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)

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)