Talk:Lavvu/Archive single pole issue

Kohte
The below sentences have been edited for the following reasons:

First, the "Kohte" described in the German site that was sited is not a lavvu. It may be lavvu 'inspired' but structurally and culturally, it is not a lavvu. The pole structure is very different and the Sami have never used such a structure.

Second, if the 'Kohte' is to be cited, then the Mongolian ger (yurt) and the Native American tipi, should also be cited. Even more so the tipi, since they share a more similar pole structure than the kohte has with the lavvu.

Third, the German Wikipedia site (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kohte) also describes a commercial interest in their tents describing "Tortuga and TROLL Versand/Scandia" tents and "Wandervogel" tents. If these are to be cited as a source, then the citation of http://www.lavvu.com/history.htm should have been included as they describe the history of the lavvu and not the history of the kohte.

Forth, and most importantly, there are several companies and organizations that are claiming to have a "lavvu", when in fact they in fact have something else. The lavvu has been a powerful symbol for the Sami, especially since World War Two when the Nazi's burned nearly every building north of the Arctic Circle during their retreat in the spring of 1945. There are many Sami who have been born in lavvus during and after 1945 who are still alive today because of the loss of housing. This has been an emotional issue among the Sami as they have seen their culture being exploited by outsiders (http://boreale.konto.itv.se/rovaniemi.htm). The kohte, reference should be dropped as it has nothing to do with the lavvu. Describe it for what it is without the outside citations.

I would welcome comments - take care... Dinkytown


 * A Kohte is not a Lavvu, but its design was inspired by the Lavvu. So they are related, but not identical. LARS (talk) 15:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you LARS - I agree... Take Care... Dinkytown (talk) 23:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Deleting section that is not a lavvu
Deleated the following: "Another popular design consists of a single aluminum pole (in multiple parts) and a very light canvas. A lavvu of this type is light enough to be carried by humans, and is hence an alternative to a tent."

What this person described was a British conical tent. The lavvu does not have a single pole in the middle. There are European companies - who are not Sami, trying to claim their design is a lavvu, which it is not. Again, the lavvu being exploited by outsiders. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dinkytown (talk • contribs) 05:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The "one-pole" lavvu has a single pole in the middle (at a slight angle in order to make room for a fire). I don't know who or when the single-pole lavvu was invented (or if it was adapted from the British conical tents). But, the sami lavvu producer Venor has been selling such lavvu's long before the European companies started selling lavvu's. So I have reverted the deletion.Labongo 07:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The one-pole tent you are talking about is called a bell tent. There has been a US patent filed on this design from 1856, but there are sources from Europe that showed its use shortly before then in the European militaries.


 * It is true that Venor makes traditional lavvus (with multiple poles), but it is unfortunate that they choose to call their 'one-pole' tent a 'lavvu'. There have never been any historical sources that show that lavvu constructed with only one pole, nor were there any Sami living/using/selling a one-pole tent until the past twenty years or so.  In fact, there have been complaints about Venor from fellow Sami about their one-pole 'lavvu'.  Why not call it a tipi, yurt or mobile home?  For the above reasons I have reinstated the deletion.  Dinkytown 03:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC) 06:17, 21 October 2007


 * I have reverted the deletion again. The reason being that such "tents" are commonly known as lavvu's in Scandinavia (including among the Sami). It is true that a one-pole design has not traditionally been used by the Sami, but I don't think it is unreasonable to allow Sami culture artifacts to evolve with modern technology and materials.Labongo 09:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * See below under "This debate is over". Dinkytown (talk) 17:30, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Another popular design consists of a single aluminum pole
This statement is misleading for the following reasons:

1)	The single-pole tent described is not a lavvu, it is a bell tent and have been in existence for over one hundred-fifty years.

2)	Bell tents require guy lines (rope) and stakes to erect and keep standing. The traditional multi-pole lavvu structure dose not.

3)	In over five hundred years of pictorial, or other historical sources, there has never been any description about a single-pole Sami tent.

4)	The so-called single-pole ‘lavvu’ has only been around for only about ten to fifteen years. What these companies have done is slapped the name ‘lavvu’ on a bell tent design.  They should be called for what they are - bell tents.

5)	There is a vested economic interest for a company to call their single-pole tent a ‘lavvu’. The word ‘lavvu’ has an appeal to the camper as it has been used by the Sami in harmony with nature for many centuries.  Bell tents have been used by every European army from the UK to Turkey and is a symbal of militarism and colonalism on a global scale.  Putting the word ‘lavvu’ on such a tent is a trade name – not a description of what it is.  This makes as much sense as calling a nuclear weapon - a ‘peace-keeper’.

6)	Bell tents are considerably cheaper to produce than a traditional multi-pole lavvu because of the extra poles need for the structure. Thus, they make an inexpensively produced product and slapped on an attractive name – hense, ‘single-pole lavvu.’

7)	This design is not ‘popular’ but controvercial. There have been complaints to these companies in calling them ‘lavvus’.  There have also been a few media reports in Norway regarding this issue.

8)	The issue in conflict is not the materials used, but their construction and pole structure.

