Talk:Tawûsî Melek: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 16:33, 3 July 2010

Kurdistan Start‑class Mid‑importance

	Kurdistan portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Kurdistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Kurdistan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.KurdistanWikipedia:WikiProject KurdistanTemplate:WikiProject KurdistanKurdistan
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from Tawûsî Melek appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 10 November 2004. The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the Yazidis think of their god, Melek Taus, as a golden peacock, although some Christians and Muslims think of him as Lucifer?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2004/November.

Wikipedia

Uniqueness of bird depiction

The Yazidis are thought to be unique in their depiction of their primary god as a bird.

Really? Christians have historically often depicted Jesus as a phoenix. I'm removing this until at the very least there's a source for this claim.--Pharos 03:48, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Of course Jesus isn't the creator, so I can't say I agree with this objection. --Qaphsiel 20:34, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Er... Prototokos? Through whom all things were made?82.6.24.231 (talk) 03:59, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christians sometimes present jesus as a phoneix, but thats hardly at all the same. Malik Taus /is/ a peacock, he's not merely represented as one Nygdan -January 17 2006

What about the depiction of the Holy Spirit as a dove? 130.127.119.37 18:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suspicions

I am very suspicious about the entire content of this article. Especially the use of cuneiform symbols in the image since its use became extinct 3 millenium ago.82.6.24.231 (talk) 03:53, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Malak, non Malik

In Arabic language (and the other from Arabic derived) the word for "angel" is malak (pl. malā'ika ) while malik (pl. muluk ) means "king". No confusion is possible, although both of them show the identical consonantal frame: <M-L-K>. So the expression Malak Ṭā'ūs means only "Peacock Angel", not "Peacock King". --Cloj 09:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The word "tā'ūs", though having the meaning "peacock" in Persian and related languages, is in fact a cognate of the Latin word deus, meaning "god". "Malak Taus" thus literally means "God's Angel" or "God-Angel". Tajik (talk) 18:21, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tawûsê Melek

Err... given that the name of "Melek Tawus" is actually Tawûsê Melek, shouldn't we move the page to Tawûsê Melek (or Tawuse Melek) and make Melek Tawus/Taus/Taws redirects to it? Cf. the Kurdish version of this wikipedia page.

NBC

Conspiracy theorists would have a field day with this.

If MSNBC knew about this, perhaps they would have chosen another mascot. Ha ha!

There are also some depictions of Melek Taus as a bull, but I'm not sure why exactly. Anyone know? -Knowl -<(I am questing for Knowledge!) (talk) 08:22, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New Age section

I removed this section, as it has no reliable sources and its importance to the article's subject isn't established (I think it's nonexistent). It was restored twice by another user, who requested that citation requests be placed instead, but I don't see that the section has any value at all. --Cúchullain ^t/c 14:00, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I find your sentiment strange. Why is it that a new age reference, or this particular reference, doesn't have "any value at all"? __meco (talk) 16:33, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 33: / Line 33: @@
 ==New Age section==
 I removed [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Melek_Taus&action=historysubmit&diff=371433529&oldid=371384749 this section], as it has no reliable sources and its importance to the article's subject isn't established (I think it's nonexistent). It was restored twice by another user, who requested that citation requests be placed instead, but I don't see that the section has any value at all. --[[User:Cuchullain|Cúchullain]] [[User talk:Cuchullain|<sup>t</sup>]]/[[Special:Contributions/Cuchullain|<small>c</small>]] 14:00, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
+:I find your sentiment strange. Why is it that a new age reference, or this particular reference, doesn't have "any value at all"? __[[User:Meco|meco]] ([[User talk:Meco|talk]]) 16:33, 3 July 2010 (UTC)