Talk:Thunderbird (mythology)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Dab page

Please see the discussion at talk:Thunderbird_(disambiguation). - UtherSRG 20:11, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Sightings

Although the text removed is recording sightings of doubtful scientific accuracy, in my opinion that is not enough reason to remove them. DJ Clayworth 17:48, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with DJ Clayworth. Added comments are necessary indications to the story. In fact, the text added was enough to inspire months of following the Thunderbird, almost uniquely as a god/spirit. See user edits between Rowe and I and, please back me in democratically trying to restore them. They come from the International Council of 13 Indigenous Grandmothers. EM Che (talk) 22:53, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Those comments you are referring too are from 7 years ago. No pseudoscientific, fringe, new agey bullshit will be added to this article, per our policies on WP:FRINGE, WP:UNDUE, and WP:RELIABLE. Also, see WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. Inclusion in Wikipedia is not decided by democratic vote counting. There is no right to edit Wikipedia, no freedom of religion or the press, not a place to crusade for your beliefs, or whatever other misunderstanding you may have about WP. What matters is does it follow our policies for accuracy, verifiability and reliability. The nonsense you want to add does not. Stop with this please. Heiro 23:17, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Tatoosh

I did a little work on the page Tatoosh Wilderness and the page Tatoosh that may or may not be helpful to the editor that takes on the task of getting the references for this page. It is my understanding the "tatoosh" is the word for Thunderbird. Jeepday 03:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Work

This article needs to be worked on a lot. Between the skepticism and scientific citations, it still continues to be a big part of Indigenous culture, spirituality, and beliefs to this day. I'll work on it as much as I can, but I'll need help for editing afterwards. I just feel something as important as one of the gods needs to be fixed up more. OldManRivers 13:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Alaska sighting details?

In 2002, a new sighting in Alaska was announced; the most probable explanation was a stray Steller's Sea Eagle.

Where and when? Myself I remember something from a flight from the Panhandle to upper Alaska back in the late '90s or so, maybe early '00s, where passengers of a commercial liner all saw a giant bat-winged bird somewhere over the Malaspina or Kluane icefields; nobody thought to take a picture of course (?). This sounds more like Crooked Beak, one of the three bird-servants of Cannibal-Giant-at-the-North-End-of-the-World from Kwakwaka'wakw lore, though, than it does a thunderbird; coulda been Hook-nosed Beak though, I guess ;-).Skookum1 23:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

This artical needs more information in it, For the artifact projects in the eighth grade they need precise information for their typing report they all come to me telling me they can't find information— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.66.202.21 (talk) 19:48, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Thunderbird and Whale

OldManRivers, could you please have a look at this, which is a splinter article off Thunderbird that I wrote; I'm pretty sure the main version that I was raised with was from the Comox, from an old school text which also included Forbidden Plateau, which perhaps you could also look at. The differences between Pacific Northwest thunderbird lore (a handy older English word which I use also for my own hereditary cultures as opposed to mythology, stories etc; it also implies "learning") and Southwest versions should also be laid out; and I suspect the California peoples, or some of them, have their own. Might even be in Eastern/Southeast peoples - I'll ask User:Phaedriel (she's Comanche), but I'm not sure she's back from wikibreak. Thunderbird's a large topic in the long run, doncha think? BTW have you ever heard of the Piasa? Might have to do with Cahokia, which is another big topic area of unknowns and "lost lore", like so much else everywhere (as also in Europe, cf. Skara Brae, Drogheda, Avebury, et al.). The Thunderbird and Whale article also needs more references; and I'm sure there's Kwakwaka'wakw versions, if this one's not already Kwakwaka'wakw and not Comox, and I know the Thunderbird figures among the Haida, though not as prominently as Raven.Skookum1 00:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Is this the photo from the 1890 Arizona sighting?