This sentence should be removed for the above reasons.Dinkytown 05:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * On point 1-3 I agree with you. Point 4 I believe is your POV. As Wikipedia is based on a NPOV we must just accept that these "tents" are commonly known as enstangslavvu (Norwegian for one-pole lavvu). For example here: or here . Hence these must also be mentioned. Point 5 and 6 I don't have knowledge to neither agree or disagree. I agree with point 7 and has removed the word popular. I also agree on point 8.
 * Could a possible solution to this problem to keep the disputed statement, but add a paragraph about the controversy that basically summarizes what has been said above? I believe this would satisfy WP:NPOV and improve the quality of the article.Labongo 10:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Could a possible solution to this problem to keep the disputed statement, but add a paragraph about the controversy that basically summarizes what has been said above? I believe this would satisfy WP:NPOV and improve the quality of the article.Labongo 10:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Labongo, Thank you for you understanding regarding this issue. I believe we can work out something pretty quickly here.  I also agree that a separate paragraph describing the controversy would be in order.  At this point I would like to exchange emails and talk further about this.  I am not sure this is the correct venue to discuss a compromise.  I’m sure that we also have some questions about each other too.  Thanks. dinkytown@hotmail.com Dinkytown 04:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Dear Dinkytown, I don't think we need to exchange e-mails. Instead I think you should just add the paragraph with a source about the controversy (perhaps as a sub-section to Modern lavvus?). Also, I hope you can remove the disputed tag from the 'single-pole' lavvu sentence.Labongo 21:05, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Dinkytown, you also need to provide a reference for the controversy. Also, note that the section needs to be written with a NPOV. So unless you have an official definition, or a commonly accepted definition, you cannot assume that it is not a lavvu.Labongo 10:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * See below under "This debate is over". Dinkytown (talk) 17:30, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

A lavvu of this type is light enough to be carried by humans
A traditional, multi-pole lavvu dose not need reindeer (i.e. non-human) to be carried. Wooden lavvu poles can be car top able, put on a trailer, or left at the site, but also there are aluminum multi-pole lavvus on the market now that can be carried by one person. Claiming that a single-poled ‘lavvu’ is the only tent that can be carried by people is misleading and incorrect.Dinkytown 05:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * A solution to this would be to list the typical weight of the poles and canvas of the different designs.Labongo 10:25, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * We can fold this issue into the one above, but I believe this is possible. Dinkytown 04:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Please don't remove the table that contains useful information about the dimension, materials, weight, etc. of the different lavvu designs. If you have problem with the way it is presented you should rather incorporate the information to the article text. Also, it is necessary to provide references for where the specifications are from, even if they are from a commercial vendor. Feel free to add specifications from other vendors to the table, preferably in such a way that it is easy to compare the parameters of the different designs.Labongo 10:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Academic citations
Removed “Specifications” paragraph for the following reasons: 1) cites a single company commercial advertisement website. If we include one, we must include all of them.  Wikipedia is not a commercial; 2) citation dose not describe ‘why’ a single-pole tent should be called a lavvu; 3) compares single-pole tent with lavvu structure which is irrealavent to this artical.  4) assumes these lavvus/tent are only this one size, which is not the case as they can be larger and smaller; 5) includes erroneous information in the table.

If the company's "Specifications" are going to be used as a citation source, then this source will be examined and critiqued as any other source - for better or worse. The owners of this company may not wish to have their product so closely associated with this controversy.

Describe *why* this single-pole tent should be called a lavvu – and back it up with acedemic sources, not company advertisements.Dinkytown 06:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Comments: 1) can easily add additional examples and there is no need and probably not even possible to find specifications for all, 2) no need to describe why, easily verifiable that several companies/people do so, 4) purpose is to compare properties of different designs, also there are indefintely many lavvu sizes, 5) that can easily be corrected since citations are provided. It is not up to the company that published the specificatiosn to like or dislike how the inforamtion is used. There is no need, and there are probably very few academic papers about contemporary lavvu design. I still believe you are attempting to push your point of view, and I believe it is time to request comments from other users.Labongo 17:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * See below under "This debate is over". Dinkytown (talk) 17:30, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

RfC: Do commercial websites hold the same weight and historical value as a source when they conflict with centuries old primary documents and common knowledge?
Do commercial websites, which claim that a single-pole tent design to be a 'lavvu', but is in conflict with historical descriptions and common knowledge of a real lavvu with a multi-pole construction similar to a tipi?


