Talk:Zuni people

Confusing Intro.

The beginning is confusing: 'Archaeology suggests that the Zuni have been farmers in their present location for 3,000 to 4,000 years. It is now thought that the Zuni people have inhabited the Zuni River valley since the last millennium B.C.,..." Which is it? 3 to 4000 years ago or in the last millennium BC? It goes on to say that they live in the Zuni Valley, and that that is their present location. Venqax (talk) 02:15, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah that doesn’t make any sense. Ncreynolds80 (talk) 23:19, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Gaps

Theres sort of a big gap there- makes it looks like the article ends. I suppose it has to do with one of the images (as it doesnt exist in the edit window). Any ideas? ~ User:Urukagina

There also seems to be a general gap in information. Maybe a history of the Zunis would be beneficial?

Gutenberg text with illustrations

Perhaps worth adding some text and pictures from this Project Gutenberg text: The Religious Life of the Zuni Child.--Eloquence* 19:52, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Zuni vs. Zuñi

By all outward appearances, Zuñi is the correct spelling. Since there are no technical impediments to using the correct spelling for the article title, why is Zuñi instead a redirect here? Shouldn't it be the other way around? Matt Gies 19:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree.--BMF81 17:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The name and spelling of Zuñi with the tilde was given to us by the Spanish conquistadores in the 16th century. It is not known how they derived this name. Zuni without the tilde is the English spelling.

Ewato 20:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)ewato

Yes, the Zuni spelling is the current and English one. It is an exonym in any case. The Zuni don't call themselves either one.Venqax (talk) 02:19, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Zuni fetishes

Is there any info on the Zuni fetishes? If there isn't then I'll have to put up what I have to offer. I have a good bit of zuni fetish info that I can add if there isn't any place that already has it.Mattkenn3 22:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

omeone haced pge n crfts ection - please corect

color="#000000" face="courier new">fisto]] 23:52, 1 February 2008 (TC)

Mention of Japanese influence hypothesis

I think this is warranted. The evidence seems quite convincing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.48.33.133 (talk) 05:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, the whole reason I came to this page was to learn more about this theory! Why isn't it mentioned!? I had to search the history to find this, "Nancy Yaw Davis, in the Zuni Enigma, and Gavin Menzies, have suggested that the Zuni share some affinities with the Japanese people, due in part to genetic, linguistic and cultural similarities." How on earth is this not significant!? It's published material by experts!!!71.228.253.106 (talk) 23:48, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

That Zunis are the descendants of mid-14th century Japanese pilgrims, as put forth by Davis in her book, is an unsubstantiated, fringe theory that has been refuted by Zuni people. Check out Wikipedia:Fringe theories. -Uyvsdi (talk) 19:12, 21 April 2012 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Having not read the book and being aware of much of the popularity of fringe archeology I am aware of the worries. However, people come to wikipedia for more information. Perhaps there should be a page on the fringe theory? Or mention that the Zuni's are subjects of a relatively popular fringe theory? It would be nice to get links to the said Zuni debunking too, as an Asia specialist myself it would be an interesting read. --Shadowy Sorcerer (talk) 19:23, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

How about adding documented history of the Zuni to the article instead? It's not like the article is particularly well-written or complete as it is. -Uyvsdi (talk)Uyvsdi

Heh. That probably should be a higher priority, not that I am in anyway qualified to do it. Though I would be glad to help.--Shadowy Sorcerer (talk) 21:35, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh brother, I just discovered where this sudden interest in this theory is coming from. Cracked.com mentioned it, then someone posted it to Reddit. -Uyvsdi (talk) 21:42, 21 April 2012 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Unreferenced books moves from talk page

If any of these can be cited, I'm moving them here.

