This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
This is an underdeveloped article with a few misleading specific details that do not represent the idea as a whole. Watch out.
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)
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)
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)
Removed citation needed from
I get what the editor was going after there, esp. since revisionist historians tend to downplay native credulity. However, the very next line is
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)
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)
Agree. Call Them All Religions or All Mythologies. This is outrageously illustrated here: List_of_religions#American and also at Native American mythology.
It also seems that in
comparative religion, something very important is ignored or undervalued: the relationships between Man, God, "salvation," and Nature. For example, in the
Abrahamic religions, those are all external to each other, God and Nature are outside of Man, etc.
--
68.127.87.182 (
talk)
00:50, 19 July 2011 (UTC)Doug Bashford
Right? These are the Hopi. Section needs their views of photography. 143.232.210.150 ( talk) 23:17, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
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. [1]. Dougweller ( talk) 16:32, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
I've heard some vague references to the prophecies of the Hopi people and how some of them have come true. As such I turned to Wikipedia to get the low-down on whole thing. I entered in Hopi prophecy in the search and was brought to this page through a redirect. This page says NOTHING about the Hopi Prophecies, I ask that a section either be added to this page regarding this or an article be written about the prophecies. I'm certain that I'm not the only person to make this search and come out disappointed as I was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.83.177.22 ( talk) 04:08, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
I had one edit adding the Mythology Template to this article reverted by Netherzone, 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 CorbieVreccan 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)
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)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
This is an underdeveloped article with a few misleading specific details that do not represent the idea as a whole. Watch out.
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)
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)
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)
Removed citation needed from
I get what the editor was going after there, esp. since revisionist historians tend to downplay native credulity. However, the very next line is
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)
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)
Agree. Call Them All Religions or All Mythologies. This is outrageously illustrated here: List_of_religions#American and also at Native American mythology.
It also seems that in
comparative religion, something very important is ignored or undervalued: the relationships between Man, God, "salvation," and Nature. For example, in the
Abrahamic religions, those are all external to each other, God and Nature are outside of Man, etc.
--
68.127.87.182 (
talk)
00:50, 19 July 2011 (UTC)Doug Bashford
Right? These are the Hopi. Section needs their views of photography. 143.232.210.150 ( talk) 23:17, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
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. [1]. Dougweller ( talk) 16:32, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
I've heard some vague references to the prophecies of the Hopi people and how some of them have come true. As such I turned to Wikipedia to get the low-down on whole thing. I entered in Hopi prophecy in the search and was brought to this page through a redirect. This page says NOTHING about the Hopi Prophecies, I ask that a section either be added to this page regarding this or an article be written about the prophecies. I'm certain that I'm not the only person to make this search and come out disappointed as I was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.83.177.22 ( talk) 04:08, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
I had one edit adding the Mythology Template to this article reverted by Netherzone, 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 CorbieVreccan 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)
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)