 * Comment from one of the parties: No - Commercial websites are not realiable sources as they have an commercial interest in naming their product. In addition, these sources have not with stood the test of time and can be generated to fit their own economic interests. Dinkytown 04:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * No. Commercial parties have a commercial interest in an appealing name that may be inappropriately borrowed or have nothing to do with reality. The Ford Fiesta is presumably not included in the fiesta article. Fainites barley 22:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Isn't this the same question as in the first RfC? Anyway, using historical sources for definitions for what is a Sami artificat excludes all development of these artifacts. Second, could you provide references for that it is common knowledge that the single-pole "tent" is not a lavvu. A google search returns many links to blogs etc that talk about such designs, such as, , and , and .  This seems to indicate that lavvu/lavvo is indeed commonly used to describe these tents also.Labongo 12:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * No it is not. You’re assuming that your tents are ‘lavvus’ to begin with when you have not established proof through citations that they are.  See | exceptional claims require exceptional sources.  This has to be done before any debate can continue.  It doesn’t matter what your blogs say – where are the citations.  See below. Dinkytown (talk) 13:47, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * See below under "This debate is over". Dinkytown (talk) 17:30, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

RfC: Can a lavvu have a single pole
Should the single-pole lavvu’s advertised and sold by several European companies be called a lavvu or bell-tent? (See also the sections: ‘’ Deleting section that is not a lavvu’’, ‘’ Another popular design consists of a single aluminum pole’’, and ‘’Acedemic citations’’).
 * Clarification: lavvu is also often spelled lavvo.
 * Comment from one of the parties: yes to maintain a NPOV they should be called single-pole lavvu since this is the commonly used term for such “bell-tents” in Europe, including among the Sami people themselves. For example by this Sami lavvu manufactorer or this international(?) sport equipment shop  (note en-stangs = one-pole in Norwegian).Labongo 10:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment from one of the parties: No - There has never been a history of a "single-pole lavvu". Only until a manufacture puts the name "lavvu" on a bell or conical tent design within the past ten years has there been this conflict. The lavvu is Sami - not Norwegian.  There was never a "en-stangslavvu" ten years ago.  Those who claim to have a NPOV on this subject have an economic interest in calling their tent a "lavvu". Dinkytown 03:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * There were many manufactorers selling "enstangs lavvo" in 1997, at least one in the late 1980s, and probably none in the 1970s. Please don't accuse me for having a commercial interest for insisting that Wikipedia articles have a NPOV. Even if some companies may have exploitet a minority culture to create a well known "brand", we cannot simply ignore this fact and rewrite history accordingly. Labongo 13:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Outside comment Why not say something along the lines of "in recent years, tentmaking companies have used the word 'lavvu' or 'enstangs-lavvu' (single pole lavvu) to describe tents based on the single pole and guy rope bell tent structure which, whilst similar in appearance to the traditional lavvu, lack the historical multi framed structure described here." Fainites barley 22:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment from one of the parties: Thank you Fainites for your comment. I believe I already addressed an explanation under the ‘controversy’ paragraph. Dinkytown (talk) 13:47, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Outside comment 2 Yup. Describe what's being done rather than not speaking of it. There's an American company that makes a tent decribed as a tipi that uses a single pole; while they are great tents (especially if you pitch them with two poles so there's no annoying center pole) and shaped like a tipi, they are not. I don't think that these "faux lavvu" are really Bell tents, either; I think of a Bell tent as being a cone tent with sidewalls. I could be wrong. -- htom (talk) 21:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment from one of the parties: No its not. Commercial websites are not reliable [|reliable sources].  What ever that company was producing, it was not a tipi.  Try to put a 'one-pole tipi' in the tipi article and see what kind of debate that will stur up.  That company was engaging in cultural appropriation.  This lavvu article is about ‘what they are’, not ‘what they will be’. Dinkytown (talk) 13:47, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment from one of the parties: The purpose of providing links to commercial websites and blogs is to prove that lavvu is a commonly used term for such "tents". As with other cultural artifacts there is no commonly accepted if-and-only-if definition for what is a lavvu. In other words you cannot except anyone to have the authority to make such a decision, and certanly not outsiders who are writing scientific papers, history books, online encyclopedias, etc. A description as suggested by Fainites would be acceptable, but I would like this issue to setled first to avoid further reverts of the article. Also, I would still like a reference for why this is a controversy.Labongo (talk) 09:18, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment from one of the parties: I am in process of locating the source through the NRK bureaucracy and then translated. It will be coming shortly.  I will be looking forward to your Wiki freindly source for your claim. Dinkytown (talk) 06:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment from one of the parties: So you are saying that an owner of a tent company has equal say in calling his tent a 'lavvu', when his tent conflicts with the lavvu definition of books written from Sami-acknowledged university professors, Sami Elders, Sami activists, published articles, and centuries old primary sources, is that correct? Have you read any of my referenced sources? Dinkytown (talk) 06:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I have not checked the two books you provided as reference, and I probably don't have access to the "Primitive technology bulletin". But I would be very surprised if they indeed provide a if-and-only-if definition (note that there is a big difference compared to a "if" definition), rather I would expect such books to provide a description of what were in use at the time of the writing of these books. But to repeat my previous argument; it is not up to anyone to make definitions as you have presented in the "Definitions" section. So, if sufficiently many people think something is a lavvu, then it is a lavvu. If we apply the same principle to other articles and start using 50-250 year old books as rules for what the properties of cultural artifacts must be, then according to these definitions the current (festive) Sami clothing Gakti is no longer a gakti since the materials and style has significantly changed. Also, it would never be acceptable practice today if some "university professors" started publishing if-and-only-if definitions about how for example the Inuit culture artifacts must be. Finally, sources about the Sami peoeple and other indigenous people published more than 40 years ago were often written as descriptions of primitive static cultures (often to support race theories). Today it has been accepted that both the history and culture of "these primitive" people is dynamic, and hence that both develope with the modern world.Labongo (talk) 10:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Your ghakti example actually strengthens my argument. Many years ago, there was a company called “Sami Colors” who tried to market coats in North America that were inspired by the ghakti..  They slapped on the company name of “Sami” on it, trying to portray it as a ghakti.  You know as well as I do that only Sami (Sami, or married to one, or accepted as one) are allowed to wear ghakti.  Many Sami in North America protested this cultural ripoff as and shortly afterward they either stopped doing it, or went out of buisness.  You can’t find “Sami Colors” any more.  Yes, ghaktis do change radically, but there is some sort of continuity, history and meaning behind it.  Sami are not going to take a space suit, firemans coat, or police officers uniform and call that a ghakti.  The space suit, fireman, and cop uniform all ready have a history – same with the bell tent.  It already has a long history and has a different meaning than the lavvu.  The bell tent was used as a military shelter during the colonial period - the lavvu was not.  The lavvu and bell tent have separate paralle linages and should not mix, or else it will delute the meaning of the lavvu.