I found this on Google...

http://z.about.com/d/paranormal/1/0/r/Q/1/thunderbird.jpg

All three sections inappropriate here

I'm not in the mood to do it just now, but the cryptozoology, teratorn and sporting teams section are ALL INAPPROPRIATE here and shyoluld be moved; this page is supposedly for indigneous-culture content; there's already Thunderbird (cryptozoology) and similar for the other sections, additions to this page should have to do with aboriginal mythology. Period.Skookum1 (talk) 17:08, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I forgot how bad this article is. I'll do my best to get to this and re-write/write more on it. I'll search for some sources in the meantime, then write away soon. Thanks for reminding me. OldManRivers (talk) 19:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I posted a mention on Talk:Thunderbird (cryptozoology) about trimming/migrating what's here, with 24hrs I'll go ahead and do it; not sure about the sports stuff, it oculd be on the disambiguation page if it weren't directly linked, i.e. historically, to the NW thunderbird myths/image.Skookum1 (talk) 19:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Source, dated but useful

• Indian History of the Northwest - Siwash by J.A. Costello, 1909, has some useful survey items on the Thunderbird myth across different peoples as perceived by white people of the time (i.e. this isn't an indigenously-accurate source). Starts on page 53, "Twana Thunderbird" but continues on into next chapters also, covering Costello's impression of Haida, Nuu-chah-nulth, Lakota/Dakota and other thunderbird myths.Skookum1 (talk) 17:08, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Cryptozoology

Why is there an article specifically for cryptozoology and then this article which says it's not for cryptozoology, but all the article is is cryptozoology? Now I need to look someplace else for information on the mythical Thunderbird. 24.218.218.197 (talk) 18:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Black Tusk and Mount Cayley

Should Black Tusk and Mount Cayley be included this article? They are landing places of the Thunderbird. Black Tusk 19:06, 03 June 2008 (UTC)

We could, but we'll be adding like a few dozen mountains up and down the coast. I obviously don't know them all, but I've heard of mountains from Alaska to Washington. Actually, there's a cool story about the Thunderbird wrestling with the Sea-serpent someone in the Puget Sound. Anyways, we can. OldManRivers (talk) 21:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

End section

Something is botched up at the end of the article, with a bunch of blank boxes taking up space and the categories neutralized. Anyone know how to fix that?--24.255.171.220 (talk) 03:10, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Depictions in popular culture

No mention of the film "The Mothman Prophecies"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.196.88.29 (talk) 16:18, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

No WP:RELIABLE source that passes WP:UNDUE to cite it? Heiro 16:21, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Also might be worth noting that the Storm Birds in Horizon: Zero Dawn are likely based on them. Milkshaketurtle79 (talk) 16:09, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Grandmothers Counsel the World: Women Elders Offer Their Vision for Our Planet

I'm pretty sure anything contained in this <ref name="tb_citation_">{{cite web|url=http://www.amazon.com/Grandmothers-Counsel-World-Elders-Vision/dp/1590302931|title="Grandmothers Counsel the World: Women Elders Offer Their Vision for Our Planet."|accessdate=26 February 2013}}</ref> does not pass WP:FRINGE, WP:UNDUE and WP:RELIABLE. Does anyone other than the IP edit warring to include this fringe new agey nonsense disagree with this assessment? Heiro 22:28, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I started a thread here Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Talk:Thunderbird (mythology). Heiro 22:36, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi. This is the International Council of Thirteen Indigenous Grandmothers, which had been prophesied for years before it actually happened, in 2004. The information is current and a great source for where the legend of the Thunderbird comes from. In fact, one of the best sources in paper writing that there is for the myth right now. Does anyone agree with me that this should be allowed and a real source for oral history? Thanks. EM Che

Anything based on so-called "ancient prophecies" definitely does not pass the policies I pointed out to you. Heiro 23:00, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

The entire story and legend of the Thunderbird is based on ancient prophecies. Respect please, Heiro. Have some idea of what you're trolling and editing before you start hate. I didn't take your edits down. This is a necessary evolution of the human race we're talking about, why would you be a troll if I have been firsthand living by these words for the last 6 months??? The Thunderbird has been keeping me sane and is a powerful messenger of ancient wisdoms... I beseech the community to restore additional stories and... physiological information about the TB that this guy has removed.,..? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.0.83.116 (talk) 17:58, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

As I told you before, find sources that pass WP:RELIABLE or WP:FRINGE. And confine your posts about this to this talk page so toher users can see it and weigh in, dont spread it to my talk page please. Heiro 18:05, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

