Talk:Talking stick

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Repeated Section[edit]

I removed the following section from the article:

The talking stick was used in Native North American tribes at council meetings. It was used as courtesy not to interrupt a chief when he was speaking. The talking stick was then passed to the next council member who wished to speak. The stick was a ceremonial item and was decorated with eagle feathers and crystals to show its significance.

Some tribes used a talking feather instead of a stick, while others used a peace pipe, a wampum belt, a sacred shell or other object by which the tribe designated the right to speak

Nowadays it is used still by many groups, especially in groups of children or adults who need help preventing discussions from degenerating into cacophonies. It can make sure that people listen to what is being said and can help keep an interesting discussion focussed. In particular, it is used in talking circles.

A similar concept is that of the 'conch' in the book Lord of the Flies by William Golding. The only person allowed to talk during meetings is the one holding the conch.

[edit] External links The Talking Stick History

This was under the External Links section, after the (first) link.

This was probably just a bad copy-paste job, I'm trying to find the source.

dm01 (talk) 00:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rules of order[edit]

Removed this as irrelevant because the reference is purely parliamentary, which is basically the opposite of aboriginal democracy.--John Bessa (talk) 16:08, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal[edit]

At the end of the day, a talking circle and talking stick are intellectually the same thing. As I am working on both, I am creating circular references between the two, which is--actually--cheating! Plus all the references are being repeated, as well as much, if not all, text.

Plus, after condensing the text, there is not enough in either artcile for a full-blown article. The merger would flesh out the topics and would bring it up to the point of at least having a table of contents.--John Bessa (talk) 17:49, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. A talking stick is a physical object. Having been adopted by different discussion groups today, its aboriginal origin has been obscured, so this article can provide information about its history. Talking circles are a broader subject. -Uyvsdi (talk) 18:01, 21 October 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]
  • Hi Uyvsdi, What I tried to convey is that the talking stick and the circle are effectively the same and it is impossible to describe the talking circle without the stick, and the stick (or other object) has no point without the circle, especially since the stick is often an arbitrary object. In other words, to properly describe the stick you have to do it in the context of the circle, and to properly describe the circle, you have to describe the stick. What we will have is two pages that are exactly the same, but ordered differently.
All the supporting information is the same, and hence has to be repeated in both of the articles which is redundant, and is slowing down the process of creating the documentation to help bring acceptance to the mainstream for recognition of the political process. Seeing that you see the value in this material, I would think you would want to move the documentation process forward.--John Bessa (talk) 20:54, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Thank you for your work in furthering the development of both articles. I've added to talking stick and can continue to do so. A talking circle is a method of communication, while a talking stick is a tool and artifact used in the communication. Both articles mention the other, which is entirely appropriate but doesn't require them being merged. Talking sticks have evolved as specific Northwestern Coast art form that continue to be carved today. I try to avoid linking to commercial art galleries' websites, where the main source of information about talking sticks are, but can hopefully find more museum and scholarly citation. -Uyvsdi (talk) 04:11, 28 October 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]

As a symbol of authority[edit]

The stick as a symbol Aboriginal authority may be a Western metacognition, just as the Aboriginal "creator" seems to be "god-like" Western metacognition that fails to inform the Aboriginal conscious relationship with nature. In current Aboriginal use and experimental recreations, the stick tends to be even things out such that all have equal input. Also, much of the removed material (first entry) may be relevant. --John Bessa (talk) 17:10, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the Northwest Coast, the talking stick is a symbol of authority. I've cited all my additions to the article. -Uyvsdi (talk) 17:28, 4 October 2012 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]
Citations may be wrong being they are written within the scope of Western metacognition, which is largely authoritarian (and, of course, WP is wholly authoritarian), so the metacognition follows into, and overwrites Aboriginal consciousness which is "original" and not synthesized.
For every point cited (I write many APA-style papers for psychology) an antithetical citation and be produced. As Aboriginals were largely exterminated by Western authority, material they may have provided never came to be. Even, on rare occasions, when Western researchers attempted to preserve culture through ethnology, they still suffered the oligarchic, Socratic worldview that defined Western authority through academia--and continues to reinforce it. Aboriginal recovery (worldwide) has been reconstructive (talking sticks are found world-wide). As Aboriginals are now "wholly in the know" about authority, and I am certain that their material will be "authoritarian" in the coming years. --John Bessa (talk) 14:57, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the material which I wrote that you removed:

In a tribal council circle, a talking stick is passed around from member to member allowing only the person holding the stick to speak. This enables all those present at a council meeting to be heard, especially those who may be shy; consensus can force the stick to move along to assure that the "long winded" don't dominate the discussion; and the person holding the stick may allow others to interject. Talking sticks have high ceremonial and spiritual value, and have proved to be exceedingly useful during current implementations.In a tribal council circle, a talking stick is passed around from member to member allowing only the person holding the stick to speak. This enables all those present at a council meeting to be heard, especially those who may be shy; consensus can force the stick to move along to assure that the "long winded" don't dominate the discussion; and the person holding the stick may allow others to interject. Talking sticks have high ceremonial and spiritual value, and have proved to be exceedingly useful during current implementations.

This is the material that you replaced it with:

The talking stick may be passed around a group or used only by leaders as a symbol of their authority.

If you ever attended a talking-stick-facilitated ceremony or discussion, you would know this to be absolutely false. (I have attended many, which motivated me to completely rewrite, and now attempt to save, this article.) I will have to raise the yellow card on this one, but I also have to let go because I need to focus on North American multiculturalism, which is seeing the synergy of many Aboriginal cultures. The last clean edit is this one and I will promote only this one as scholastically valid; I may add some of Willondon's material to the my "clean" page (if he is willing self-identify) but, it is not really relevant to true meanings, which is what educators are looking for for their students. Your edits will also help explain why none are willing to allow WP use in education--it shows the deprecatory process (so I will leave them).--John Bessa (talk) 16:04, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tlingit, Haida, and Tsimsian people are alive and well, potlatch ceremonies are alive and well, and Northeast Coast talking sticks are a living artform and tool. Don't make any assumptions about me or anyone else on Wikipedia, stick to the edits. I'm Native American, and I teach Native American art history to Native American students, and I cite my edits. That's fantastic that you write APA-style papers outside Wikipedia; how about finding citations for your edits here in Wikipedia? Originally you wanted to eliminate this article, so please dial down any pretense of article ownership. -Uyvsdi (talk) 18:41, 5 October 2012 (UTC)Uysdi[reply]
This article focuses on actual practice within actual cultures, Uyvsdi is trying keep in line with WP:V and especially WP:NOR. Your proposals, John, are at best, a violation of WP:SYNTH. If someone wants to start the article [{Talking stick (New Age)]] and go on about these other theories, nothing is stopping you. Montanabw(talk) 05:10, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


What is meant by the bold text?

and have proved to be exceedingly useful during current implementations.

--Galloway167 (talk) 06:45, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More sources[edit]

  • Ramirez, Laura M. (2004). Keepers of the Children: Native American Wisdom and Parenting. Reno NV: Walk in Peace Productions. pp. 134–138. ISBN 0-9748661-0-5.
This book written for parents describes how to implement the Talking--Galloway167 (talk) 06:40, 11 February 2015 (UTC) stick practice into family conflict resolution. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 16:24, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of External Links section[edit]

There was only one website cited in the section called External Links, and it is dead, so I removed the entire section, site name & link.

External links

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Talking_stick&oldid=1202379361"