 * The reason why I put in those sources for not to show a ‘static’ culture, but to show a snap shot of the historical record. Ernst Manker and Johannes Schefferus were university professors, but were not part of the race pigeon holing as many were at the time, or at least not actively.  Marie Boine even praised and quoted Manker on one of her CD’s (I believe it was 'Leahkastin').


 * Dinkytown, about your NRK refernce. Perhaps the Norwegian National Library can help you? They have all NRK broadcasts in their archives.Labongo (talk) 10:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm going to check into that - thank you. Dinkytown (talk) 11:47, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * See below under "This debate is over". Dinkytown (talk) 17:30, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think we agree yet, so it is unfortunantely not over.Labongo (talk) 09:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * 'Attempt to provide a short summary of the issue. One of the parties, myself, claim that a single-pole Bell-tent is commonly known as a lavvu at least in Scandinavia, but can only provide links to companies selling such "lavvus" and blogs describing these as "lavvus". The other party, Dinkytown, claims that it is not a lavvu but a Bell tent, and support this claim with the lack of historical descriptions of such tents as lavvu, and a currently unreferenced controversy about the use of the lavvu term for these tents. Further we cannot agree on whether the definitions/descriptions of a lavvu either does not exclude the single-pole lavvu, or does not include the single-pole lavvu. Labongo (talk) 15:28, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Formal mediation started, so RfC tag has been removed.Labongo (talk) 12:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

RfC: Should the article include a table of specifications
Should the article include a table containing the weight, size, materials, etc, for different lavvu designs? (See also the sections: ‘’ A lavvu of this type is light enough to be carried by humans’’ and ‘’ Academic citations’’).


 * Comment from one of the parties: yes since it is useful to compare these properties for the different contemporary lavvu designs. Also, the table is intended for illustrative purposes and not as a complete list of all lavvu’s ever produced, and not a complete list of all possible design parameters.Labongo 10:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment from one of the parties: No - it has not been proven that this single-pole tent satisfies any requirement of the historical definition of a lavvu (see "Definition" in main article), it satisfies all the requirements of the definition of the bell tent (see "Controversy" of article) so comparing one tent with another is a mute point. In addition, there was erroneous information with this data (40cm diameter tent?!).  This is the 'lavvu' wiki page, not 'comparing tents' page.  These specifications are not on the tipi page, so why are they here? Dinkytown 03:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Note that the questions was wether to keep a table with specifications based on data from commercial vendors. There is another thread for the single-pole lavvu POV discussion.Labongo 13:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That thread can not be addressed until you provide Wiki freindly sources to back up your claim. Dinkytown (talk)


 * See below under "This debate is over". Dinkytown (talk) 13:47, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think this issue has been resolved. Or are we agreeing to have such a table? Labongo (talk) 09:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Formal mediation started, so RfC tag has been removed.Labongo (talk) 12:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

This debate is over
Labongo - This debate is over. You have not provided any Wikipedia friendly |acceptable citations or sources to this debate – in fact you have strengthened my argument. In all of the sources that you have provided about these so called ‘lavvus’, they have never mentioned the word “Sami” in any of them. All of these citations are an example of cultural appropriation which is what these companies have been doing for years and this not the focus of this article.

Please remove the neutrality tags form the main article unless you have reliable |reliable sources in this article. Please also see Wikipedia's articles on | reliable sources and | examples of such Dinkytown (talk) 13:47, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Let me back up here. I don’t mean to get this personal, but this has been going on for over a month and its becoming frustrating - we are not settling anything.  The central question that must be answered before anything else is what are reliable sources.  Any history major – including Wikipedia, will tell you that commercial websites and blogs are not reliable sources.  It also conflicts with Wikipedia's policy on | links to be avoided.  I know there are companies that make a single-pole ‘lavvu’, but simply put – they are wrong, for all the reasons above.  Until there are reliable sources from the other side, the debate is over. Dinkytown (talk) 17:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I commented on this in the 'Can a lavvu have a single pole'. Please, lets keep the discussion in one thread.Labongo (talk) 09:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * That thread can not be addressed until you provide Wiki freindly sources to back up your claim. Dinkytown (talk)

Controversy
(keep the picture)

Since the late 1990’s several European companies have offered for sale tents called 'lavvu' which although similar in appearance are somewhat different in structure to the traditional lavvu. Primarily the differences are as follows:

1) The use of a single central poles rather than multi poles creating a frame, and;

2) The use of guy ropes and stakes to both support and provide fullness to the structure - a feature not required in the traditional lavvu.

