a toothpick". The page, like the expansion-sourcing section above, has various sources cited, but they are for the existence of each unrelated instance, not for conceptual connections of any kind between them. The whole page is an exercise in WP:OR, attempting to draw religio-cultural parallels for which there is no evidence. I had initially written this as an WP:AFD, but thought that an RfC might be able to narrow and salvage this. My own thoughts on the matter are that it should be limited to #1 only.


 * The few incoming links to this article are in reference to that topic, and the article's original title was "pole worship", indicating (albeit misleadingly) a scope of central poles around which rites are conducted. (It could thus include #5, when a particular case takes the form of such a pole, but not wooden effigies in general). The problems with #2 are that it encompasses everything from Ancient Egyptian through modern European coronation ceremonies, to Australian Aboriginal use of rainsticks; and it confuses use of "sticks" in rituals with deities having them as aspects of their mythological depictions.  The third scope is even broader, including everything from the Dragon dance to the origins of Punch and Judy to the carrying of flags and banners on long sticks by military vanguards.  The fourth would encompass all religious structures not made of brick, stone, or other non-wooden materials. The problem with the fifth is that all carved representations of gods are generally going to be of wood in environments in which wood is common and in which the culture does not have a tradition of stone carving. This does not establish a connection between such religions and those using huge upright poles ceremonially in festivals and other rites (typically as fertility symbols); it's not WP's job to imply connections that reliable sources have not explicitly stated exist. Finally, the sixth is an issue because the connection between sacred trees and ritual poles is only theoretical; we're right to mention and source the hypothesis (and note that it is disputed), but not to treat holy trees and the use of trees in (e.g. druidic) rites as categorizable as "pole worship" or the use of a ceremonial pole. Basically, someone has the idea that tree worship leads to pole dancing which leads to use of sticks in rituals and altars, and that this is a universal, one-way road. There's no evidence for such a notion, and we cannot have an article that pushes such a viewpoint.


 * — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:15, 1 November 2015 (UTC)


 * First of all thanks to User:SMcCandlish for expressing his openions in frank manner and with best possible clarity. I have expressed myself already on this talk page and do not want to repeat other than that, I am open minded towards suggessions coming forth from all directions and request others too to put forth their openions and help this article to get some specific direction by consensus. Thanks to User:SMcCandlish once again for raising this rfc.
 * Mahitgar (talk) 07:49, 1 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I would agree that it would be better to limit to #1, but I do wonder how you are going to title the page so that you can exclude poles not mounted in the ground? Hzh (talk) 17:46, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * With clear inclusion criteria specified, it should be OK.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:17, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Recommend either WP:TNT or WP:AfD. If anything is kept at this title I suggest a simple list or disambig with links to the articles that fit #1 and are currently being excerpted: any article that someone might be looking for with the words, "ceremonial pole." Whatever we do, it can't stay as it is. Agree wholeheartedly with SMcCandlish that this is a bunch of OR and Synthesis and inappropriate for the 'pedia. -  Co rb ie V  ☊☼ 19:30, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Only meaning 1 - I agreeZezen (talk) 01:16, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Possible Candidate for Deletion?? I think this article is unnecessary. The objects referred to in this article have such varied purposes there connection is really loose.  I think a see also section on the constituent articles would be enough. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 23:02, 3 November 2015 (UTC)


 * 4 and 5 are entirely off-topic. 6 merits a mention/link from the text about 1 because, as the text currently notes, it's thought that at least one culture's use of type-1-poles is related to type-6-things; however, the main text about 6 should be in articles like Trees in mythology and World tree. The broadest scope that would still be intelligible would be 1 with a link to 6; 2; 3. However, given that handheld poles could have an article titled something like 'ceremonial scepters', whereas it's not clear what title other than 'pole' could encompass all ground-mounted poles, I would prefer redefining this article to be about 1 (and potentially any items from category 3 which are ground-mounted rather than handheld), while splitting 2 and 3 off to something like Ceremonial scepter. Or perhaps (for reasons Elmmapleoakpine outlines) just make this article a disambiguation page with links to Maypole, Totem pole, etc. -sche (talk) 03:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Concur with SMcCandlish that the article is currently a mess and the expansion proposal would make it worse instead of better. Also concur with -sche as to suggestion for improvement short of WP:TNT or WP:AfD, narrow the scope and let the tangential topic(s) live elsewhere.  Based on the photo currently on the page, an ovoo is not something I would consider a "pole" any more than I would a teepee. I also feel that, in American English anyway, anything that could be described as a scepter should not be described as a pole (the term "walking stick" comes to mind, and IMHO there's a sizable difference between a stick and a pole).--John, AF4JM (talk) 00:19, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete I agree with either WP:TNT or WP:AfD. Lumping all these topics together seems to be WP:Original Research, specifically WP:ORIGINALSYN (a synthesis).  Is there any reliable, third party sources that treats all these poles the same? Who -- what reliable, third-party source -- has connected May Poles to Pacific staff gods and to Kay Hotoe Boe festival?  Personally, I think that this is a fascinating topic -- the use of poles by various human societies -- and might make a very interesting book or PhD thesis (though one whose central thesis whatever it is may be very hard to prove), and once published, a reliable source. --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 04:00, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Possible references
Just for reference not for immidiate inclusion in the article. Mahitgar (talk) 10:07, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Heckelman Site

 * A Report of Archaeological Investigatins at the Heckelman Site (33ER14): 2013 Season Brian G Redmond
 * Echoes of Ancient Cosmology Found at Prehistoric Native American Site

Arunachal Pradesh
1) Jangban :Wancho People dance around a "Jangban", a long ceremonial pole during Oriah festival.

2) Babo, the ceremonial pole, decorated as a female deity

australia
Ngarrag (Mardayin) Aboriginal ceremony, Numbulwar (Pt 1), Australia


 * Alyawarr Tyaw songs

Mopán celebration
Mopán celebration

Is Mære Church especially relevant?
Is there a reason why Mære Church is singled out in ? Does it have particularly significance as a historical site? Or was it just included to pad out this underdeveloped article with vaguely relevant content? It's a bit odd to have it tacked onto the end of the section without context or an explanation of its relevance. It reads like undue weight given to a single marginal example. If it can't be better integrated into the text, it should be pruned. – Scyrme (talk) 23:34, 19 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure. Nordeide Sæbjørg Walaker certainly was an important figure in archaeology. But that might not be a good reason to keep it. Doug Weller  talk 14:24, 20 August 2022 (UTC)