Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Zoroastrianism/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

WikiProject Religion

The group indicated above was recently revitalized for, among other things, the purpose of working on those articles whose content is such that the article does not fall within the scope of any particular denomination. To most effectively do this, however, we would benefit greatly if there were at least one member from this Project working on those articles. On that basis, I would encourage and welcome any member of this Project willing to work on those articles to join the Religion WikiProject. Thank you. Badbilltucker 14:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

To Do List Needed

Hi everyone. I believe we need to create a to do list for this project same as Wikipedia:WikiProject Iran, in order to organise this project and find out what article needs immediate attention, and so on and so forth. Surena 13:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I also welcome contributions to the portal. Shabdiz 13:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Creating a guideline that applies to all religous articles

Please discuss this in a discussion here--Sefringle 03:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

New project proposal

There is a new WikiProject task force proposal at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Inter-religious content that is being proposed to deal specifically with articles whose content relates to several religious traditions. Any editors interested in joining such a group would be more than welcome to indicate their interest there. John Carter 15:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Portal:Zoroastrianism needs work

It looks like the portal hadn't been updated in over a month before I threw some new material in. It would really help if some member(s) were to step forward to help manage it. John Carter 23:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I have nominated the portal for deletion as nobody seems to care about it. __meco (talk) 09:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Project Barnstar?

Anyone have any ideas on what a barnstar for this project might look like? Personally, I'd like either Image:ZoroastrianismSymbol.PNG or Image:ZoroastrianismSymbolWhite.PNG maybe superimposed over a reddish star. Any opinions? John Carter 00:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The symbol of Zoroastrianism is this one. Which is also why you will find that symbol just about everywhere, including on all articles that include the {{Zoroastrianism}} pr {{Wikiproject Zoroastrianism}} templates. The ones you've pointed out are untypical (actually "fictions" is the more appropriate word).

IMO, its really is not neccessary to create another barn star. There are enough generic ones that - with the right text - would be just fine.

-- Fullstop 23:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Project scope

It's generally easiest on everybody concerned if a given project specifies a particular category which they think of as relevant to their project, and states as much on the project page. Generally, all the relevant articles can then be added to that category. The fact that this project deals with Persian mythology (and presumably some articles in the Category:Persian mythology, and that those articles/categories do not currently exist as subcats of Category:Zoroastrianism, is somewhat confusing. If members could perhaps create a subcat of Zoroastrianism for the relevant Persian mythology articles, I think that would help a lot. Also, I note all the subcats of Category:Zoroastrian history, many/most of which seem to me to be at best peripherally related to this project. I have tagged the articles directly in the Category:Achaemenid dynasty, but only those articles and not those in the subcats, based on the fact that it seems that the official religion of their "family" was Zoroastrianism in some form or other, so they as individuals would probably qualify for inclusion on that basis. I would welcome input from the others whether the subcats should be included as well. Personally, I think that they really don't relate to the main thrust of this project, and could easily be taken on by another group, but that's just one person's opinion. John Carter 01:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

This project deals with Zoroastrianism, not with Persian mythology. "Persian mythology" is a term for a literary genre (hence "Persian", i.e. language, not "Iranian", i.e. culture) that came to be in the around 1000 CE, by which time Iran was predominantly Islamic. Persian mythology does however draw on Avestan tradition.

There is no such thing as "Avestan mythology" or "Zoroastrian mythology" either. Mythology does not play a significant role in Zoroastrianism. Although there are divinities and demons, there are very few tales to go along with them. These divinities and demons simply reflect the stark division of good and evil. Moreover, the Avesta is primarily a liturgy, not a storybook. The one portion of scripture that does have such legends is the Vendidad, in particular chapter 1 of that text, which is incorporated in Persian mythology (with due acknowledgment).

If you go through the newer better-developed Zoroastrianism-related articles (example: daeva), you will find that they are usually divided into two principle sections: a) "in scripture" and b) "in tradition." If the "in tradition" section has a mythology subsection, you will find that the article also includes a category:xxx for the appropriate Persian mythology text being referred to, which is in turn a subcategory of cat:Persian mythology. .