The commercial tents called 'lavvu's' have much in common with the bell tent or conical tent in use at least since the 1850's.

As the lavvu is an important cultural artifact amongst the Sami this use of the word lavvu to describe a design of tent unknown in traditional Sami culture has caused something of a controversy on Sami media in which such manufacturers have been accused of cultural appropriation.

Fainites barley 11:52, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Comments

 * Thanks Fainites for your input in this matter. A can accept your above suggestions, but only on the understanding that both neutrality tags are removed and the 'Definition' paragraph is preserved.  Since the definition of what a lavvu is, was requested from Labongo in which I have honored and fulfilled that request, I believe it is only fair to keep that part intact. Dinkytown (talk) 06:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

How about making what I've written part of the 'traditional and modern' section? Fainites barley 07:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you Fainites for your efforts to resolve this issue. The controversy section is fine, but the style depends on how the "Defintion" (should be renamed) section is written. A minor comment, Bell tents may have been in use since the 1850s but it is not certain that they were in use in Sapmi, nor that there were not similar tents with the same name in use in Sapmi.Labongo (talk) 10:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I find it odd that Sibley got his patent for belltents in 1856 but the picture on the bell tent page is of the British Army using them in the Crimea in 1855! Fainites barley 22:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Suppose 'definition' said 'description' and had added the sentence "In recent years some tent manufacturers have marketed a tent called a 'lavvu', similar in appearance to the traditional lavvu but of a single poled rather than multi poled construction." Then the 'controversy' section gives more detail. We don't have to say it is or isn't a lavvu. The article describes the traditional, historical lavvu and simply states that some modern manufacturers are making a similar tent, though different in essential respects, and calling it a 'lavvu'. Only time will tell whether the Sami adopt these new style tents as lavvus.Fainites barley 09:43, 21 November 2007 (UTC)Fainites barley 09:38, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Agree. But then the Definition/Description section can be removed, since most of the information is described in later sections. That is, something like the two first sections in this revision: . Still, it would be nice if Dinkytown agreed, so we can avoid further reverts. Labongo (talk) 08:35, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * No – it is *very* certain that bell tents were never used by the Sami. Again, where is the evidence?  I am going to hold firm on the ‘definition’ paragraph contents because there are many academic and pictorial sources that describe the lavvu in the way it has been written.  There is *no* evidence that describes the Sami using a ‘single-pole lavvu’ anywhere in the historical record, in either pictorial or academic sources.  Therefore, the single-pole issue should not be described anywhere in that paragraph.  If you have historical sources that will dispute this - let’s see them.  If these historic pictorial or academic sources are legitimate and describe such a single-pole ‘lavvu’, I am willing to discuss that idea, but until then I am going to hold firm.  To include that structure in that paragraph would elevate it to the symbolism that the lavvu has earned in Sami Culture, which it has not.


 * Regarding the Sibley patent date, Yes, I did notice that the patent was a little after than the date on the photo. But this would also depend when he filed the patent.  Does it take about three years for the filing process does now?  Did he get the idea from Europe?  An interesting story to pursue…


 * Just to make it clear. I am not claiming that the Bell tents were in use by the Sami. My point was there could very well have been similar tents with another name in use by the "colonizing" Norwegians, Finns, Swedes or Russians, or perhaps by visiting French people in the Sami area. Labongo (talk) 15:02, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Is there any evidence of this? Or more to the point, if there were other peoples using other tents - is there any evidence they called them 'lavvus' ? Fainites barley 21:01, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


 * "Could very well have been..." is not a source of 'what happened' and there is so many reasons why it would not happen. Question, if teh Sami had a single-pole tent, where would the fire be without burning the whole darn thing down? Dinkytown (talk) 11:57, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Description
There are several historical references that describe this tent structure used by the Sami. It has a number of names and variations thereof, in addition to the name 'lavvu'. These structures have the following in common:

1) They are supported by three, evenly spaced, forked or notched poles that form a tripod.

2) There are upwards of ten or more unsecured straight poles that are laid up against the tripod which give form to the structure.

3) No stakes, guy-wire or ropes are used, nor indeed required, to provide fullness or stability to the structure.

4) The fullness of the structure is determined by the size and quantity of the poles used.

5) No center pole is used or needed to support this structure. There is no historical record since the 1600's of the use of a single poled structure as a 'lavvu' under any of its names.     In recent years some tent manufacturers have marketed single pole tents, akin to bell tents, under the name of 'lavvu'.

Controversy
(keep the picture)

Since the late 1990’s several European companies have offered for sale tents called 'lavvu' which although similar in appearance are somewhat different in structure to the traditional lavvu. Primarily the differences are as follows:

1) The use of a single central poles rather than multi poles creating a frame, and;

2) The use of guy ropes and stakes to both support and provide fullness to the structure - a feature not required in the traditional lavvu.

