Talk:Thunderbird (mythology)

Please remove mythology from title.

It is insulting to many indigenous peoples of this continent to refer to our deities as “mythological”. “Jesus” as a Christian deity is not referred to as a mythological being. D L Means (talk) 06:33, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Rather than screw up templates, perhaps you could put in a deity-infobox template and consider gaining consensus to changing the title from "Thunderbird (mythology)" to "Thunderbird (deity)"?--Mr Fink (talk) 15:17, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Most of the sources I could find referred to it as a spirit, so I changed the lead to that. Maybe Thunderbird (spirit)? From the discussion above Thunderbird alone is non-viable, so that's my best guess. Needs consensus though. Mrfoogles (talk) 21:41, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 9 July 2024

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: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Jerium (talk) 12:13, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

---

Thunderbird (mythology) → Thunderbird (spirit) – Proposed above with a reasonable rationale, and most sources appear to refer to them as spirits, rather than mythological creatures like griffins, etc.. For example, see History.com, Brittanica, and this story by Audobon. Technically a mythological creature but substantially not. Proposing because @D L Means seems new and is unlikely to. Tagging @Mr Fink from above. Mrfoogles (talk) 21:52, 9 July 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 08:11, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Per the article titles policy, this satisfies Recognizability, arguably Naturalness, Precision, Concision (the title could be "Thunderbird" but that was rejected above), and Consistency as I know of no related naming conventions. Mrfoogles (talk) 22:05, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

What about Thunderbird (deity)? Mr Fink (talk) 22:10, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

@Mrfoogles history.com is not a reliable source. There is no consensus on the Britannica but a lot of doubt about it and of course it is a tertiary source which we usually avoid. As for Audobon, how is a story by a non-specialist writer in a bird magazine reliable? Doug Weller talk 10:07, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

I've removed the sources added by Mrfoogles. Besides being unreliable, I see the history.com was about the thunderbird possibly being real, typical history.com. I've also restored the word mythological to the lead as it is sourced and there are numerous other possible sources. Doug Weller talk 10:55, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

I recognize History.com puts bad takes on things and Britannica can be outdated, but these aren’t exactly exceptional claims; they’re just basic overview-level stuff. I figured History.com was okay for the basic facts, if not for the alien theories. As for Audobon —- I don’t think just because the author is a non specialist doesn’t mean the information can’t be relied upon: that’s how news works. I think Audobon at least should stay in the article: there’s no policy saying that all sources have to be specialists and there’s no particular difference for the Thunderbird article. Besides, they clearly talked to several people who believe in it; their subsequent discussion of what it means to people is not surprising. Journalists don’t have to be specialists to do research.

I like the “mythological spirit” as a compromise, though, that sounds right. Mrfoogles (talk) 15:59, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

But we should rely on academic sources, not news sources by non specialists. Doug Weller talk 17:30, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose "mythology" has no implication that they are creatures and not gods, spirits, people, etc -- 65.92.247.96 (talk) 08:29, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
• Support either this or Thunderbird (deity).  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 04:19, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Religion, WikiProject Mythology, and WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America have been notified of this discussion. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 08:12, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Oppose Mythology is more neutral, we shouldn't devolve into a debate if this is an animal, spirit or deity when the current title avoids those pitfalls. Killuminator (talk) 02:05, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Mythology implies that these are not gods. No one puts Christian, Islamic, or Judaism under Mythology.

It's problematic and judeocentric Brusnice (talk) 00:38, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Christian mythology, Jewish mythology, Islamic mythology, Flood myth... However, it seems to be fairly common that people dislike the word "myth" being used about their own belief. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:16, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for beclowning this trite reply for me. Killuminator (talk) 11:44, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

...you're welcome..? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:50, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Oppose as per Killuminator - mythology is not just neutral the term or a variant, eg myth, is used by academic sources. Different countries had different ways of describing their Thunderbird, eg god, deity spirit as already said, so we shouldn't pick one. Doug Weller talk 10:42, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Oppose "spirit" on the basis that it isn't the way that all cultures view it. Is this not the primary topic? Would simply "Thunderbird" suffice? If disamb is needed, I think a more neutral term could be (creature) or (animal) or (bird) or something like that. PersusjCP (talk) 17:45, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

See Thunderbird. I’d say more people would be looking for the car, maybe the puppet tv series. Doug Weller talk 18:23, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Oppose per Killuminator, "mythology" is a neutral title that is preferable precisely because it sidesteps subjective and unresolvable cultural disagreements about the nature of the entity. Carguychris (talk) 18:20, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Oppose per Killuminator, "mythology" is more neutral, encompassing different cultural beliefs about the Thunderbird. Boxing it into a specific form would show a preference for one cultural view over others, which might provoke heated debates.Bcbc24 (talk) 02:58, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Agreed with Doug Weller.. thus oppose. Academic sources is what we should be following. Moxy🍁 00:56, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Oppose per Killuminator, Bcbc24 and DW. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:25, 21 July 2024 (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.

