Talk:Hopi mythology

message: In the last paragraph there is a link to an article on 'root race', which appears to be related to what is either a pseudo-scientific theory or at least another mythology and/or religion. I would like to know how Hopi mythology and this other mythology actually relate. Mostly, I am concerned that this article represents incorrect information about Hopi beliefs.
Yes, I agree.  Lots of plain false info here.  I'm removing much of it that I'm fairly certain is bad.  Athana 18:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  'far past' link to 'root race' 

message: This is an underdeveloped article with a few misleading specific details that do not represent the idea as a whole. Watch out.
: To aid development I have merged the content from the created stub pages of the various gods etc. These do not warrant separate articles in the first instance but could always be split out again in the future if necessary. No offense intended. This page also desperately needs a rewrite and attention from an expert so I have tagged it as such Madmedea 20:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have begun an extensive update of this topic using information from Waters' Book of the Hopi. I have added a "Four Worlds" section and will continue to add and update this article in the coming days. Strothatynhe 22:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  underdeveloped 

message: The page now has footnote citations for all of the information contained in it...can we consider removing the no citations tag?? Strothatynhe 19:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you see that's the case, feel free to do it. -LlywelynII (talk) 21:58, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  'No Citations' tag 

message: Frank Waters primarily got his information on Hopi mythology from Oswald "White Bear" Fredericks. Oswald was married to a white woman, was a convert to Christianity, and was not a fully initiated Hopi Indian. I added to the References section Roxie McLeod's master's thesis, "Dreams and rumors: a history of "Book of the Hopi"", which details the problems with Waters' book. I also added Harold Courlander's "The Fourth World of the Hopis" - it's a much more accurate source. I am not enough of an expert on Hopi traditions to fix everything in the article, but if it is largely based on Waters, and it appears to be, then it needs some serious editing. 71.246.82.215 20:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The original article was made up of scraps of fragmented information which often contradicted each other. I am not an expert on Hopi mythology at all, but the book was the only reference I could find. Seeing as it is not a reliable source, I will delete all sections relating to it. I hope you can use more reliable and acurate information to restructure the page.Strothatynhe 05:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The page looks much better and appears to be more accurate. I am only slightly confused as to why Waters' book continues to be used as a source.Strothatynhe 00:17, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

text: If there are other sources, then we should use them. I don't think we should use Waters, and until reliable sources back his tablet claim that shouldn't be in the article. I also note that in Native North American Religious Traditions: Dancing for Life, which is a reliable source, the author wrote "any other. Indeed, 1 once calculated that more than a page has been published on Hopi religion for every living Hopi. The most popular works, such as Frank Waters \ The Book of the Hopi (1963), written to parallel the Bible, are rejected as largely ersatz by Hopi traditionalists. These works have become a mainstay of New Age religion, which often posits the Hopi as the most sacred people in the Americas." Dougweller (talk) 10:31, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Frank Waters' "Book of the Hopi" is not a reliable source 

message: I understand that Waters is no longer in vogue for Hopi mythology.  It is absolutely true that some of his work may have misinterpreted Hopi belief, but that is not to say that everything in the work it automatically bunk.  In using Waters, I have tried to use only those parts for which I have found another source (excluding his version of the creation myth).  However, Waters produces some information which I can find in no other source but which also seems relaible.  For instance, Waters' relation that he actually saw one of the sacred Hopi tablets is entirely plausible, especially when he gives a discription closely matching that of other whites who said they were shown some of the stones roughly 80 years earlier.  It is possible that Waters read these descriptions and then made the occassion up, but so far as I know, Waters has only been accussed of misinterpretation, never fabrication or out and out deception.Panbobor  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Panbobor (talk • contribs) 15:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If there are other sources, then we should use them. I don't think we should use Waters, and until reliable sources back his tablet claim that shouldn't be in the article. I also note that in Native North American Religious Traditions: Dancing for Life, which is a reliable source, the author wrote "any other. Indeed, 1 once calculated that more than a page has been published on Hopi religion for every living Hopi. The most popular works, such as Frank Waters \ The Book of the Hopi (1963), written to parallel the Bible, are rejected as largely ersatz by Hopi traditionalists. These works have become a mainstay of New Age religion, which often posits the Hopi as the most sacred people in the Americas." Dougweller (talk) 10:31, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Argument for a Limited Use of Waters