The commercial tents called 'lavvu's' have much in common with the bell tent or conical tent in use at least since the 1850's.

As the lavvu is an important cultural artifact amongst the Sami this use of the word lavvu to describe a design of tent unknown in traditional Sami culture has caused something of a controversy on Sami media in which such manufacturers have been accused of cultural appropriation.

Fainites barley 20:25, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Fainites - I think you and I are on at the same time. I don't know if you read my above offer to Labongo, which incorporate much of what you synthisised.  Thanks for your work in this matter - Take Care.  Dinkytown (talk) 20:34, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi. Sorry if I caused an edit conflict. I hope I've encapsulated your proposals. I've changed the wording a little. Why is the sentence about the sami media to be removed? Who has accused the manufacturers of cultural appropriation then if it has not been discussed on the media? Fainites barley 20:47, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Re patents on bell tents - the Crimean War started in 1853 and it was a notoriously badly run war in terms of supplies and equipment so it is extremely unlikely that new tents were rushed out shortly after they were invented. Also there were always huge issues about patent and copyright recognition between the USA and other countries (and still are). Fainites barley 20:52, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually now I look again at the proposed sections above they do really say the same thing. Suppose they were amalgamated? Fainites barley 20:58, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Description
There are several historical references that describe this tent structure used by the Sami. It has a number of names and variations thereof, in addition to the name 'lavvu'. These structures have the following in common:

1) They are supported by three, evenly spaced, forked or notched poles that form a tripod.

2) There are upwards of ten or more unsecured straight poles that are laid up against the tripod which give form to the structure.

3) No stakes, guy-wire or ropes are used, nor indeed required, to provide fullness or stability to the structure.

4) The fullness of the structure is determined by the size and quantity of the poles used.

5) No center pole is used or needed to support this structure. There is no historical record since the 1600's of the use of a single poled structure as a 'lavvu' under any of its names.

Since the late 1990’s several European companies have offered for sale tents called 'lavvu' which although similar in appearance are somewhat different in structure to the traditional lavvu in that they use a single central pole rather than multi poles creating a frame, and use guy ropes and stakes to both support and provide fullness to the structure - a feature not required in the traditional lavvu. These commercial tents called 'lavvu's' have much in common with the bell tent or conical tent in use at least since the 1850's.

As the lavvu is an important cultural artifact amongst the Sami this use of the word lavvu to describe a design of tent unknown in traditional Sami culture has caused something of a controversy on Sami media in which such manufacturers have been accused of cultural appropriation.

What do you think? Fainites barley 22:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your efforts for this but lets slow down here. First, your work has been very good for normal circumstansis, but we have a serious issue here.  The single-pole tent that Labongo has been suggesting has not been proven to be a lavvu and I would not like to have it listed under “Description” or any other such title.  Since no sources have been provided, I would rather put it under “Controversy”  Combining both articles only muddys the waters, so to speak.  I believe they are very separate issues, but to my understanding of Labongo POV, it does not.


 * I took out the Sami media reference as a concession to Labongo to end this debate on good terms and because of the extended length of time it will take to get the exact date and translation.


 * I would rather Labongo comment on my offer stated under "Offer" before we continue. Just to let you know that we are *very* close to arbitration. Dinkytown (talk) 01:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Looks good to me. The lavvu seems to me to be like the North American indian teepee, which also doesn't have a center pole, and whose shape is created by poles leaning on a tripod (the teepees I'm acquainted with were staked, but the stakes could be removed without the teepee falling.) htom (talk) 23:40, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks OtterSmith - I can comment further but I would like Labongo to comment before I say anything more. Dinkytown (talk) 01:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm fine with two or one sections. Fainites barley 14:17, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't understand this thread, nor why there need to be multiple suggestions to sections spread all over the place. About arbitration. The next step is a request for meditation. Feel free to initiate the process, since there seems to be a deadlock. Labongo (talk) 15:08, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Offer

 * I will not accept the term ‘modern lavvu’ to describe the single-pole tent, since it assumes it to be a lavvu - for which it is not. It is a bell tent design and should be described as such.  However, in an attempt to compromise, I will concede the following:


 * 1)	Change the “Definition’ title to “Description”


 * 2)	I will remove the sentence: "This controversial issue has been addressed by the Sami media.[12][citation needed]"


 * 3)	In the last paragraph of ‘Controversy’, I will make the following changes:


 * Most importantly, [T]his single-pole construction [design] has never been mentioned in the Sami historical record, and is only mentioned by tent manufactures from the late 1990’s who claim this structure to be a ‘lavvu’. In addition, it is unknown who started calling this single-pole tent a ‘lavvu’, either Sami or non-Sami, since there are numerous companies outside of Scandinavia that claim to offer a single-pole - ‘lavvu’. Because the word 'lavvu' has been placed on a tent structure that does not fit the historical tent used be [by] the Sami, this can be an negative example of cultural appropriation. This controversial issue has been addressed by the Sami media.[12][citation needed]


 * These changes will only be done under the following agreement:


 * 1)	Remove all neutrality tags.


