|WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America||(Rated B-class)|
|WikiProject Mythology||(Rated B-class, Mid-importance)|
- 1 Creation Story
- 2 Self-contradictory?
- 3 Not meant to be known...
- 4 is there an "only one way" version of Navajo Mythology?
- 5 Religion or Mythologies?
- 6 Fifth world
- 7 Illustration of Navajo cosmology
- 8 Is having the full text in the article best practice?
- 9 What is this?
- 10 Assessment comment
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 184.108.40.206 (talk) 02:14, 3 October 2006 (UTC).
I've reworked the four worlds story using Ethelou Yazzie's Navajo History which is a collection of traditional stories put together for the Navajo Curriculum Center. This is one of the books used as the basis for a required segment of Navajo culture taught in schools on the Navajo reservation. I don't think we can get any more "meant to be known" than materials created specifically for the K-12th grade classroom.
I've also deleted the "Prophecy" section since it didn't make much sense. The only excerpt in the source that pertained to Navajos was distorted--the Holy People visitation was actually a request for a specific type of prayer that was no longer common and NOT a prophecy. I'll put the urls here just for the curious even if they do not have a proper place in the article:
- American Prophecy - 2 http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/profecias/esp_profecia01h2.htm
- Robert A. Nelson: American Prophecy http://www.rexresearch.com/usa/usaproph.htm
I got interested in this section (Creation Story) because I recently came across an old scholarly transcription by Aileen O'Bryan of the creation story as told in 1928 by Hastiin Tlo'tsi Hee, a Navajo ceremony leader who did not speak English. I compared his version to that reported by Zolbrod in Diné Bahane', and was intrigued by both the similarities and the discrepancies. I went to Wikipedia to see how the account there would compare to the other sources, and found Asdzani Bah's summary from Thelou Yazzie. I found that Yazzie's summary was a very credible resolution, and have expanded on it drawing on Zolbrod and Hastiin Tlo'tsi Hee while remaining true to the outline in Yazzie's Navajo History. WAlanDavis (talk) 05:20, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
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)
- 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)
Not meant to be known...
Then why is it on here.
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)
I first read Zolbrod's 431-page account, Diné Bahane', which drew on both the very old Washington Matthews manuscripts (1883, 1884, 1886) and contributions from living medicine men, and assumed that was the "correct version." But then I discovered other old transcriptions (Hastiin Tlo'tsi Hee, 1928) and several online versions with many discrepancies. A friend, Dr. James Hester, retired archeologist from the University of Colorado, argued that because the Navajo have always lived spread out over a very larger territory, it is almost unavoidable that their oral sacred stories should have different versions from place to place and from time to time. The rules I follow are: (a) respect old versions to retain historical continuity, (b) emphasize common elements, such as Coyote stealing the children of Tééhoołtsódii, and the Twins encountering their father The Sun, which appear in nearly all versions, while dropping stories that appear in only one version or contain inconsistencies and (c) respect the living tradition of current practicing ceremonial leaders. WAlanDavis (talk) 05:34, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
sources: personal communication
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)
- 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)
- 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)
Religion or Mythologies?
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.
--220.127.116.11 (talk) 19:32, 20 July 2011 (UTC)Doug Bashford
- 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)
Is having the full text in the article best practice?
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)
- More like worse practice. It might be useful to look at the history. Doug Weller talk 19:29, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
What is this?
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)
- 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)
Diné Bahaneʼ (Navajo: "Story of the People"), the Navajo 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)
- 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)
The comment(s) below were originally left at several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section., and are posted here for posterity. Following
|I've revised parts of this by simplifying the language in order to make the meaning clearer, but certainly not with any intention of changing the meaning in any way. Despite this, if I have inadvertently changed any meaning inappropriately, my apologies, and I trust some kind, well-informed soul will correct any such error(s). I have also made a few minor corrections (eg. punctuation, proper noun/name normalisations).|
Substituted at 21:40, 26 June 2016 (UTC)