Talk:Pele (deity)

Renaming the page

As there are still people who worship Pele it is an insult to them to have this page titled "Pele (mythology)", you do not see the same treatment for Vishnu or Jesus. Therefore I am going to rename this page to "Pele". As this the subject of this article is what most people think of when they hear the name, there is no need for any parathentical qualifiers to follow it.

There has been a recent special on the history channel about the continuing worship of Pele and other ancestoral gods in Hawaii. And you can see as recent as May 25, 2007 an Associated Press news story saying "The area [Halemaumau Crater, at the summit of Kilauea] is one of the most popular parts of the park and is revered by Native Hawaiians as the home of Pele, goddess of the volcano."

See http://www.thestate.com/166/story/72786.html or http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/252/story/44414.html

--Wowaconia 19:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Contesting that the word Pele is more associated with the goddess than the footballer

I disagree that the subject of this article is the most common usage of the term Pele. Based on Google searching and reviewing incoming links to Pele, I think it's more likely that most people searching for "Pele" are looking for the footballer, and Pele should accordingly redirect to Pelé. If it's true that (mythology) is an inaccurate parenthetical qualifier, I support moving Pele (mythology) to a more appropriate title, such as Pele (goddess) or Pele (deity). --Muchness 21:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd thought of Pele (deity) before coming here, and would support that as the best compromise, with Pele remaining as a disambiguator. --DeLarge 22:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• I have redirected Pele to Pele (disambiguation). Anthony Appleyard 22:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose No matter if this page moves or not, I believe "Pele" should still redirect to the soccer/football player. You might have considered waiting to mess with the redirect before you could get feedback on the move (not Anthony, Wowaconia). Nothing wrong with Pele (deity), but I oppose move to Pele by itself. --Cheers, Komdori 00:17, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose The footballer Pele is clearly primary usage, and I agree that Pele should be a redirect to the footballer (most users are not going to know how to type the acute accented é). Not opposed to Pele (mythology) moving to another name, such as Pele (deity) or Pele (religion) though. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:24, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

On the use of the name Pele (mythology)

As a believer in Pele, I am not insulted by it being called mythology - that does not diminish the importance of the spiritual connection or belief. However, I am insulted by the insinuation that it is a racially exclusive belief (to native Hawaiians only), and by the implication that it should be treated in the same way major western religions are labeled. --JereKrischel 06:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I point out that the term mythology as it is commmonly understood is at odds with the above interpretation by User:JereKrischel, as this quote from the wikipage Mythology shows (emphasis added) "A popular meaning (which [the] English [word] myth shares with Greek μῦθος) of a rumour, misconception or mistaken belief, is in marked contrast to the meaning 'stories of deep cultural or spiritual significance'." By common understanding the word myth means an untruth, such as the claim that there are giant alligators in the sewers of New York. The Urban Legend page uses the term interchangibly with that of legend "Brunvand used his collection of legends, The Vanishing Hitchhiker: American Urban Legends & Their Meanings to make two points: first, that legends, myths and folklore do not occur exclusively to so-called primitive or traditional societies". So it is an urban myth that monster alligators live in the sewers of NY. The word myth is used to negate claims of deep spiritual significance. User:JereKrischel and specialist academics may use the term mythology differently than how it is understood in commmon usage, but by Wikipedia:Naming conventions it is the common usage that articles must reflect. A group's deeply held faith should be given more respect than being held on par with the legend of monster sewer gators.

I would be open to calling the religion something besides Native Hawaiian religion not because I know of anyone practicing it who is not a Native Hawaiian (though this could obviously happen) but because there are plenty of Native Hawaiian's who are not practitioners of this faith (the majority seem to be in denominations of Christianity). The US government's "The Native Hawaiians Study Commission" (created by the Congress of the United States on December 22, 1980 under Title III of Public Law 96-565) refers to this faith as Native Hawaiian Religion, but the most preferred name would be whatever its practitioners call it even if the word or phrase is not in English. Still, these active beliefs (which are held to have deep cultural or spiritual significance) must be called a religion and not mere mythology.