 * 2)	No citations from any tent companies or blogs, including ‘specifications’ anywhere in the document.


 * 3)	All RfC tags are to be removed from this Discussion page, but keep the attached comments.


 * 4)	The ‘Definition’ paragraph will be kept intact, though the title can be changed to “Description”.


 * 5)	‘Controversy’ paragraph is left intact, save the changes in the last paragraph as described above.


 * What do you think Labongo? Dinkytown (talk) 01:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


 * - Again, Thank you Fainites for your efforts. Dinkytown (talk) 19:40, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Unfortunantely I don't think such terms are acceptable for any Wikipedia article. 1) NPOV tags will be removed if the seections are written with a NPOV style. 2) Information from commercial sources and blogs will be used where appropiate. 3) RfC tags will be removed when the disucssion is over. 4) It is impossible to agreee to lock a section. In addition it has language problems such as: "There is no historical record". You cannot say that there are no records unless you have read every single record ever written. Also, statements such as "They are supported by three" are very bold. Are you absolutely sure that there were no local traditions sometime in the 1000 year period in for example the Kola penisula or in Southern Norway that did not differ? And finally, to repeat myself, you cannot have a description that ignores the state of the world today. If you want such a section then call it Historical descriptions or Traditional lavvu. 5) We cannot have a section about an unreferenced controversy. I and others need to be able check that the information provided is actually correct. Also you cannot make speculations such that "this can be a negative example". For all we know most Sami may think that it is a positive example. Labongo (talk) 14:54, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

How about :
 * "Historical records since the 1600's describe the multi-poled rather than single poled structure.    In recent years some tent manufacturers have marketed single pole tents, akin to bell tents, under the name of 'lavvu'."

I think it needs more than just a commercial name to be able to say that a single poled tent is a 'lavvu' when the structure for 100's of years appears to have been a multi-poled frame (for obvious reasons). Just because commercial manufacturers offer a variety of tents including a single poled variety that they choose to call a lavvu, does not make it a lavvu as such. It may be a jolly useful tent using light, modern materials, that will replace the traditional lavvu and in time may even become the new lavvu, but a few commercial tents over 10 to 20 years cannot make it a lavvu now just because commercial manufacturers call it one.

I agree about the 'negative example' though Labongo. If the old Sami had had light aluminium poles available to them instead of carting around dozens of sticks they would probably have been jolly pleased - buts that's just my POV! The fact is - they didn't - and a single wooden pole that was big enough and strong enough was probably not practical for a variety of reasons.

Perhaps mediation would be a good idea.

Fainites barley 20:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, looking back I can agree with both of you – I will remove the word “negative” as in “can be a[n] negitive example of cultural appropriation” from the sentence.

Regarding the Sami/TV source, I am willing to remove that citation because of the time it is going to take to get it translated and cited. This is a concession that I am willing to make, but it is also one of the fourteen sources, citations, and three of the four photos for this article that I have provided which are Wiki friendly. However, I am still waiting for a single historical single-pole ‘lavvu’ source from you that proves it to be a lavvu, and not a bell tent with the word ‘lavvu’ slapped on it by some tent company.

In addition, I am willing to do the following: for paragraph #5 of “Description”, I have combined my sentence with Fainites:


 * "[That there are no center poles in the middle of the lavvu that are needed to support this structure. In fact,] historical records since the 1600's describe the [a] multi-poled rather than single poled structure.[17] [18] [19] [20] [21] In recent years some tent manufacturers have marketed single pole tents, akin to bell tents, under the name of 'lavvu'."

But I am not going to accept a single-pole tent as a ‘lavvu’ in that section until I see some primary historical sources on it. And again, how can you accuse me of not having a NPOV when you have no sources to refute the description of this structure? Commercial websites are well known for not having a NPOV.

I have nothing against the bell tent. It would look great in my back yard as my neighbor kids reanact the battle of Battle of Gettysburg or Isandlwana, but your not going to find too many historical sources with Sami hearding reindeer with it. Dinkytown (talk) 07:01, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I included "or more" to the number of 'tripod' poles. Yes, it is true that they had three 'forked' poles, and it was very common to have three, but it is was not a requirement.  I have some sources that show about five(?) but they are copywritten.  The lavvu is a practical tent - whatever works...  I also removed the word "negitive".  I also removed the citation "This controversial issue has been addressed by the Sami media." for reason that I described before, but once I find it with the proper date and translations, I reserved the right to include it again.

What do you think Labongo? Dinkytown (talk) 11:47, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I think a request for meditation is needed, since I believe the issues I have raised have been ignored. But as a final attempt to end this discussion, it would be helpful if you could comment, or provide a reference for the following assumptions you have made in the article:
 * Note that everybody agrees that there were no single pole lavvus before “1990”, so please do not comment on this. Also lets assume for this discussion that the year was 1990 (the exact year is not important here).


