Talk:Tawûsî Melek

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)

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

The better question is, why is it important to the article subject? I don't see that it is, especially as there are no reliable sources showing it to be.--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:23, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Now you are conflating two very separate issues. I would say that old religions as well as new ones are both significant. The new age references were related to a pagan sect which is notable by the fact that it has an article on it. I am quite unable to wrap my head around the notion that what this notable neo-pagan group writes about how Melek Taus features in their rituals and lore should be intrinsically of no interest. I can accept that it is of no interest to any one particular editor, but not how it can be asserted that it is irrelevant for this article. Now, the second, separate issue is whether sources supplied to reference the text that was inserted are acceptable per WP standards. I'm sure we could have a nice discussion on this issue, but as it is subordinate to the first I'll defer that discussion until I have come to grips with the reasoning you still haven't presented on the first issue, now extrapolated by me. __meco (talk) 22:37, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I think you're putting the cart before the horse here. The Feri Tradition use of Melek Taus could be noteworthy enough to include in this article, if there were reliable sources attesting to it. Such sources could exist, but I doubt it; Google Books returns exactly zero hits for "Melek Taus"+Feri, and Google Scholar returns nothing useful either.--Cúchullain ^t/c 23:23, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Since www.feritradition.org is used in several place to reference Feri Tradition itself, apparently being run by the founder of the BlueRose Feri line, I see no reason to assume that this site does not represent the Feri tradition. This would be comparable with the general provision in WP:RS where the section Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves states:

Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

1. the material is not unduly self-serving;
2. it does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities);
3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.

This clearly applies to the edit that you want removed. __meco (talk) 07:29, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

This isn't an article about the Feri tradition, so it doesn't apply. WP:SPS on the verifiability policy discusses just this kind of thing: "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—including but not limited to books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs, Internet forum postings, and tweets—are largely not acceptable." And, "Self-published material may in some circumstances be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Unless Storm Faerywolf has some kind of advanced degree in Middle Eastern studies, or previous worked published in academic journals, there is no reason to use them here.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:31, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Anu

On the Melek Taus picture, the Cuneiform that looks like four plunger's is the same cuneiform that was used for Anu, father of the gods in Sumerian mythology. Anu was the father of Enki and Enlil. What does this possibly mean? Where is the connection here? 178.201.17.154 (talk) 06:42, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

So it means that Anu is Satan, and Enki and Enlil are Leviathan and Behemoth, respectively. 178.201.17.154 (talk) 23:18, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

It's a modern interpretation so what does it matter? Sumerian has been a dead language since about 2600 BCE, so that's not really relevant to anything. Ogress _smash! 07:50, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Also, that interpretation is original research (which we don't accept), and it completely ignores that the identification between Melek Taus and Satan is considered erroneous and sectarian: Melek Taus is the favorite servant of God in Yazidiism, Satan is more commonly an enemy of God in the Abrahamic religions. Furthermore, it ignores that the Dingir symbol was used as a general marker for "deity." Ian.thomson (talk) 12:04, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

What "some Christians, Muslims and others" think

Is there a source for "Some Christians, Muslims and others identify Tawûsê Melek as Lucifer or Satan"? note 4 doesn't work and note 5 is not relevant to this statement. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 18:26, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

If you look at some numeric books in french language dated between 1500 and 2000, you will see that yezidi are described and known by muslish only as adorateur du diable, because yezidi do not want to blaspheme the malek-taus. So, yes, there is some source, at least for the muslish considerations.

But the Christian approach is different, as they were interested by converting them to Christan religion: when they use tex expression adorateur du diable, it is only a reuse of the arabic expression.

the iranian encylopedi also give such meaning to this angel (read www.iranicaonline.org/articles/yazidis-i-general-1 ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.199.97.103 (talk) 21:48, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

No Zoroastrian Comparison? Six Archangels

There are also six archangels in Zoroastrianism. They are called the Amesha Spentas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ploxhoi (talk • contribs) 08:50, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

This article should be about Melek Taus in Yazidi belief, not the Islamic devil

Whoever is transforming this article into musings about the connection between Melek Taus and the Islamic devil, please stop and undo the damage. The claim that Yazidis worship the devil is slander used to fuel violence and hate. While it's perfectly fine to compare the myths of Iblis and Melek Taus, which are clearly related, it should be a minor part of this article, not the bulk of the introduction. Islamic prayers certainly do not belong here, and writing "Melek Taus/Shaitan" promotes a completely skewed point of view. --User:Pseudodoxia (talk) 12 August 2014 — Preceding undated comment added 21:20, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Supported. The article is written like this being Melek Taus is Satan, which I doubt, based on the obviously Mesopotamian structure of the religion, and the fact that "Satan" is a late invention of heretic Jews that later became Christians. Iblis is the Christian Satan reworked for the Arabic mythological environment, neither "Iblis" nor "Satan" existed at the root of yazidism. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 06:03, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

It is true that the concept of Satan came after Yazidism. Therefore, it doesn't make sense, but a redefining of what is and what was not the Quran's. Redoing religious history with subsequent written work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Veggiesoup2 (talk • contribs) 14:28, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Main article picture

I'm not convinced that the picture used in the article is a a depiction actually used within the Yazidi religion or community. Trying to find a translation of the various cuneiform writing in the lower half led me to this forum and refutation of the image as relevant. http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/showthread.php/31577-Yezidi-Melek-Taus-(-quot-Peacock-Angel-quot-) LordQwert (talk) 14:17, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Melek Taus. 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/20080320070927/http://www.yeziditruth.org/yezidi_reformer_sheikh_adi to http://www.yeziditruth.org/yezidi_reformer_sheikh_adi

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) 02:45, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Origin of the bird

I don't see much written about the source of the bird.

The Arizal had a very similar looking bird, but I don't what that origin is either :

https://www.kabbalah-judaica.com/products/poster-of-home-protection-wall-tapestry-kabbalah-holy-names

According to facsimile copy of the 1855 Lemberg Sha'ar Hayichudim by Rabbi Chaim Vital, this predates the Arizal and goes back to the 11th century with Rabbi Eliezer of Worms. Pretty close to the sources for this peacock.

Kshlomo (talk) 16:14, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

It has been suggested by travellers to Lalish who have described the peacock in early traditions as a cock rather than a peacock and suggest that Taus Malak "King cock" or originally the God of death Nergal but so far there does not seem to much connection between the two as different claims are made about its origin. Sabyan (talk) 02:34, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Removing pov-push

In the Infobox is pov-push and it should be removed. Kurdistan is very confusing and misleading for readers and Kurds is also POV because it is disputed whether the Yazidis are Kurds or not. There are Yazidis who identify themselves as a distinct ethnic group. Dortana (talk) 19:01, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Why would Kurdistan be confusing for people? Again your "arguments" are nonsensical (as always). Please stop reverting if you don't have consensus with you. I see it as Wikipedia:IJDLI and Wikipedia:CENSORSHIP). --Semsûrî (talk) 19:04, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Comment: maybe they refer to that Kurdistan is not a commonly known country like Iraq or Syria, then also Kurdistan overlaps other countries and some might think that Yazidi would hail/live from/in Turkey which is not so much the case. That Yazidi are an own ethnicity is not commonly known, so to display them as such (to denote some Yazidi's feelings) in brackets beside the Kurds I'd see as a fair compromise.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 04:21, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Ethnicity of a God?

The article appeared in the DYK section describing Melek Taus as a God. Others describe him as an angel or the peacock angel. How can a heavenly being be attached an ethnicity of a terrestrial people? Paradise Chronicle (talk) 10:37, 18 July 2022 (UTC)