--Wowaconia 18:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I practice this religion, and although I have native Hawaiian cousins, I do not myself have native Hawaiian genetic material. I also know of many others in Hawaii who also practice this religion and have no Hawaiian blood - nearly anyone with family there for generations will know not to take pork over the pali, for example, to avoid angering Pele.

As to your assertion that it must be called "religion" rather than "mythology", because of some sort of "respect" is a particularly western-biased point of view I think. I'm particularly concerned with the attempt to classify the mythological and spiritual beliefs of Hawaii into an organized "religion". AFAIK, there is no "church" or "heiau" or hierarchy of ancient Hawaiian religion, and even the neo-kapu religion practitioners are not organized or concrete in their dogma or practices.

The NHSC report on "Native Hawaiian Religion" quotes my kupuna Rubellite Johnson, and she clearly indicates that there is a complexity that includes animism, animatism, and the upheaval of 1819 that destroyed the kahuna's power and authority. Imagine if the pope suddenly declared that all of Catholic dogma was mistaken - and that every Catholic felt duty bound to abide by the pope's revelation. Much the same happened in 1819.

I think you've made the mistake of imposing your western-values about "respect", "truth", "lies", and "spirituality" to a tradition that cannot be bounded by typically western concepts.

Also, AFAIK, most "traditional practitioners" are typically Congregationalist Christian, and they see no discontinuity or conflict in practicing a Christian religion while still holding beliefs and cultural practices related to ancient Hawaiian mythology. --JereKrischel 22:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Editors reading my and User:JereKrischel's discussion on mythology vs. religion should be aware that this is an understandable tangent from a discussion we are having about whether the page Hawaiian mythology should be renamed Native Hawaiian religion it is apropo here as the opening sentence of this Pele article links to that page and Pele seems to have an extremely important place in these beliefs.

I would point out that concerning whether we call these beliefs mythology or religion within articles of Wikipedia the outcome must be in line with the organizations established guidelines atWikipedia:Naming conventions. These state "Generally, article naming should prefer to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature." So while User:JereKrischel may reject the common defenition of some terms such as "mythology", "religion", and "truth" as being overly Westernized it is not a question of Westernized or Easternized but of what is the most common usage of these terms among the majority of English speakers.

Certainly if there are reliable well documented experts on the matter who call this belief mythology they can be mentioned in a segment within the article but to the general English user, to convey the seriousness to which practioners hold these beliefs the term religion is preferable to mythology. I would not have any problem referring to the faith as Ancient Hawaiian religion as the people who follow it take pride in it being old and this would strip it of the ethnic connotations that both JereKrischel and I find troubling. Then experts on both sides could be cited within the article around the question of whether the ongoing practices are part of an unbroken chain or not.

I would further point out to User:JereKrischel that he himself in the above paragraphs refers to his belief using this exact same term in his first thread he states that he knows "of many others in Hawaii who also practice this religion" and in the opening sentence of his last entry he states "I practice this religion". So when trying to convey to non-specialists that he holds these beliefs in a serious manner he uses the term religon. As Wikipedia articles are geared to be open to anyone regardless of expertise I think this usage should be applied to all articles on this faith under the title Ancient Hawaiian Religion.

E kala mai, I was using your words Wowaconia, forgive me if they were inappropriate. I should have put "religion" in quotes to indicate the nature of my statement. I've written more extensively on your talk page in hopes of reducing your confusion on the topic. --JereKrischel 18:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

P.S. If the Pope declared all Catholic dogma null and void he would be declared a heretic and deposed by the College of Cardinals. Its in their ecclesiastical bylaws (see Summa Theologica, De Romano Pontifice, and De Fide). Catholicism holds that the Pope can not invent or destory doctrine he is merely the final guardian of the Treasury of the Apostles (i.e. all the info the hold that that Jesus' apostles conveyed to their successors). This almost happened to a Pope in the middle ages John XXII. Catholicism holds that there are two types of tradition, "BIG T" Tradition that was handed down to humanity through the apostles in a direct line to them and "small t" tradition things that have been practiced for a long time, perhaps centuries but can be changed to promote good order within the faith or to adjust as humanity advances (such as the position on slavery or the use of Latin in the masses). So even if all the "small t" traditions change completely overnight they would still be called members of the Catholic religion.