Article fails to cover thunderbirds in other nature myths not in the Americas

Lightening and birds

An Oxford University boo, "Dictionary of Nature Myths: Legends of the Earth, Sea, and Sky" by Tamra Andrews says "The belief in thunderbirds was not unique to the Americas however; it occurred across the globe. The Chinese thunder god Lei Kung was originally believed to be a bird, the Japanese thunder god Raiden had a companion thunderbird named Raicho, and the Indian Garuda bird was a similar creature connected to wind and storm. In West Africa, So was the lightning bird who flapped his wings and caused thunder, and in Kenya, a crowing cock made the rumbles. Most commonly in the myths, the bird resembled an eagle, although it was rarely seen because it hid behind the dark clouds during flight. The African bird Umpundulo dived from the clouds and flashed through the sky, as the lightning appeared to do in dry countries when it emanated from the bottom of the clouds, then branched out and traveled through the air below.' Doug Weller talk 10:25, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

@Doug Weller I added something:. We'll see what happens. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:59, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång Looks good, thanks. Doug Weller talk 09:06, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

@Doug Weller It appears that the idea of a mighty bird causing thunder and lightning is an appealing one. More thoughtful people will of course realize it's obviously done by a wagon drawn by goats. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:34, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Audobon sources

I added some information to the article about thunderbirds based on an Audobon article. They were removed @Doug Weller on the justification that the article should be cited to expert sources.

I agree that this is the criteria for featured articles, for at least most of the sources, but that does not mean news articles are banned as sources generally, or either that it is better to have no sources than news sources. According to Wikipedia's reliable source policy, Audobon is a reliable source for citing (at least non-exceptional) claims; there is no policy requiring the use of expert sources for general statements in all articles. Although if anyone was interested in finding expert sources for the statements, it would be helpful, I don't think it helps an article to remove reliable sources from it.

Anyways, I'm putting this on the talk page in case there are further opinions to prevent discussion in the edit summaries (i.e. an edit war). Mrfoogles (talk) 04:31, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Not worth worrying over. Doug Weller talk 07:55, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the current scope of the article. (WP:UNDUE and WP:DUE)

So I'll admit I haven't really visited this page probably in a decade or two, but I've noticed that the scope seems to have entirely shifted to discuss the Thunderbird in the context of indigenous belief systems (and pop culture references) alone, at the expense of touching on the etymologically-linked and widely discussed cryptozoological side of the discourse.

Now I perhaps cannot stress enough just how much I'm not suggesting a "cryptid" part of the article should be presented as fact. Far from it. In fact, it could be kept to a single paragraph and "reliably sourced" to the veritable birdsnest's worth of Skeptical Inquirer sources at our disposal. The paragraph's final sentence could end on providing the current mainstream scientific consensus (i.e. general misidentifications).

The issue I would see with trying to go the WP:Content forks route by making a separate "Thunderbird (cryptid)" page would be the fact that, due to the etymological connection, indigenous beliefs are almost inevitably going to be intrinsic to the framing in any reliable sources. Also, upon some cursory research, such an article appears to have been famously deleted.

Not to mention there is the smaller concern that "Thunderbird (cryptozoology)" has been redirecting here for the past 7 years, and now, there's not really any relevant information to show for the redirect. Obviously not a dealbreaker, but it is slightly jarring.

(Even two of the individuals who voted for deletion, :bloodofox: and Elmidae, did so with the expectation that it could be a subsection of this article.)

Would anyone be averse to the addition of a single paragraph at least to provide relevant, sourced information? Angilas (talk) 13:39, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

All right, here's my attempt to thread the needle on reintroducing the lost paragraph that touched upon the alleged physical

animal:

My Proposed Addition:

• "Although indigenous traditions hold that the Thunderbird is not a physical entity but a spirit, the Thunderbird also lends its namesake to a loose subset of allegedly undiscovered animals reported over North America. The term has been variously applied to both descriptions of condor-like and pterosaur-like sightings, a notable example of which is the subject of an alleged photograph from the American West in the late 19th century that was purportedly lost. While proponents have argued the possibility that a prehistoric animal like a teratorn could have survived extinction, the scientific community widely dismisses such types of sightings as the misidentification of known fauna."

What this would accomplish:

• It would clarify that the Thunderbird spirit of indigenous belief systems is not the same as the alleged physical animal.
• It would clarify that the Thunderbird spirit only lends its namesake to this concept.
• It allows visitors who come to this page via the Thunderbird (cryptozoology) and Thunderbird (cryptid) redirects to have a small reference to a well-known (albeit controversial) branch of this topic, but not by an arguably WP:UNDUE amount.

Angilas (talk) 12:21, 18 June 2026 (UTC)