Since "Persian mythology" (effectively) has only one text, that is (for the moment) also the only included cat you will find.

If you go through my older edits, you'll find that I had by default included cat:Persian mythology (and I mention Persian Mythology in the lede) for those articles. I no longer do that because I now know better, but I haven't gotten around to cleaning up the old ones.

-- Fullstop 06:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, please note that the pre-existing "scope" section of the project page explicitly states that it does deal with Persian mythology, although I think that this was probably intended to mean that it dealt with those articles relating to "mythic" figures like Mithras and others who might make an appearance in Zoroastrian literature and history. In any event, having the subcategories of the Category:Zoroastrianism actually reflect the scope of the project would probably be a good idea. I think that Wikipedia:WikiProject Former countries would probably be the best people to deal with the articles related to the subcats of the Sassanid Empire, and if anyone knows how to include just the parts we want in the Zoroastrian category I think that would be more than welcome. Also, it does seem that some of the articles included in the Persian mythology category, Soma as an example, have content which does specifically related to Zoroastrianism, and that there should be some way to ensure that these articles are somehow included in the project's scope. John Carter 14:22, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

First, Mithras is Greco-Roman and does not appear in either Zoroastrian literature or in Persian mythology.

Second, Soma is Vedic, not Iranian. The Iranian equivalent is Haoma, but is not the same as the figure in mythology (which is Huma (mythology)).

Yes, Soma has Zoroastrian content, but that is because a certain editor believes that linguistically related terms should to be dealt with in one and the same article. Which - as you demonstrate - comes at the cost of confusion.

-- Fullstop 12:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The primary cause of confusion I see is how two parties who are not members of this project are attempting to determine the scope of a project of which neither one is a member. Isn't that more than a little arrogant? Mithraist 17:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

For one, membership in a project is not a prerequisite for anything. Inversely, any idiot could come along, add himself to the list of members, and use that as a "justification" to play merry hell (which of course other people would then have to clean up).

For another, I do not list myself on Wikiproject pages for a reason. Not being listed doesn't make me any less a participant. Moreover, people who actually contribute to Zoroastrianism-related articles find out fairly quickly that its my wikisphere of competence. I don't have to be (or feel the need to be) listed somewhere to announce that.

Finally, I have no patience for people who don't educate themselves before opening their mouths. If that lack of patience earns me an "arrogant" epithet, then so be it, and it'll be a tag I'll wear with pride.

I'm happy that you're on board, and I hope that you'll be a fine contributor, always keeping {{NOR}} and {{RS}} in mind, and never ever citing the web or anything outdated. :) Happy wiki'ing.

-- Fullstop 22:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Understood. Please, however, directly answer the question asked of you. What gives you the authority to tell others what the scope of their project is? I think it is more than "arrogant" for anyone to tell others what they are doing. I personally think that goes well beyond arrogant into the range of dictatorial. Mithraist 13:46, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Just as you're entitled to your opinion, I am entitled to mine. I'm sorry if you feel otherwise.

>> I think it is more than "arrogant" for anyone to tell others what they are doing.

Um, lets see. As in, for you to tell me what I am doing? Okaaay. Whatever you say.

-- Fullstop 17:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

NO. As in YOU having the arrogance and presumptuousness to tell a group of other people what you will permit THEM to do. Do try to get over yourself, please. No one has any real objections to your continuing to do what you want, as long as you do not have the gall to seek to tell others what their project, of which you are not a member, can do. If it is the case that this project in its entirety is answerable to you, as you seem to believe, then I think there is no reason for it to continue to exist. Mithraist 18:10, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

ok. Whatever you say. I don't remember ever having told "a group of other people what [I] will permit them to do." But if you say I did, then I bow to your judgment.

btw, have you edited before under a different username?

-- Fullstop 19:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Determining project scope

It seems to me reasonable that, under the circumstances, we actually define what the scope of this project is. I'd like to ask the rest of you members of the project what you believe this project should deal with. Given that you members are the ones who will be working with the project, I'd guess your opinions should be the only ones that count in this matter. As a newcomer, I find any attempts at outside coercion and control distressing, and would like to know what the internal opinions of the group itself are. Thanks. Mithraist 14:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)