As many religions do radical changes in practice and still carry forward the same name (such as members of the Latter Day Saints embracing than rejecting polygamy, or (according to the Christians' Scriptures) the apostle Peter and Jewish Christians refusing to eat non-Kosher animals until he had a vision telling him otherwise. Therefore I maintain that though many changes in traditions have occurred within those claiming to follow the Ancient Hawaiian Religion the things that remain the same are the core issues, such as the belief that Pele is an actual supernatural entity with her own will.

Wowaconia 23:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

How radical of a change is necessary before you would recognize a religion as different? Would you feel justified in lumping every Judeo-christian-islam religion together as the "native Middle-east religion"? And if the College of Cardinals supported the pope in declaring all Catholic dogma null (as was effectively done with the priests of Ku and the Hawaiian Monarchy with Kaahumanu and Kamehameha III), would that be a better analogy? AFAIK, no native Hawaiian religion ever held that their gods could not invent or destroy doctrine - and since the ali'i were considered as gods, most practitioners in 1819 felt duty bound to abandon their ancient religion because the gods had decreed it. Odd to think that in order to preserve their ancient religion they would have to inherently break their own fundamental beliefs, isn't it? :) --JereKrischel 18:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Removed Original Research on rocks

"Every year thousands of lava rock pieces are shipped back to Hawaii from around the world from people who claim to have experienced horrible misfortune since removing the rocks and send letters asking for Pele's forgiveness."

This line removed because nothing is cited to support the claim.

Gin

It should be mentioned that its customary to placate Pele a bottle of gin, thrown into the volcano or onto a lava flow BethEnd 20:07, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

That unfortunate "custom" was due to George Lycurgus. Might include it here, since I did have a source. Of course prohibited by park officials. W Nowicki (talk) 18:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Also Vaccinium reticulatum berries Dysmorodrepanis 21:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Kalakaua legend?

What's with the legend in Kalakaua's collection, about Pele, Halema'uma'u, the ama'uma'u fern and Kamapua'a? Seems to be localized on the Big Island, explaining the Halema'uma'u etymology. Dysmorodrepanis 21:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Plagarized

I have completely deleted text plagarized from Coffee Times, incorporated wholesale on February, 2008. And how does a commercial site for coffee become a citable ref for encyclopedia article, anyway? 71.234.215.133 (talk) 02:14, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Beware about this: it may be that the Coffee Times plagiarized from Wikipedia, and not the other way around. This happens more often than you'd think. I'll look into it if you want. --NellieBly (talk) 02:16, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

And I take that back: it's a copyvio plain and simple. Good catch, 71.234.215.133! --NellieBly (talk) 02:21, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

It just did not read correctly, not for a Wiki article. The tip-off was the seemingly random sentence, "Madame Pele always manages to produce some sort of excitement for her guests...". It was so bizarre as to raise flags - and it turned out to be an image caption on Coffee Times.

I wish I had been able to paraphrase it, but in the end it would not have mattered: a spiffy article on a deity by a coffee seller does not the citation make. 71.234.215.133 (talk) 02:33, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed! It's borderline profane in a theological sense, given that people actually do still worship Pele. --NellieBly (talk) 02:34, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I haven't read the article closely and you may be right about its content, but in general the author of the article Betty Fullard-Leo is a respected journalist and this newspaper happens to put out fairly decent work. I wouldn't dismiss it out of hand. Makana Chai (talk) 08:04, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

We are talking plagiarism and the use of a coffee seller as a citation for a deity, not whether a journalist is respectable (although now I wonder if she was copyvio'd by the coffee seller). 71.234.215.133 (talk) 08:14, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

|| A Young man named Noil

I've read the reference given for this, although in scanned form – both on Google and Sacred Texts – and can't find the name "Noil" in it anywhere. It doesn't sound particularly Hawaiian either. The love of her life, whose story takes up much of the book, is Lohiau, the chief of Kaua‘i, although she has other husbands and dalliances. I'm changing it to "a young chief named Lohiau," since that at least appears in the text and fits the context of the sentence. Lee-Anne (talk) 07:10, 29 April 2011 (UTC)