• Baxter, Sylvestor, Frank H. Cushing, My Adventurers in Zuni: Including Father of The Pueblos & An Aboriginal Pilgrimage, Filter Press, LLC, 1999, paperback, 1999, 79 pages, ISBN 0-86541-045-3
• Bunzel, Ruth L. "Zuni Katcinas: An Analytic Study". (1932d). Forty-Seventh Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology. Pp. 836–1086. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1932. Reprint, Zuni Katcinas: 47th Annual Report. Albuquerque: Rio Grande Classics, 1984.
• Cushing, Frank Hamilton. My Adventures in Zuni, Pamphlet, ISBN 1-121-39551-1
• Cushing, Frank Hamilton, Barton Wright, The mythic world of the Zuni, University of New Mexico Press, 1992, hardcover, ISBN 0-8263-1036-2
• Cushing, Frank Hamilton. Outlines of Zuni Creation Myths, AMS Press, Reprint edition (June 1, 1996), hardcover, 121 pages, ISBN 0-404-11834-8
• Cushing, Frank Hamilton. Zuni Coyote Tales, University of Arizona Press, 1998, paperback, 104 pages, ISBN 0-8165-1892-0
• Cushing, Frank Hamilton. Zuni Fetishes, pamphlet, ISBN 1-199-17971-X and ISBN 1-122-26704-5
• Cushing, Frank Hamilton. designed by K. C. DenDooven, photographed by Bruce Hucko, Annotations by Mark Bahti, Zuni Fetishes, KC Publications, 1999, paperback, 48 pages, ISBN 0-88714-144-7
• Cushing, Frank Hamilton. Zuni Fetishes Facsimile, pamphlet, ISBN 1-125-28500-1
• Cushing, Frank Hamilton. Zuni Folk Tales, hardcover, ISBN 1-125-91410-6 (expensive if you search by ISBN, try ABE for older used copies without ISBN)
• Cushing, Frank Hamilton. Zuni Folk Tales, University of Arizona Press, 1999, trade paperback, ISBN 0-8165-0986-7 (reasonably priced)
• Cushing, Frank Hamilton. Zuni Breadstuff (Indian Notes and Monographs, V. 8.), AMS Press, 1975, hardcover, 673 pages, ISBN 0-404-11835-6
• Ferguson, T. J. and Hart, E. R., eds., 1995. A Zuni Atlas (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press).
• M. Conrad Hyers The Spirituality of Comedy: comic heroism in a tragic world 1996, Transaction Publishers ISBN 1-56000-218-2
• Green Jesse, Sharon Weiner Green and Frank Hamilton Cushing, Cushing at Zuni: The Correspondence and Journals of Frank Hamilton Cushing, 1879–1884, University of New Mexico Press, 1990, hardcover ISBN 0-8263-1172-5
• Elsie Clews Parsons and Ralph L. Beals, "The Sacred Clowns of the Pueblo and Mayo-Yaqui Indians," American Anthropologist, vol. 36 (October–December 1934), p. 493 :D
• Tedlock, Dennis, tr. Finding the Center: Narrative Poetry of the Zuni Indians. From performances in the Zuni by Andrew Peynetsa and Walter Sanchez. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1972.
• Young, M. Jane. Signs from the Ancestors: Zuni Cultural Symbolism and Perceptions in Rock Art. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1988.
• Bunzel, Ruth L. (1929). The Pueblo potter: A study of creative imagination in primitive art. New York: Dover. ISBN 0-486-22875-4
• Hieb, Louis A. (1984). Meaning and mismeaning: Toward an understanding of the ritual clowns. In A. Ortiz (Ed.), New perspectives on the Pueblos (pp. 163–195). Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. (Original work published 1972). ISBN 0-8263-0387-0.

-Uyvsdi (talk) 21:20, 13 February 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Different or the same

This: Small oval-shaped stones with pointed ends are set close to one another and side by side. The technique is normally used with turquoise in creating necklaces or rings. Another craft they have... needlepoint. when there's no mention of textiles. Does this intend to refer to sewing or to the description given to fine, small stones in the floral settings?

Imho, it's to do with the jewellery, not stitching, as described here:Needle point -Turquoise cut in long narrow or elongated stones set in delicate bezels is called needle point. Turquoise Jewelry with pear shape cut gems is known as petite point. Gems that have been cut and tightly set and inlaid into silver jewelry is known as “inlay”. This is a skill of intricate small stonework especially with pieces with smaller tightly fitting gems and settings. So I will change it. Manytexts (talk) 23:00, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Southwest Silver Gallery, which you quote above, is a commercial website and is not a WP:reliable source. Vsmith (talk) 00:32, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Zuni people/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following 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.

see first sentence of paragraph 'culture'

Last edited at 12:46, 17 January 2011 (UTC). Substituted at 11:19, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Zuni people. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080421034031/http://www.beliefnet.com/politics/religiousaffiliation.html to http://www.census.gov/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:41, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

