Talk:Mayanism

Suggestion to Revise or Delete

In the book Indigenous Movements and Their Critics, Princeton University Press, 1998, author Kay B. Warren continuously uses the terms "Mayanism" "Pan-Mayanism" and "Mayanists" to refer to the same or similar phenomena. In the context of the book, the terms denote an indigenous or authentic and intellectual interaction with Mayan culture. Similarly, Jose Arguelles, responding to controversy regarding the Thirteen Moon Calendar in 1996, used the term "Neo-Mayanist" to refer to those that favor culturally specific or provincial interpretations of the calendar over a more syncretic "universal mathematical" approach.

John Major Jenkins, in his new (2009) book The 2012 Story, referring to this (Wikipedia's Mayanism) page, asserts that the misappropriation of the term from its actual historical use by the authors clearly indicates a "pejorative" bias.

So, can the authors cite a source more authoritative or seminal than Warren's that demonstrates that dichotomy between Mayanists and Mayanism actually extists, or existed before the creation of this page? Can they approach the terms with a nuance that allows for categories of Pan-Mayanism and Neo-Mayanism? If so, a major revision, including a redefinition/clarification of the terms, it seems is in order. If not, the page should probably be deleted. I mean Mayanism and Mayanists are not to be related? Help the English speaking world out here and let's get past our confusing, pejorative dichotomies here, shall we? Aharon ahau (talk) 21:29, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

A word meaning "a student of Maya antiquities" used throughout the past century, is "Mayologist".

Perhaps Mayalogist denotes the general student or scholar, while Mayanist denotes those with an active and abiding participation in the restoration or preservation of Mayan culture, inclusive of epigraphic decipherment, indigenous sociopolitics, archaeology, etc. Mayanism then refers to the broader movement that the activity of Mayanists generates.

The word for ersatz forms of Mayology and Mayanism for the judgemental to coin would seemingly be "Pseudomayology" or "Pseudomayanism". Aharon ahau (talk) 04:12, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't recall having seen the word "mayologi". In my experience "mayanism" refers both to New Age appropriations of mayan religion and to the scholarly academic study of the Maya. For example here are links referring to Stephen Houston,David Stuart (epigrapher), J. E. S. Thompson and Gordon Willey as "prominent mayanist"s.[1][2][3][4][5].·Maunus·ƛ· 07:11, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

"Mayology" is not a common term but you will find it now and then. The definition I gave in quotes "a student of Maya antiquities" is from an American newspaper article in the 1990s that I think you can find online. Also I think Thompson and Brinton occasionally used it, or if not them, the like. Some fringe researchers such as Hugh Harleston also use it to describe their work.

In the Stuart/Houston school of thought, Mayanism and Mayanists are relatively unrelated to one another. Despite the inevitability of linguistically conflating the two concepts, and the absence of any such dichotomy in the language, for example, of Warren's work that I mentioned above, the Stuart/Houston school appears to be attempting a sort of branding of the term "mayanist" for strictly academic, and especially epigraphic purposes. It's telling that you acknowledge personally that this purported dichotomy is new to you, and adds further support to the idea that this article is highly questionable.Aharon ahau (talk) 14:32, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

This linguistic problem does not exist in Spanish, where the term mayista is used instead of "Mayanist" and mayanismo would be the correct translation of "Mayanism," also permitting the related term mayanista. The use of "Mayanism" in the title of Dennis Alexander's book Mayanism: A New Look at an Old Religion (Sentient Temple Press, 1999)--an actual historical use--demonstrates the use of the term to refer to a New Age belief system in a fashion distinct from "Pan-Mayanism," which refers to a contemporary indigenous movement. The "Pan-" in "Pan-Mayanism" is an essential part of that term, which refers to a movement common to most or all living Mayan speakers. This is something distinct from the Mayanism referred to by Alexander. There is a parallel entry in the Spanish edition of Wikipedia about which there is no similar linguistic debate [[6]]. Is there any evidence of Mayanists who object to the use of the term "Mayanism" as defined in the English language entry? If not, then the definitions remain clear. John Major Jenkins' claims of the term representing a pejorative bias seem to be similar to those who claim that the term New Age has pejorative connotations. The reality is that words mean what they are used for. Potential confusion over the most widely accepted meaning of "Mayanism" seems minimal. Hoopes (talk) 18:11, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