We have two issues here: reliability and relevance. Something put together by a group of grandmothers definitely doesn't qualify as "academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks", and they're nothing like governmental sources, established news sources, or other non-academic entities with editorial oversight and a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". However, our reliable sources policy permits non-reliable sources to be used to cite the opinions of their authors; for example, "The Thirteen Grandmothers think...", when cited to something they put together, is perfectly fine as far as sourcing is concerned. But how relevant is it? Are the grandmothers widely known, influential, respected by the general public, etc.? We need to have reason to believe that their opinions are relevant, and as far as I can see, the grandmothers are virtually unknown and not regarded as influential in the field. Quoting their perspective is basically no more helpful than quoting the perspectives of Stephen Harper or Barack Obama, or of the Los Angeles Times or the Vancouver Sun; all four are highly influential in their fields, but because they're not authorities on the thunderbird, we shouldn't include their opinions — so why should we include the grandmothers, since they're not highly influential in any field? Nyttend (talk) 02:05, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

The International Council of 13 Indigenous Grandmothers initially met, for 7 days, on 11 October 2004 at the Dalai Lama's Menla Retreat Center on Panther Mountain in Phoenicia, New York, declaring themselves a council at that meeting. The choice of location for the meeting, the land of the Iroquois, was fitting as the Iroquois nation always consulted their own Council of Grandmothers, the Unami Clan of the Lenni Lenape before any decision was made. The Council was founded and sponsored by a non-profit organisation, The Center for Sacred Studies, under guidance of the Center's Spiritual Director Jeneane Prevatt (Supriano, S, (2009-08-03)). Grandmothers are the respected authority in a matriarchal culture. They have spoken in a way that is time-tested and urgent in our times of need; as a concern for the next seven generations. It looks like the film made based off of them won 'best of festival' and 'best documentary' at the Talking Circle Film Festival in Hawai'i in 2009. So, seriously guys lighten up. It might not be your fault, because natives have been a victim of oppression for a long time. But I hope you learned something, and I hope one of the responsible editor-vigilantes (we love you guys...) will return the edits from the 50.0 IP address, with necessary citation. Believe me, I have a lot of experience in this God. It's... one of the most significant return prophecies of 2013 for me so far. Accepting a neutral bystander judgment (not one who's been brought in by Heiro), or a cede on this one and a beautiful page. The text as was entered, and on Condor has been enough to be a spiritual decision for me. Thunderbird flies through. Namaste. EM Che (talk) 23:10, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

PS And whoever put up got it wrong, the Condor is said to carry the spirit of the ancient Thunderbird, not the Eagle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Council_of_13_Grandmothers#Book_published_about_The_Grandmothers — Preceding unsigned comment added by EM Che (talk • contribs) 03:52, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I can't speak to the matter of the prophecy, and there are other traditions of the Thunderbird than what I have seen referred to above; who were the thirteen, which peoples were they from and not just what I'm hearing above; with native traditions and clans of the Pacific Northwest peoples there are many differing stories of the thunderbird than what is described above. But in the matter of the authenticity of sources based in the native oral tradition - contemporary or historical - they are the primary source; in IPNA articles some deference to that has to be acknowledged. Not just because of Teit or Hill-Tout or Boas or whomever, who wrote down the oral tradition as told to them by elders of the day, and his neighbours. Modern sources on current native belief seem rational to include; as far as their version isn't presented as true and absolute; the book's notability though needs validating with more than an Amazon listing.

But Hiero, in regard to the authenticity of the oral tradition as a reliable source for court testimony, on the basis of decisions recognizing incorporating the native oral tradition into Canadian law, referring to British Common Law being written down from existing oral laws around the country. Also, as sovereign nations (under their own declaration -often with very good legal grounds) and now part of the Canadian constitutional system and a new "level" of government. So what's in their libraries, or on their websites, is a valid source like that of any other government. As far as an ad hoc council goes and only with only one book citation, not quite the same thing. My main point is to highlight the need to respect native oral traditions as valid as that of any academic or newspaper. But all in context; there are hundreds of native councils around North America each year, we can't report on all of them, only notable ones. Now, as a source for mythology vs its modern-era origins, even if it's a best seller and widely reviewed, it's still not as much a valid source as a publication from a band on their history and culture or accounts by modern native writers in hundreds of books based on the authentic native tradition and as held by modern natives; .

