|| This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of ||
||This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
||This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
This article is (imo) a mess. I intended to add a section on Si`italpuva, the Land Brightened with Flowers, from Plateau. Fall 2006 (a beautiful issue) -- but got sidetracked. I started the cleanup, but need help! TIA, Pete Tillman (talk) 21:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC) (Rimrock, AZ)
- It appears that this website could be a good resource, but it should be verified before we use it to revise the article. Help? Pete Tillman (talk) 21:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
To Pete Tillman - that website is is not a good resource. It's a sales site for art and the Hopi info has been c+p'ed from other websites. Most sites like than on the internet are dubious at best.
Gregory Schaaf is a credible historian for this subject. Ancient Ancestors of the Southwest ( pub 1996 ISBN 1-55868-255-4) is a good basic primer... This page just gets worse and worse. It's been chopped and changed countless times and is full of inaccuracies and bad grammar not to mention photographs and images that many Hopi may find offensive. Better to tear the whole thing down and start over or just leave out... June 16 2009...Aarionrhod (talk)
- Why don't you try to add some referenced improvements; and clean up inaccuracies where you can...Modernist (talk) 02:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
That would be a project in itself. Good suggestion, though obviously time consuming, but clearly needs doing. Am local, too. BTW, I like your page Modernist... Aarionrhod (talk)
- I was just thinking the last time I visited Mishongnovi and the other towns on the other Mesa's was 34 years ago, and things were changing then...I can only imagine the changes today..Modernist (talk) 03:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi Modernist - we're at 3rd mesa here. You'd probably be more surprised about just how little everything has probably changed! Plus ça change! Aarionrhod (talk) 01:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
- I'd like to return some day..I met some terrific artists at Hopid, back in the 70s...Modernist (talk) 01:47, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Modernist - Have added some small ref'ed bits and also added some names to the 'famous Hopi' list - am guessing you added many/most of the artists? Aarionrhod (talk) 03:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
- A few...you are doing an excellent job..Modernist (talk) 03:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
adding to See Also
The two articles both Black Indians and the One-Drop Rule affects all people of native heritage. How are they not historical? Even though mixture with African Americans and Native American tribes from the west don't occur as much as the eastern and southeastern tribes by far. Those two articles are still apart of Native American history.Mcelite (talk) 04:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- The Hopi are a particularly indigenous group; with very closed social parameters. The two articles might pertain better to cultures that are more widely assimilated then the Hopi. The additions need to be specifically referenced to the Hopi culture and to the Hopi people. Modernist (talk) 04:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- Agree. There are only a small handful of Hopi who have an African American parent/grandparent. Moreover, interesting to note that there exists a longstanding antagonism among Hopi, especially older Hopi, toward African Americans - I have been told that it originates from the 1800's when Buffalo Soldiers were dispached to Hopi. Aarionrhod (talk) 01:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Interessting Explanations of hopi-spirituality and actual efforts on http://www.ica8.org/
Shaq3 (talk) 12:10, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
I may be mistaken of course, but this "Arizona" pot on the photo looks very much like Zuni to me--Radh (talk) 05:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
[[''[[''The Navajo, or Diné, of the Southwestern United States are the second largest Native American tribe of Northern America. In the 2000 U.S. census, 298,197 people claimed to be fully or partly of Navajo ancestry. The Navajo Nation constitutes an independent governmental body which manages the Navajo Indian reservation in the Four Corners area of the United States. The traditional Navajo language is still largely spoken throughout the region, although most Navajo speak English fluently as well. Navajo refer to themselves in their native language as Diné, which is translated as "the people" in'']] English.
in this Section here it is told, the Reservation was increased 1992 to 1,500,000 acres (6,100 km²) - ok so far - but some lines later is here told, "...On their 1,800,000-acre (7,300 km²) reservation, there is a significant amount ..." - so suddenly they have 1,200 km² more than 1992? - thanks in advice -- Hartmann Schedel cheers 16:30, 28 September 2010 (UTC) Sorry but somebody forget to "end" the nowiki -- Hartmann Schedel cheers 16:31, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
What is the Hopi's diet ?
Please can someone add a section on the Hopi diet. It can be placed in the Culture section. --220.127.116.11 (talk) 17:06, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
This is far from a B-class article
This article appears to be written by people who have never been to the Hopi reservation.
The article completely fails to mention the spiritual dislike of the Hopi for photography and even (noted on signs around the Reservation) against sketching and note taking.
