Talk:Persian mythology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Mythology Portal
This article is supported by WikiProject Mythology .

This project provides a central approach to Mythology-related subjects on Wikipedia.
Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Persian mythology article.
Article policies

T"he original Avesta dates back to 1400 - 1200 BCE, and was kept in Istakhr until Alexander of Macedon destroyed it." I think I know what city is being referred to under this mysterious name! Wetman 07:57, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I think they mean Edinburgh. 62.253.128.12 17:27, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
Silly people :) I don't know what tomfoolery is going on, but you must know we're talking about the Persian equivalent of the Library of Alexandria near Persepolis here, where the Golden Avesta was said to be housed. My problem with that statement is the date. The Avesta survived through oral transmission and was written down much later (as with so many other traditions), and in truth, only Zarathushtra's Gathas can be said to be that old. Oh yeah, I'm putting this on my list of articles which need my attention. It could definately be expanded. Khiradtalk 02:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] incorrect statement

"Unlike many other mythologies, Persian mythology has only 2 main gods: Ahura Mazda and Angra Mainyu." my problem with this is that persian mythology dates far back, before the advent of zoroastrianism in the culture.

[edit] Merging with Iranian folklore?

It has been suggested to merge Persian mythology page with Iranian folklore.That's wrong... the contemporary Iranian folklore or games or folklore medical beliefs are sure different with mythology!--Alborz Fallah (talk) 14:33, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure how both article topics wouldn't be better served by a merge. After all, folklore arises out of the mixing of mythology and real events (or the resulting tall tales that arise from oral storytelling tradition). Maybe it's own section, as the folklore arises from both religious observances as well as pre-Islamic mythology. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 23:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I have to agree with my dear, honorable, and fair friend, Arcayne. The two articles ought to be merged. The folklore article has very little material that is actually sourced as folklore.--Agha Nader (talk) 05:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
The article is completely synthesis OR, and some pure OR. I quote the article

Churchill used for any mischievous person

This is ridiculous.The editors who add unsourced material like that do not belong at Wikipedia. They blatantly ignore WP:V and WP:OR. I suspect that not a single sentence in that article has a source that supports the claim the sentence makes (i.e. a source that says it is folklore).--Agha Nader (talk) 17:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I think you are making it personal. About the "Churchill", that's a usage in new Persian folk language. I don't think your expression of naming the other wikipedians editions "ridiculous" ,is under the wikipedia's way of editing.Please be polite! Thankyou --Alborz Fallah (talk) 17:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
And to add ; if you google the two words of "چرچیل"(Churchill), and "مکار"(mischievous); the outcome would be informative! google search.But expectance to show an academic article for a recent usage of a new word for a contemporary person,seems to be impossible.--Alborz Fallah (talk) 17:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Then why in the world show it be included in Wikipedia?! Note: I am not the least bit interested in your original research with search engines. By the way, if someone makes a ridiculous edit, I am going to call it ridiculous. That is very different than calling an editor ridiculous. The former comments on content, the latter comments on the editor and is a PA. --Agha Nader (talk) 18:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Anyway, what are you interested in or are not, does not determines the rightfulness of the article.Labeling "original research" is in contrast with the sources that I mentioned
e.g:"(چرچیل) به عنوان دغل باز و مهره ی مکار در زبانزدهای ما حضور یافته است در بختیاری به آدم های فریبکار و سیاست باز "چرچیل" می گویند"[www.odivi.persianblog.ir]
Or " در تمام انگلیسی ها را به مثابه آدم هایی موذی و مکار وحیله گر می شناسند که روباه در برابر آنها لنگ انداخته است ! با این اوصاف چرچیل را موذی ترین آدم انگلیسی می شناسند! ( حالا قیاس فرمائید چرچیل چگونه موجودی بوده است "[1]
then what do you think ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alborz Fallah (talk • contribs) 19:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
And about calling persons or edits names , I think both are wrong . Please Assume good faith and keep in mind nothing scares potentially valuable contributors away faster than hostility ! --Alborz Fallah (talk) 19:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Are you a "newcomer"? Please elaborate on how I failed to assume good faith. As for your statement "calling persons or edits names , I think both are wrong," am I supposed to ignore bad edits? --Agha Nader (talk) 19:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
No you don't. But using such words as "ridiculous" or sentences like "The editors who add outsourced material like that do not belong at Wikipedia"; is personal attack and is against the good faith. Is the decision making about someone's "belonging to Wikipedia" or not is your responsibility?--Alborz Fallah (talk) 21:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Please do not misquote me. I said "The editors who add unsourced [not outsourced] material like that do not belong at Wikipedia." I stand by that statement. Why should Wikipedia allow (experienced) users to blatanly violate Wikipedia policies? Moreover, am I supposed to use euphemisms for 'ridiculous edits?' If an edit is ridiculous, I am going to call it ridiculous. I think the best way to resolve this is for the editors that violate WP:V and WP:OR, to stop doing so. Attacking me for criticizing awful edits will not help.--Agha Nader (talk) 02:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
You are not allowed to express your opinion about the editors. You can change their edition under certain rules. If you think you are able to use your way of name-calling the editors and/or expressing your personal idea about their permission of editing ("belonging to Wikipedia"),I will report that to the admin's notice board.--Alborz Fallah (talk) 10:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

