Talk:Diné Bahaneʼ

message: I will be making some additions to the second world section of this articleAtraeber (talk) 21:32, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: The creation story here is missing all its details - i'll try to clean it up, but it will take a lot of work. 
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.67.252.128 (talk) 02:14, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree -- this article needs a LOT more information.Risssa (talk) 18:50, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Creation Story

message: I'm no expert on Navajo mythology, but it looks like the creation story contradicts itself. First it says humans (as insects-like people) pass through the first four worlds before permanently becoming humans in the fifth. Then it says humans were formed out of corn. --The President of Cool 20:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The insect people are not humans and they do not become humans. I understand the confusion because currently this article is a mess. Asdzani Bah (talk) 23:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

text: We all came from the same big bang. We were all viruses and bacterial and very small miniscule particles our eyes cannot see before we became humans. When we die and go back to the land, we become nothing again before we return to our people through the earth. It's not contradictory, it's just not white culture. It's Indigenous culture and ways of life. This has always been our people's ways. 2607:FEA8:C201:EC00:457D:6FD9:8315:D14B (talk) 02:05, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Self-contradictory? 

message: Then why is it on here.
I say we should respect the fact that it's not meant to be known.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.183.11.34 (talk) 20:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not meant to be known... 

message: I am not Navajo, so I am only summarizing what I have been told by Navajo individuals.  
As an oral culture of a diverse people (collecting diverse bands into the "Navajo Tribe" is a recent invention), there are naturally a number of versions of any of these stories.  By design, no one person has all the exact details of any story or particular ceremony such as Antway, Blessingway, Nightway, Enemyway and so forth. Everyone is dependent on working with each other; no person can claim to have every detail of all the stories, and, therefore, all the power.  
What I have noticed is that these stories center the listener in the context of the Universe.  Most of the refer to specific locations.  Many of the sings are accounts of aspects of Creation, their relationships to each other, the descriptions of geographic locations, and the interactions of people within these contexts. 
The Navajo medicine people whom I have asked about this topic say that anyone claiming to have the "exact, complete" story cannot be an authentic authority because no one person can have the complete story. Sznjmsn (talk) 06:43, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's family, tribe and nation specific. It is living memory, it changes as the people change. It adapts along with the people. Our traditions are living, not dead, not linear. More like a dance that began at the beginning of time. 2607:FEA8:C201:EC00:457D:6FD9:8315:D14B (talk) 02:07, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

text: Why not speak directly with the Diné Nation? 2607:FEA8:C201:EC00:457D:6FD9:8315:D14B (talk) 02:08, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

text: I would guess they mean the intro. Phrases like "extremely rich and expressive" sounds like an advertisement. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 23:30, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

text: Okay, I'm removing "extremely rich and expressive" from the intro, and also trying to remove the box. WAlanDavis (talk) 00:09, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  is there an "only one way" version of Navajo Mythology? 

message: I'm trying to understand why the neutrality of this article is under dispute.  It looks to me like the Prophecies problem has been removed.  What else is violating the policy of neutrality?  If there are no current concerns, I think we should remove the warning box.  WAlanDavis (talk) 05:41, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I would guess they mean the intro. Phrases like "extremely rich and expressive" sounds like an advertisement. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 23:30, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

text: Okay, I'm removing "extremely rich and expressive" from the intro, and also trying to remove the box. WAlanDavis (talk) 00:09, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Disputed Neutrality

message: quote: "Redirected from Navajo Mythology"
So it's not religion? Why not?  I say
call Them All Religions or All Mythologies.
This is outrageously illustrated here: 
List_of_religions#American and less obvious 
at Native American mythology. Am I off base in this?
It also seems that in comparative religion, something very important is ignored or undervalued: the relationships between Man, God, "salvation," and Nature. For example, only in the Abrahamic religions, are those all external to each other, - God and Nature are 100% separate and outside of Man, etc. And God as master, Human as child or slave, whatever. I'd like to see more on those relationships. To me they are the guts, the premises from which so much springs.--68.127.87.182 (talk) 19:32, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is not about religion; it's about the creation story, referred to as "creation myth" in wikipedia (per NPOV supposedly). If you would like to write about what comes close to what you would call "religion," you will need to find reliable sources to support the article; I doubt you'll find them since Navajos choose not to make that kind of knowledge public and what is available is mostly unreliable guesswork and anecdotes made up by non-Navajos. Therefore, this remains the closest redirect we have. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 23:47, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religion or Mythologies? 

message: Why no mention in the article? Even if there are different beliefs about whether we are in the 4th or 5th world, the fifth world must be mentioned. Dougweller (talk) 10:53, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fifth world 

message: Just granpa (talk) 23:49, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Illustration of Navajo cosmology 

message: I expected this article would mostly discuss the story and offer sourced critical analysis. Instead it consists only of the entirety of Diné Bahaneʼ, preceded by a long summary. Whatever version of Diné Bahaneʼ we decide to present, is it really the best practice to put the full source text in this article? Or would it be better suited for a move to, say, Wikisource? Shmuser (talk) 17:25, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: More like worse practice. It might be useful to look at the history. Doug Weller talk 19:29, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not convinced that that is the full text. I think it is a summary. I ordered a book so I will know more in a few weeks. Just granpa (talk) 14:24, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is having the full text in the article best practice? 

message: 1. Navajo mythology redirects to an article that, in its opening statement, claims that this is merely the creation myth.
2. I see that someone else here had mentioned that it's a secret religion. If it is, I'll nominate this for deletion.
3.This is an encyclopedia, not a story book?Artheartsoul1 (talk) 21:13, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see "merely", where is i? This clearly meets our criteria for notability so it would pass an AfD, and I advise you not to nominate it. Doug Weller talk 21:23, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Diné Bahaneʼ (Navajo: "Story of the People"), the Navajo creation mythLiterally the first sentence. This summarizes that the article name is the creation myth of the Navajo, and therefore eveything hereafter is a part of the creation myth alone. This redirects from Navajo mythology. That is unacceptable. Mythology is not merely the creation myth. 
The reason I suggest its nomination for deletion is due to some Diné cultural practices being secret. See my nomination for deletion on Skin-walker. The Diné people are upset that their secret-religion is on Wikipedia.Artheartsoul1 (talk) 04:22, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

text: I can understand that if there is material in an article that isn't about the subject of the article we have a problem, with solutions such retitle the article, split it off, etc. But some of the sources clearly meet our criteria for WP:RS and as you probably know Wikipedia is not censored, a policy that is sometimes misunderstood but definitely applies here (just as it does to say images of Muhammad). I sympathise with the Diné and with Muslims who are offended by our use of images, but I can't go along with deleting an article because it upsets a group if the subject is clearly notable, and this is. Doug Weller talk 14:44, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: What is this?

message: Substituted at 21:40, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Hey I just wanted to add a wiki link using the words "Spider Woman" that appear in this article to link it to the "Spider Grandmother" page. "Spider Woman" is one of the names that "Spider Grandmother" goes by. Is this okay with those who have been working on this page?Ghostygoo (talk) 07:15, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I added the linkGhostygoo (talk) 06:49, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding a wiki link 

message: This is how the Diné people tell their history, to alter it would be racism and white washing. Just call it culture if you want but these are the stories of our people, to alter them would take them out of context, it would be appropriation. 2607:FEA8:C201:EC00:457D:6FD9:8315:D14B (talk) 02:03, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diné story telling explanation