Talk:Kachina

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, which collaborates on Native American, First Nations, Inuit, Métis and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale.

This article has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it needs.

This article is supported by WikiProject Mythology .

This project provides a central approach to Mythology-related subjects on Wikipedia.
Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.

Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

[edit]

Does Kachina need to be capitalized? (Few English nouns do.)Vicki Rosenzweig

I've seen it both ways, but I don't know for sure. Tokerboy

No, kachina and katsina do not need to be capitalized. Only the proper names of each being (e.g., Mongwa, Sohu, or Qoqole) need to be. FYI katsina is becoming the accepted spelling, as it is closer to the Hopi pronunciation.

[edit] Sourcing and references

...would be useful. There is an inherent problem in sourcing and reliability about Hopi and other Puebloan societies, who have oral histories, protect religious information as secrets, regard scholarship as irrelevant, intrusive, or even culturally exploitive, etc. There's also a lot of nonsense out there, even from published sources. Lacking any real information people opine. Maybe that means we have to keep these articles very brief and limit it to simple, objective info. That cautious approach would probably please both the article subjects and the Wikipedia people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikidemo (talkcontribs) 02:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

And God forbid we read any of the reams and reams of literature the University of Arizona and other universities in the southwest have published about the topic, of course--even the Hopi aren't all that closed-mouthed.
How is it possible that there's more information about Candomble on Wikipedia than there is about almost any Native American religion? Even the Navajo get severely short shrift, and they're the biggest Native nation in the U.S. And their religion's been copiously documented, too--there's no excuse for all this stuff not to be up here. Nagakura shin8 (talk) 18:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)