 * 1) You assume that there is a governing body that can make a decision about what is a lavvu. Who do you assume this is, and where do you believe they publish their verdicts?
 * 2) You assume that what can be considered a lavvu was defined sometime before “1990”. Why is there a particular time limit for when the definition was set, or was it caused by a specific historical incident?
 * 3) You assume that the “number of poles” is the defining factor (somewhat simplified). Who made this assumption, and why is it not for example the shape that is the defining factor (that is ‘’lavvu’’: cone shape, ‘’goahti’’: bowl shape, ‘’tealta’’: other “camping tent shapes”, ‘’viessu’’: box shape)?
 * 4) You assume that the Sami do not consider the single-pole “tent” a lavvu. On what basis did you make this assumption (if you have personal experience please describe)?
 * 5) You assume that the Sami has some kind of a “trademark” on the lavvu. Why are not for example the Norwegians allowed to make their own adaptation, and who are considered Sami in this context?
 * 6) You assume that the single-pole lavvu is a marketing term introduced by some non-Sami manufacturers. As far as I know, the Sami manufacturer Venor was among the first to use the term. Perhaps you have sources supporting your assumption?
 * 7) You assume that commercial vendors cannot introduce new lavvu types. Then who is allowed to do this, in what context, and who is giving the permission?
 * 8) You assume that the single-pole lavvu was inspired/adapted from the Bell tent. Do you have sources for who invented the single-pole lavvu, whether it is/was produced on a license from the Bell patent holders, that the term Bell tent is/was commonly known in Scandinavia, and that the single-pole lavvu was inspired/adapted from the Bell tent?
 * 9) You assume that, the still unreferenced, controversy was notable. Perhaps you can provide some information about your recollection of the controversy here, such as who the involved parties were and if it was on the news or in another program? Also note that the section needs to be removed if you are not able to provide a reference. Labongo (talk) 09:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I assume nothing. I let the sources speak for themselves.  The article is the focus - not me.  The companies who claim this to be a ‘lavvu’ must defend that claim and explain why this is so.  If we agree that there were no single-pole ‘lavvus’ before the 1990’s, (Labongo: 09:19, 26 November 2007) which would omitt the single-pole ‘lavvu’ from the historical record, and if you argee that the Sami never used bell tents (Labongo: 15:02, 23 November 2007), then what is this debate about? Dinkytown 08:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * This is clearly going nowhere so it is time for meditation.Labongo 09:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * To follow the steps suggested in Dispute resolution a comment requesting comments has been posted in Talk:Sami people and two threads has been started in Reliable sources/Noticeboard.Labongo 10:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The Mediation request has been open and waiting for your signature for several days now. You can go to Requests_for_mediation/Lavvu to sign it. Dinkytown 23:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I was not aware that a case had been opened, but I will sign it right away. Labongo 11:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Reverts
Dinkytown, please don't revert every edit I make. You reinserted the following:

Even today the lavvu is a strong and powerful spirtual force within the Sami community. It is the center of family life and is still a major part of the Sami traditional educational system – the “Sami University”. In this traditional form of education, the lavvu serves as the main point where information and knowledge is distributed. .

If you read through the references article, you get the impression that this is something written by some student for some course based on 40-50 year old sources. The lavvu as a center of family life may have been true 50 years ago for the reindeer-hearding Sami, but certanly is not true for most Sami today and may never have been true for the sea-sami. Also, the notion of a Sami University in the lavvu is very romantic and very far away from what may someday become the true Sami University. Labongo 09:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * If you have a problem with the wording of a paragraph, that’s one thing, but when you start ripping out whole paragraphs and sources and citations because you don't like them - that's different. You could have ‘offered’ to rewrite the paragraph or simply be more polite about it than you have been.  That article has a good bibliography, is from an academic source (Texas University, Anthropology Department), and would be considered a reliable source by Wiki's definition.  The oldest source described in its bibliography is 44 years old, the rest between five to thirty-four years – not “40-50”, in any event, it describes the lavvu.  The paragraph could have been re-written, but the citation strengthens the description of the lavvu.  Just because you don't like the source doesn’t mean you have the right to rip anything out - especially if it comes from a reliable source.


 * Since you haven't brought a single legitimate source to this debate and have offered nothing but criticisms and edits, don’t complain when someone reverts those edits – especially if you are removing a legitimate and reliable source. Dinkytown 23:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't consider that paragraph worth keeping. First, something published on an .edu domain is not automatically an reliable source. Especially if the URL contains "courses", and the article has no indication of being a peer-reviewed publication. Second, altough the sources may be from a few years ago, there is nothing in that article that indicates that it provides the state of the world today (e.g.: "Given that the Sámi make their home in the extreme arctic climate of northern Scandinavia, they exhibit nomadic tribal tendencies, as well as utilizing a circular plan of architectural structures," or "The new resettlement, created by a Soviet government and inhabited by a now homeless indigenous people physically manifests and personifies the conflict between the two cultures."). Third, it has discussions such as": "One observation gathered about Sámi structures is their seeming oversight regarding the potential of thermal power from the sun through light and windows.". All in all, I don't consider this to be something that is worth describing nor linking from the article. Labongo 14:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Removed Neutrality Tags
Removed Neutrality tags as reliable sources were provided and issues are addressed in "Moderen Controversy". Included minor editing and moved photo. Dinkytown (talk) 06:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)