A source demonstrating the widespread use of the term in its New Age context would be nice. Serendi^podous 18:17, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the book by Dennis Alexander, the existence of a hypothetical book in the New Age category with the title "Egyptology" would not make Egyptology a New Age phenomenon. Going back to Kay B. Warren's book, the term "mayanist" refers mostly to native speakers and activists, not necessarily institutional scholars, while Pan-Mayanism is a movement that seeks to align these mayanists together. Mayanism, in accordance with the english language (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan) would then denote the practices of unaffiliated, perhaps more isolated or insular mayanists. Again, this article is really more about "pseudo-mayanism" than general mayanism. Aharon ahau (talk) 19:37, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I support the suggestion to revise on the basis of misuse of the words "Mayanism" and "Mayanist": 1. I haven't researched the literature, but unless there is strong evidence that these have acquired different root meanings, English grammar requires that they refer to the same thing, so a Mayanist studies or practices Mayanism, just as a communist studies or practises communism. 2. The Mayanism presented here ought therefore to be described so as to indicate its status as an alternative to what is currently ascribed to Mayanists' concerns. Both are Mayanism, studied by Mayanists: their views are different. This might indicate a need to merge, but only if one is happy to merge irrational beliefs with science: a disambiguation might be better, and two separate articles.

While I'm on the subject of English grammar, please edit instances of "Maya" to read "Mayan" when used as an adjective. Although there is an adjective noun "Maya", it is better not to use it except perhaps in "Maya people": not "Maya calendar", but "Mayan calendar"; not "Maya culture", but "Mayan culture". We don't smoke Cuba cigars. Peter Bogra (talk) 11:24, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Scholars use the term "Maya calendar", Not "Mayan calendar". See the Maya calendar article. Senor Cuete (talk) 15:08, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

While I agree this article is in desperate need of revision and citations, I don't think the article fundamental assertion that there is a wide disconnect between those who ascribe to the more mystical elements of ancient Mayan beliefs, and those who study the Mayan civilisation from a strictly scientific viewpoint. I personally know people who would fall into the former camp and they have some pretty whacked out views. I know that this is original research, and I'm not suggesting that we use personal experience as evidence in WP, but what I am suggesting is that the article is fundamentally right, we just need to find the primary sources that say so. HappyGod (talk) 07:48, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Merge?

Strong oppose of proposed merge; completely different subjects with similar sounding names. -- Infrogmation 19:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment

This is mis/disinformation, what BS. Only a fool couldn't see how bias this article is, it's as if they are saying the Mayans weren't who they really were - something western science hasn't matured enough to understand or consider. They simply label what they cannot care to study and understand as pseudoscience. What a pity, but our mainstream scientific understanding is just beginning to come out of illusion. (Zenxlow (talk) 14:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC))

No, far from it. The article does a very reasonable job of identifying the modern syncretic origins of this belief system that tries to dress up in more ancient costume. Whatever your apparent ideological opposition to "western science", the contents here are referenced and valid. If you disagree with the underlying principles of mainstream scientific understanding, then suggest you look elsewhere as the wikipedia is probably not the place for you. --cjllw ʘ TALK 00:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Strongly agree with cjllw on this. This is an important article. One odd problem in the In Literature section: "José Argüelles... wrote a book, The Mayan Letters (1953), based on his correspondence from Mexico with poet Robert Creeley." Actually, the Mayan Letters was written by Charles Olson -- mp3 snippet here: http://amazon.com/Mayan-Letters/dp/B000V9AVKE/ Plus, as Argüelles was born in 1939, he would have had to have written this book when he was 14. Clocke (talk) 17:24, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

You may be misreading that passage, there's a fullstop between the sentence ending with Arguelles, and the next one about the Mayan Letters book. This 2nd sentence reads "Charles Olson of Black Mountain College had a fascination with Mayan hieroglyphs and wrote a book, The Mayan Letters.." so I guess the attribution is correct. Cheers, --cjllw ʘ TALK 01:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Intellectual Property Issue

The website Mayanism.com[7] has appropriated the content of this entry in its About Mayanism[8] section. Isn't that a violation of Wikipedia policy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoopes (talk • contribs) 23:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

No, wikipedia content is free for anyone else to use how they see fit. The policy works the pother way round - we can only use content that is not under copyright.·Maunus·ƛ· 23:25, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Neologism

As far as I can tell, this word has no currency among scholars of any stripe; the word "Pan-Mayanism" is often used, but that's a political movement to unite Mayans under a single government, not a New Age concept. Most sources that employ the word "Mayanism" source it to this article. Serendi^podous 08:21, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

There is a book chapter currently "in press" titled "Mayanism Comes of (New) Age" in a collection of essays titled 2012: Decoding the Counterculture Apocalypse, edited by Joseph Gelfer (Equinox Publishing, 2011).[[9]]. Hoopes (talk) 18:19, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

How many and what kind of citations are necessary to demonstrate that this term now has currency by both scholars and journalists? A Google search on the term makes it clear that it is now in widespread use. Hoopes (talk) 16:51, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