The Estevanico page and this disagree about his death

This page make it look like it is settled fact that E was killed as a spy, but his page demurs — 172.5.154.148 (talk) 01:49, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Zuni. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.archaeologysouthwest.org/pdf/arch-sw-v22-no2.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.archaeologysouthwest.org/pdf/arch-sw-v22-no2.pdf
• Added archive https://archive.is/20120714042635/http://newmexicohistory.org/filedetails_docs.php?fileID=21237 to http://newmexicohistory.org/filedetails_docs.php?fileID=21237
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sacredland.org/zuni_salt_lake_saved.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061016220413/http://www.picture-history.com/zuni-index-001.htm to http://www.picture-history.com/zuni-index-001.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:45, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Doesn’t make sense

The beginning of the history section doesn’t make sense. It says they’ve been there for 3-4000 years, then it says “first millennium” BC or something, and then it says another culture “preceded” it, but has an AD date. Is this messed up or is it conflicting sources? It needs to be clearer. Ncreynolds80 (talk) 23:18, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 22 December 2020

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: Moved. Evidence presented shows there is no primary topic and proposed name meets WP:NCET. (non-admin closure) Vpab15 (talk) 14:37, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

---

• Zuni → Zuni people
• Zuni (disambiguation) → Zuni

– Proposing that the bold moves of 2017 are reverted. I don't see a primary topic here: this article may be the most popular, but it still gets only about as many views as the two next most sought articles combined: Zuni (rocket) and Zuni language [1]. – Uanfala (talk) 00:46, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

• Leaning oppose. Zuni and the redirect Zuni people combined still get more page views than the other topics listed combined. The language is of course a related topic.—Cúchullain ^t/c 02:58, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Not really. This article gets an average of 251 views a day, which is 1 more than the next four articles combined, but 6 views fewer than the following five [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] (not including partial title matches like Zuni mythology). – Uanfala (talk) 13:22, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - This is the primary topic, per long term significance as specified in WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Number of page views is less relevant. The same way Hopi and Navajo and Cherokee and Cree, and Choctaw and Apache etc. are primary topics. Zuni Rocket should probably not be part of the discussion. All of the other Zuni-named articles are named after the Zuni who have inhabited their land since the last millennium B.C...the Zuni have existed for centuries, long before the Zuni rocket existed. Netherzone (talk) 03:33, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
• Support "Zuni people" would be consistent with common disambiguators on Wikipedia, particularly when the term is also used for the language.(e.g. French people, Chinese people, Zulu people, Tupi people, etc.) If Zuni had a separate plural form ("Zunis"?), we could use that instead (e.g. Italians, Mongols). But it seems Zuni is both singular and plural. Walrasiad (talk) 11:03, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, Zuni is the plural for Zuni. It is also what the Zuni I know and have known call themselves. I've never heard it as Zuni People. Just speaking from my own experience. Netherzone (talk) 14:04, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

I know it's a little awkward. French, Zulu, Tupi, etc. also don't refer to themselves as "X people". But it is a necessary disambiguator and a norm here on Wikipedia. Again, especially because of language. I am sure the people you know would also say "I speak Zuni" rather than "I speak Zuni language". Walrasiad (talk) 15:45, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

No, they would say, I speak Shiwiʼma. Netherzone (talk) 02:32, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

When there's no dedicated plural form, the default disambiguator is "people" (WP:NCET). – Uanfala (talk) 01:17, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

• Questions - @Uanfala: Could you please explain what is meant by the bold moves of 2017, and provide diffs? That might help others, such as myself, to have a clearer understanding of why you are proposing a reversion. Have you pinged the other editors who were involved with the article during that time? Just curious, have the members of WikiProject Indigenous Peoples of North America WP:IPNA been invited to weigh-in on this proposal? Thank you in advance. Netherzone (talk) 16:13, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

  The article was moved to the present title with this edit in 2017 (the editor responsible has already commented here). The article was at Zuni people for the previous six years, and in the preceding years had oscillated back and forth between the primary title and several disambiguated titles. Have I notified IPNA? Why would I? This move is solely a question of primary topics and that's none of their business. But yes, they have been notified: this article is within the scope of ttheir project, so the RM has registered in their article alerts. Likewise for WikiProject Ethnic groups. – Uanfala (talk) 01:17, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

  Uanfala, Re: your comment Have I notified IPNA? Why would I? This move is solely a question of primary topics and that's none of their business. Out of respect, I took the liberty to post a neutral message on their WikiProject talk page about the proposal. Perhaps there are Zuni who are affiliated with the project who might have some thoughts on the matter. Netherzone (talk) Netherzone (talk) 20:56, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