(←dent) Let's all calm down here, please. While I am thinking that the information that Agha Nader is calling into question does in fact need more solid sourcing, I think that Nader could express his frustration more politely. the main policy here at Wikipedia is to address the edit, not the editor. To do any less is to invite recrimination and bad feelings, both of which are not conducive to friendly and professional editing. It's a new year. Let's try to approach these situations anew, and give our fellow editor the same level of politeness that we ourselves would appreciate having.
Alborz Fallah, I agree that finding contemporaneous (read: new) references for folklore is going to be difficult, especially in an a culturally non-permissive environment like Iran. You might find it helpful to scan entertainment magazines and the like, or books of children's collections. With the titles of these stories, you can search anew with their titles, to see if any scholarly research has been done on their origins or influences on folklore and mythology. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 14:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I will do my best to provide the sources. Anyway; I think calling Iran a "culturally non-permissive environment" is not the definition of the real cultural situation of Iran.thankyou , --Alborz Fallah (talk) 08:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I must agree with Alborz Fallah: It is completely inappropriate for Arcayne to make sociological and political commentary (especially derisive commentary) on this talk page.--Agha Nader (talk) 15:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Could you perhaps point out what I said that fulfills the criteria of "derisive commentary"? I pointed out an opinion based on available evidence. Please point out the existence of a permissive environment in Iran. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 06:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I am not the least bit interested in arguing about politics with you on this talk page. I would like to remind you that this is the page is for discussing the Persian mythology article, not Ahmadinejad. I think you know why your comments were derisive and inappropriate; it is why you removed your inappropriate comment "That't [sic] a man [Ahmadinejad] screaming out to be laughed at." To return the main issue, the Iranian folklore would make a better section than an article.--Agha Nader (talk) 22:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, returning to the real problem (Iranian folklore)is better. I think sensitivity of Agha Nader stems in that he think I'm diminishing a religious ceremony to a vulgar and folklore show (correct me if I'm wrong!). Indeed I'm not saying the whole ceremony and it's core is "folklore"! But I think the performance and practical ways of showing the grief may have a color of people's folklore. As an example do Agha Nader knows still in some places in Iran, the local people call the Ashura "Souvashoon"? (Related to the mythological Siyâvash of Shahnameh) ...that shows the minds of people "See" the religious event under their background (read folklore)--Alborz Fallah (talk) 17:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I would appreciate it if you did not make ill-considered insinuations about me being "sensitive." I wonder if your statements qualify as what you term "improper language." You claim that I think you are "diminishing a religious ceremony to a vulgar and folklore show ." However, I think you are diminishing the article to original research! --Agha Nader (talk) 03:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Folklore and Mythology

They are not the same but there could be overlaps. Just like there is an overlap between Physics and Mathematics. So the merge tag should be removed. Encyclopedia Iranica has two different articles devoted to each topic. Greek mythology and Greek folklore are not the same. The merge tag should be removed. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 18:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe you are fighting a Strawman. No one has argued that folklore and mythology are the same thing. We are arguing that the Iranian folklore article would make a better section than an article. I have enumerated some reasons for this: the article is largely original research; the article lacks sources that attribute the material as folklore. --Agha Nader (talk) 19:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
We do not need an English source for such triviality and one can look at many Persian sources on Iranian culture. Anyhow the two articles can not be merged since folklore (and there is no OR in the article) is different than mythology. Why should two different topics be merged? Folklore and Mythology? Persian Mythology is a well know subject and there are a good deal of books on it even in English. As per folklore, attribution to folklore is done based on the defition of folklore:"Folklore is the body of expressive culture, including tales, music, dance, legends, oral history, proverbs, jokes, popular beliefs, customs, and so forth within a particular population comprising the traditions (including oral traditions) of that culture, subculture, or group." or check the www.dictionary.com definition. The net is wide enough to include customs and ceremonies. Tazziya is part of folklore by definition of folore (custom, tradition) but it is not part of mythology. So we shouldn't combine these two articles. I don't see the rational for combining an article on folklore with one on mythology.--alidoostzadeh (talk) 21:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


There are evidently two issues at stake here.
  1. The specific distinction of "Persian mythology" vis-a-vis "Iranian mythology".
  2. The general distinction between mythology and folklore.
Tackling them one at a time:
  1. "Persian mythology" and "Iranian mythology" are distinct even though they are thematically synonymous. This is because "Persian mythology" has genre-defining characteristics that most "xyz mythologies", including "Iranian mythology," do not have.
    These characteristics are:
    a) ... it is a literary preservation of Iranian myths, legends and folk tales (as opposed to an oral tradition of these)
    b) ... its texts are New Persian compositions (as opposed to being in the plethora of languages of the pre-Islamic-era)
    c) ... are "polite" language compositions (to be contrasted with folk and religious compositions)
  2. mythology and folklore have the same memes, and both equally represent "traditions (including oral traditions) of that culture, subculture, or group." As such, they are both just two faces of the same coin. The difference is that mythology constitutes a rationalization or idealization of some higher moral or ethical cause(s) -- in the case of "Persian"n1 mythology in its rationalization and idealization of (and justifications for) Iranian identity.
But... neither article says anything that distinguishes it from the other (heck, both articles say next-to-nothing about their respective topics). Since they are both just basically lists, and the list at "Persian mythology" is actually just a list that belongs at Iranian folklore, the two articles might as well be merged.n2
However, the Iranian folklore article is really quite pathetic. While the Persian mythology article is not good either, at least it is in prose. Adding the unencyclopedic cruft from Iranian folklore would obliterate even that.
-- Fullstop (talk) 22:02, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
n1 This is also true for Iranian mythology, but to a lesser extent because it is from an era when asserting identity was not yet an imperative.
n2 Under normal circumstances to Iranian folklore because of the implications of exaggeration and untruth in any idealization (i.e. in mythology) -- this is why the term "mythology" is often avoided in favor of "folklore" or "tradition", particularly when notions of peoplehood hinge on it.