The term may have gained currency according to Google, but as Serendipodous pointed out, that may be due to this very Wikipedia article. As for the "Mayanism Comes of (New) Age" article referenced by user Hoopes, it was written by, that's right, the same user Hoopes! Let's not kid ourselves; user Hoopes is on a personal mission to define this term according to his own reactionary/skeptical bias. Although I find Wikipedia useful in many respects, the perpetuation of this article in its current form speaks directly to the grave concerns many people have with the influence a very small group of ideologues can have on the site, and in turn Google and everything that entails.Aharon ahau (talk) 18:37, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

This is DEEPLY problematic. Indeed, user Hoopes seems to be the author of the same chapter he is citing as a source. How is this not self-evidently worthy of condemnation? 2806:2F0:93A0:B063:85FB:495B:C673:C027 (talk) 22:13, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Entheogens?

The section about entheogens says "...the water lily (Nymphaea), cohoba (Anadenanthera spp.)..." According to the wikilinked articles Nymphea is an old world plant and cohaba is in South America. If this is correct then neither of these was used by Mesoamericans. If nobody can come up with a reliable source for this these should be removed. This paragraph also contains no citations. It should be easy to rind reliable sources for these if this is correct. Senor Cuete (talk) 17:00, 30 September 2012 (UTC)Senor Cuete

The genus Nymphaea is found in Mesoamerica and specifically in the Maya area, where it is also depicted in Maya art. Anadenanthera is not limited to South America but was also used in Central America and the Antilles. In fact, cohoba is of Taino origin. I will provide some references. Hoopes (talk) 16:57, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Bosnian pyramids

I'm unclear on why Semir Osmanagic's own publication cannot be used to identify him as a participant in Mayanism. Hoopes (talk) 00:47, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Look at his book and then read this article. It's clear that what he's doing is Mayanism. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck! Hoopes (talk) 01:03, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Before making any deletions, please discuss whether or not they are appropriate here on the talk page. Osmanagic has been a significant contributor to Mayanism, which is the subject of this article, and it is not acceptable to delete reference to him simply because one does not like his work. Hoopes (talk) 22:39, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Semir Osmanagic is not a scientist and his publications cannot be used to reference anything. What he has been doing is not work but destruction of archeological sites. He is used to broadcast myths and rumours in order to invent monuments and archeological sites that he can use for his own profit. I think referencing any of his "publications" is an insult to the people of Bosnia and Herzegovina and that simple reason should suffice... Moreover, he is not an archeologist, nor a historian. If he must be mentioned anywhere, it should at least be in association with the forgery he made Thibaud Ochem (talk) 10:19, 11 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thibaud Ochem (talk • contribs) 10:17, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Without an independent source, it is an WP:OR violation to say it is Mayanism, and an NPOV violation to give it any mention. --Ronz (talk) 21:15, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

What Steiner reference?

There's a reference to Rudolf Steiner in the article. I looked in the referenced book. No reference to Steiner in regard to Mayans in Washington's book. Steiner's one series of lectures about the "Mexican Mysteries" are entirely about the Aztecs. There may very well be no reference to the Maya civilization in the entire corpus of Steiner's work. If this were a page about modern "Aztecism" it would be fitting to refer to Steiner.

Is the article a place for us to throw in the name of any New Age woo-woo author we happen to not like? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Traversetravis (talk • contribs) 01:05, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

@Traversetravis: I can't find the reference to Steiner, what is it? Doug Weller talk 13:07, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Okay I was looked at an earlier version. Thanks for responding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Traversetravis (talk • contribs) 01:58, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Citations

In the process of improving this article through the addition of citations, it would be helpful to have some specific requests and suggestions. Is it necessary to provide a citation for every statement? There is utility in that, but it will require some time. Suggestions on priorities would be appreciated. Hoopes (talk) 16:47, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Soapbox

In case editors are overlooking the edit summaries: Seems to me that these examples, referencespam, and other promotional material simply don't belong per the discussions above and WP:NOT. Without independent sources, it's an NPOV violation as well. --Ronz (talk) 01:10, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Looking at your contributions, it's pretty obvious that you are user:TheRedPenOfDoom. Sock puppetry is forbidden on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Senor Cuete (talk • contribs) 22:02, 15 August 2014‎

You're free to file a report, though it would be best just to withdraw the accusation.

Care to WP:FOC instead? --Ronz (talk) 23:17, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mayanism. 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/20080531035930/http://maya.csuhayward.edu/archaeoplanet/LgdPage/Dream/Start.htm to http://maya.csuhayward.edu/archaeoplanet/LgdPage/Dream/Start.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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 17:07, 6 January 2018 (UTC)