  Like with similar RMs, this one partly boils down to the question of the relevant significance of several topics. In this case, that's the ethnic group, the language, and the rocket. Now, because the discussion is taking place on the talk page of the ethnic group, the participation it attracts will necessarily be biased towards editors who believe the ethnic group to be more important than the other topics. I wasn't going to point any of that out – it's obvious, and it's inevitable in this kind of RM – but now that you've brought it up, I'm puzzled that you would think that it is the good thing to do – and somehow also the thing expected of me – to canvass an unrelated project, whose input can only amplify the existing bias. – Uanfala (talk) 21:47, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

  Uanfala, it's important to include those who are experts or familiar on the topic on requests to move a page, especially when the argument is about what to refer to a group of Indigenous people, who are the primary source of the word Zuni. There's no logic in calling editors "biased" when the page is under the scope of their project, otherwise I would argue it's not logical to have "ignorant" editors that you seem to advocate for be the only ones voting on this request for a page move.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 23:00, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

  But of course it is important to include the experts, and if the question is entirely about primary topics, those experts can be found among the editors who patrol the RM backlog. This is an RM discussion, so they'll see it there. Conceivably, a notice could be posted on the talk page of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, but that's not normally done because it's a very large number of RMs that involve primary topic questions. What has the Indigenous Peoples project have to do with any of that? Ethnographic expertise would have been relevant here if I'd proposed a title for this article that had something to do with its content or that was making a statement, like Zuni tribals or Great Zuni Civilization. But the proposed Zuni people uses a simple, standard, neutral disambiguator, that is recommended by the naming conventions and used on the vast majority of ethnic group articles. Or is there some new big controversy about the use of "people" that I don't know about? – Uanfala (talk) 23:22, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

  This is the first time I've seen someone do a requested move and be so hardset on their own form of Wikipedia gerrymandering rather than support a community consensus with all involved groups of the page.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 23:34, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

@Uanfala: I hope this (rather long response) clears up your puzzlement. It is concerning that you might be implying that I engaged in canvassing or deliberately introduced bias. Those are very strong allegations. Here’s how things look from my perspective: While the proposal was of interest to me, it did not seem controversial because I could not find any prior discussion about it on this talk page nor any notice boards. That is why I asked you to provide more information and diffs so I could have a deeper understanding of the historical framework based on your words, “bold moves of 2017”. I could not find anything that seemed unreasonable in article history. I then re-read what you wrote back to me about notifying the appropriate WProjects, but could not find anything posted on the IPNA talk page about the requested move, nor on any of the pages or links on their main page. WP:RM states: “Requesters should feel free to notify any other Wikiproject or noticeboard that might be interested in the move request, as long as this notification is neutral.” I asked about it, and you said, “Why would I? It’s none of their business.” To my way of thinking, it is the business of WikiProject participants to stay informed about such matters, so to my mind, I provided a courtesy by posting a neutrally worded comment because I assumed you were too busy (or perhaps too disinterested) to do so yourself. That is not canvassing. It is participating as a good faith editor the same way that I’ve entered this discussion in good faith, with no hidden murky biases or conspiratorial canvassing schemes – I simply have this page on my watchlist because some of the articles I create are on NA topics, and I’m currently working on a couple new articles which concern Zuni pottery. So I weighed in on this conversation in the spirit of collaboration. I kindly ask that you please do not make veiled accusations again. Thanks in advance. Netherzone (talk) 00:46, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Apologies if my words have left you with the impression that I thought you were engaged in some sort of deliberate canvassing. I didn't. My point was different, but I guess I haven't communicated it well enough. – Uanfala (talk) 01:16, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

• Support per the rocket's views (2,574 v 3,382 for the people[[8]]). Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:25, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose per Netherzone and per WP:primarytopic. Pageviews are irrelevant.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 20:18, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:primarytopic. Pageviews should not matter. Indigenous girl (talk) 23:44, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

  Why shouldn't pageviews matter? They're usually the most common way of determining primary topic, see WP:DETERMINEPRIMARY. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:40, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

• Support. While I certainly agree that there is a problem with page views, to say that they are irrelevant is inconsistent with current guidelines. Far safer to disambiguate. Andrewa (talk) 21:07, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support per Walrasiad. Super Ψ Dro 01:34, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Needs a modern photo

Needs a photo of Zuni people from within the past century. They still exist! 24.130.46.152 (talk) 06:27, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

What would be needed is for someone to make the photograph, and get the written consent of the people who are depicted, then release the copyrights of the image with an appropriate license, and upload to Commons directly or to Wikipedia using the WP:File upload wizard. Would that be something you would be interested in doing to improve the article? Netherzone (talk) 17:16, 25 September 2022 (UTC)