message: Removed  from
:In the early 16th century, both the Hopis and the Aztecs seem to have believed that coming of the Spanish conquistadors was in fact the return of this lost white prophet.
I get what the editor was going after there, esp. since revisionist historians tend to downplay native credulity. However, the very next line is
:However, unlike the Aztecs, upon first contact the Hopi put the Spanish through a series of tests in order to determine their divinity, and having failed, the Spanish were sent away from the Hopi mesas.
Which is sourced to "Raymond Friday Locke.  The Book of the Navajo, 139-140 (Hollaway House 2001)." I can't speak to that book's reliability (and this is the first page on New Mexican history to mention a repetition of the Queztl motif, which should be added to other entrada pages if it's accurate,) but there wouldn't have been a test of divinity if the natives didn't think these men were strong contenders to be the prodigal prophet. Since it's needless & bad form to cite the same source after every sentence, simply removed the tag. -LlywelynII (talk) 21:58, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed silly fact tag

message: The Puebloan beliefs are just as legitimate a religion as Christianity or Judaism. To call the former "mythology" evidences a bias in favor of the latter, which are listed in Wikipedia as religions. It doesn't matter if you call Christianity a mythology or Indigenous beliefs a religion, JUST DESIGNATE THEM THE SAME WAY so as to avoid cultural arrogance and presumption.
76.113.64.124 (talk) 01:25, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It's possible the article should be moved. A search for "Hopi religion" on Wikipedia show quite a few articles reference such. And at present, there isn't even a redirect for it. Yworo (talk) 03:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Either Call Them All Religions or All Mythologies

message: Right? These are the Hopi. Section needs their views of photography. 143.232.210.150 (talk) 23:17, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for photography? 

message: The Invention of Prophecy: Continuity and Meaning in Hopi Indian Religion  By Armin W. Geertz is a reliable sources and seems to give a balanced treatment of Waters.. Dougweller (talk) 16:32, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tablets 

message: I had one edit adding the Mythology Template to this article reverted by , which I undid and asked in the edit-summary what is the issue? Adding a mythology template to the Hopi Mythology article seem to make perfect sense to me and be a contribution to Wikipedia, linking articles about different mythologies. But then  reverted my edit again, stating in the edit-summary: "If other editors don't want this here, I'm with them". And again I must ask: Why? What is the issue of adding a mythology template to an article about mythology? The other user didn't even revert my edits after what I mentioned in the edit summary, so why is it that User:CorbieVreccan, a wikipedia administrator, reverted my edit? "Siding" with other user without giving much explanation? Pardon if I'm misrepresenting things, but this is what it sound like to me. 
Furthermore, the article about Hopi mythology is included in the Mythology Template itself. So I can't think of any possible reason why that template would be an innapropriate addition to that article. But if someone can explain that and why that decision should stand, my ears are open. CaptainKaptain (talk) 00:56, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: , I am wondering why you would want to add a template to an article when it is tagged with multiple issues such as factual accuracy, citations needed, verification, - to my way of thinking the article is not stable, and there may be discussions pending whether or not Hopi or Puebloan cultures fit into certain paradigms. Netherzone (talk) 03:24, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems like a valid point (though one should adjust the Mythology Template accordingly then). I just couldn't understand the administrators' decision to revert based on what he typed on the edit summary, but now I see the issue and what was probably meant. CaptainKaptain (talk) 02:45, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why remove the inclusion of the "Mythology" Template in an article about Mythology 

message: I was cleaning up references and, in assessing how to address repeated reference to overlapping page ranges of The Book of The Navajo, noticed that language regarding tests of a conquistador appears in both the Kachinas and the Pahana sections.
Neither the Kachinas section overall nor cursory research of mine indicates why the text is especially relevant there (highlights mine):
Raymond Friday Locke discusses the Hopi legend of the Pahana writing that "The Hopis...had long anticipated the coming of Pahana and, either by coincidence or because of a common root of the legends, Pahana was due to visit the Hopi in the very same year that Quetzalcoatl was expected to return to the Aztecs. He arrived some twenty-one years later in the person of the Spaniard Pedro de Tovar, one of Coronado's conquistadors, and was the first white man to be seen by the Hopis and very probably the Navajo. Unlike the Aztecs, the Hopis put this Spanish Pahana to a series of tests, and when he failed them they sent him on his way."
In the Pahana section:
The legend of the Pahana seems intimately connected with the Aztec story of Quetzalcoatl, and other legends of Central America. This similarity is furthered by the liberal representation of Awanyu or the Paluliikon, the horned or plumed serpent, in Hopi and other Puebloan art. In the early 16th century, both the Hopis and the Aztecs believed that the coming of the Spanish conquistadors was the return of this lost white prophet. Unlike the Aztecs, upon first contact the Hopi put the Spanish through a series of tests in order to determine their divinity, and having failed, the Spanish were sent away from the Hopi mesas.
The information doesn't seem entirely redundant; might the best course of action be to merge the paragraphs but keep the result in the Pahana section alone (disputed accuracy notwithstanding)? – spida-tarbell (talk) 00:45, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposing removal of redundant reference to legend of the Pahana