One other items, the Mohawk Woman's Council is one of the three arms of traditional Mohawk governance; during the Oka Crisis they mediated between the Warrior Society and the surrounding government encirclement siege, being the national voice of those inside, and holding them at bay....this was 24 hour TV for a week or two, not sure how much is on line, they are part of the constitutional apparatus of the Mohawk Nation/haudenosaunee now recognized like other FN peoples' by the courts to be part of their constitutional rights. All that will take time to sort out, but lately various rulings have added more heft to it. If this were that council of indigenous women, that would be a citation as far as modern or historical notability goes.Skookum1 (talk) 08:51, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Tseiqami

Longstanding merge request, but I can't find sources. It should either be a redirect/merge or sent to AfD. Doug Weller (talk) 11:48, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Inclusions of Modern Sightings and More Detailed Stories from Indigenous People

These need to be included for a full article — Preceding unsigned comment added by LordKelvinsMoniker (talk • contribs) 19:31, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

For an article about the mythological thunderbird? Ehh, no. This is an article about about a mythological creature, not cryptozoology. There may be a place for that here on wikipedia, but this article is emphatically NOT IT. Heiro 03:53, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 22 October 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No move. Cúchullain ^t/c 19:28, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

---

• Thunderbird (mythology) → Thunderbird
• Thunderbird → Thunderbird (disambiguation)

– Primary topic by longterm significance. The Ford Thunderbird? Named after this. The Thunderbird (cryptozoology)? Named after this. Mozilla Thunderbird? Named after this. There isn't a single item on the disambiguation page that isn't named after this creature. The concept has existed longer than any of them by a long shot. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 05:08, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose - primarily based on pageviews which do not show this is the primary search topic. There is no value in forcing a primary topic competition here. --Gonnym (talk) 08:46, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

• Per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, A topic is primary for a term with respect to long-term significance if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term. I'd say that is the case here, unless you're a muscle car buff. Pageviews are not the sole criterion for determining a primary topic. If they were, Apple Inc. would be located at Apple._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:17, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

And if long-term significance were the only decider, Mercury would look a bit different. Page views absolutely do matter. -- Fyrael (talk) 20:24, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

The other uses of Mercury are extremely prominent in all aspects of society, being the namesake of an essential element and a planet of our Solar System. Thunderbird does not have any other uses that are nearly as prominent._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:30, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose, no clear primary topic. —Xezbeth (talk) 12:36, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose, no primary topic. "Named after" is not that important of a factor. I'm very much not a car buff, but do own more than one book on mythological creatures. Yet I've seen and heard many references to the car and almost none to the creature. -- Fyrael (talk) 20:24, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose not even remotely close In ictu oculi (talk) 23:03, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

• Good thing there's no city called Thunderbird, Arizona! Red Slash 02:31, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

• Support per long term significance. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:37, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per... umm... the second criterion of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. "Greater long-term significance" does not mean "longer-lasting significance". It clearly means more significance. (What kind of significance? Long-term significance.) Red Slash 02:31, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

• Red Slash, correct, and the important historical and cultural symbol has more significance than the other items on the disamb. page, under either definition. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:22, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

• The nominator has made their case well, and I don't see anything at the moment or in the above discussion which significantly counters the nom's assertion that the cultural symbol is primary per long term significance. Willing to be convinced though. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:28, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

• How about... moving 'Thunderbird' singular to this page, as the nom asks, and keep Thunderbirds plural at the disamb. page with the U.S. Air Force Thunderbirds moved up to join the cultural icon as co-disamb primary? Randy Kryn (talk) 03:36, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support; primary by long-term significance, and arguably can serve as a WP:CONCEPTDAB. feminist (talk) 16:56, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per other opposers. Commenting to also oppose Randy Kryn's suggestion on the basis that if there is a primary topic for Thunderbirds (with the s), it would be the franchise spawned from Thunderbirds (TV series) (which wasn't named after the bird) the franchise currently doesn't have an article, but Works based on Thunderbirds could be re-written in to a broad concept article on the whole franchise. Iffy★Chat -- 13:25, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.