Examining a number of other books on the Hopi, those works which show interiors exclude photos of tribal members. Even the surrounding Navajo have a degree of sensitivity to picture taking reflected in their tourist documents, the National Park Service documents, and more (signage, but not to the extent of the Hopi). 18.104.22.168 (talk) 21:33, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Chipewyan people which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 09:30, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Cayuga people which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 18:44, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 23:20, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Hopi people → Hopi – target is redirect to current title created by move by Kwami on May 17 2011 contrary to WP:UNDAB. Hopi (disambiguation) exists and is mentioned in current title's hatnote Skookum1 (talk) 04:21, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose until the issue is addressed properly. These should be discussed at a centralized location.
- There was a discussion once on whether the ethnicity should have precedence for the name, and it was decided it shouldn't. That could be revisited. But it really should be one discussion on the principle, not thousands of separate discussions at every ethnicity in the world over whether it should be at "X", "Xs", or "X people". — kwami (talk) 12:49, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
- A discussion you held only with other people who frequent WP:NCL and which you did not deign to inform any affected wikiproject, the results of which are in blatant conflict with CRITERIA/TITLE and various other guidelines; and where "There was a discussion once on whether the ethnicity should have precedence for the name, and it was decided it shouldn't." this was you are avoiding saying - unless you're referring to the flawed guideline you authored yourself; "it was decided it shouldn't" is tantamount to saying "I decided it shouldn't", if that's the case. I've seen all kinds of discussions of these issues and was also around when such matters were being discussed and the name-only titles established as a de facto convention because we did take into account the very guidelines you ignored when writing and privateley chatting up your preferred changes to WP:NCL. You've got a WP:OWN issue going on with your forcing "FOO people" titles all over the globe, and NOW you want a centralized discussion you say; no that's only a tactic like trying to shut this down as; to protect your questionable handiwork and call for yet more discussion instead of common-sense action.Skookum1 (talk) 18:10, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
- "Common sense action" meaning removing needless disambiguations and untidy redirects by the thousands and no actual work done on the articles, not even fixing the ledes.Skookum1 (talk) 18:15, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
- Comment Since the general discussions of related moves at Talk:Cayuga_people and Talk:Chipewyan_people (mentioned above) have ended respectively as opposing the moves and without consensus, in the interest of uniformity I recommend closing this discussion. SteveMcCluskey (talk) 17:44, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
- they did not end up "opposing the moves", they were no consensus and not moved. I was criticized in those bulk RMs for not filing them separately so they could be discussed separately; so I did. And now hearing from the person who moved thousands of such titles without discussion or consultation or any RM whatsoever, that he wants a centralized discussion. Wanting to see this closed because the bulk RM containing it was "no consensus" (not "opposed") does not invalidate this RM as you are both trying to maintain. This is a case of a simple redirect from an unnecessary dab back to the original title, nothing more. And you want to throw this out as having already been rejected when in fact it wasn't??Skookum1 (talk) 18:04, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
- Support. In this case, the Hopi ethnic group is overwhelmingly the primary topic, and the previous move was undiscussed and unilateral. Regarding having the discussion at a centralized place, each of the situations are unique, so they need to be discussed on the individual pages. -Uyvsdi (talk) 18:12, 21 March 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi
- We have a centralize guideline for these things. We're not talking about an exceptional case here. I have no problem with Skookum wanting to change the guidelines, but it should really be done there, not piecemeal.
- As for not cleaning up, I had started to do that, until Skookum got upset. Now he's upset that I stopped. (Did just a minor clean up the lead, though it probably wasn't needed when the page was moved.) — kwami (talk) 22:48, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
- The guidelines are here at: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ethnicities and tribes). You were part of the discussion that led to them: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (people)/Archive 7, which was blissfully civil and productive. I do see that some agreed-upon changes have somehow been reverted in the cut-and-paste move, but we can take that up on the conventions talk page (e.g., it was agreed to remove Elbonians (ethnic group)/Macedonians (ethnic group), since you had pointed out it was only used once). A one-size-fits-all plan won't work, as WP:WikiProject Ethnic groups had determined repeated in the years that it was still active. -Uyvsdi (talk) 22:58, 21 March 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi
- Then why are NCL groupies insistent that "people" MUST be added when as is regularly claimed; see CambridgeBayWeather's reply to Jorisv on "Nisga'a people" and here on "Hopi people" concerning precision and redirects]. None of these moves were necessary; cases where "people" must be used are Mohawk people, which was at Mohawk nation which was an utterly problematic title (see that talkpage). And WP:Ethnic groups is not "inactive" it is "semi-active"....but I'm used to such misrepresentations and exaggerations around here.Skookum1 (talk) 02:03, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.