Talk:Daeva

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Zoroastrianism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Zoroastrianism 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.ZoroastrianismWikipedia:WikiProject ZoroastrianismTemplate:WikiProject ZoroastrianismZoroastrianism articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Mythology Mid‑importance

	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.MythologyWikipedia:WikiProject MythologyTemplate:WikiProject MythologyMythology articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Reliable sources for the term 'dharmic religions'?

Where are the reliable sources that use the term dharmic religions in the context of this article? "Dharmic religions" is a now deleted obscure neologism and should not be used throughout Wikipedia. a good alternative is Indian religions. The number of google scholar results for "Indian religions"+"Indian religion" is (45.600 + 84.200) while it is only (492+475) for "dharmic religions" +"dharmic religion". See Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_September_8. Andries 19:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andries, you're preaching to the choir. :) When I wrote the article I used "Dharmic religions" for convenience. The context was "languages of Indian religions", so I've now used "Indic languages". -- Fullstop 20:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Serbo-Croat đavo

I've removed the following sentence (added yesterday, 28 May) from the "Etymology" section.

Even amongst [[Slavic languages]], similiar cognates can be observed, such as ''đavo'' (lit. "devil") in [[Serbo-Croatian]].<ref>Igor K. Garshin (1998) ''The common origin of the God’s names Yahweh (Jehovah) and Zeus''.</ref>

The implications of continuity and the suggestion that the meaning of "devil" is related to the Iranian one are not valid. Even if (actually, it is not) Serbo-Croat đavo were a cognate of Avestan daeva, the article already mention the PIE reconstruction, and provides a link to an article where the word is discussed in the European context. Moreover, the citation was formatted in a fashion that is not appropriate for this article, and the source being cited is not a reliable source (the author is a computer programmer, and the work is self-published). On top of all that, the source does not say anything about Serbo-Croat đavo. -- Fullstop (talk) 13:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty obvious devil came from this word but yeah without a source, can't say that. Popish Plot (talk) 14:38, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Diwe

Is it possible that Diwe is just a different transliteration for Daeva, or are these two distinct creatures? --SquidSK ^(1MC^•^log) 19:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Devil

Is the word cognate with English 'devil'? 93.96.236.8 (talk) 14:08, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. See the etymology of 'devil' in Wiktionary. --Vahagn Petrosyan (talk) 16:40, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

that wiktionary has no sources. Popish Plot (talk) 14:39, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Need someone familiar with recent Indo-Iranian research

The section "In comparison with Vedic usage" cites few sources and appears to contradict itself several times. It desperately needs attention from someone who is acquainted with the recent research (21st century) on the precise relationship of early Iranian religion to Vedic religion in India. Texas Dervish (talk) 18:12, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any contradictions. IMO, the text is clear that, despite their shared etymology, Indic deva and Iranian daeva have distinctly different meanings, and that this difference is due to independent developments.

And the source is also fine; its both authorative and current.

A discussion of the "precise relationship of early Iranian religion to Vedic religion in India" would be off-topic here. This article is about a "particular sort of supernatural entity with disagreeable characteristics" specific to Zoroastrianism.

The sole reason why Indian devas would need to be mentioned here at all is because, in the 18th/19th century, the difference in meaning (opposite meanings) was deemed to be symptomatic of some prehistoric opposition (rather than independent developments). Such notions are long dead, but poorly informed dimwits would continue adding it here if it weren't addressed. Actually, being dim, they add it even though its addressed.

-- 77.183.167.104 (talk) 11:43, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The claim "is no longer followed in 21st century academic discourse" needs citation. And since 'anyone who disagrees is a dimwit' doesn't count as a reliable source, the paragraph should really be removed. 2A00:23C5:4786:3300:B16E:E4A8:E791:3CCD (talk) 13:08, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the comment about this being dimwitted and the lack of citation cause me to wonder how much this is a personally biased opinion being expressed versus actually reflecting broad academic agreement. 168.166.80.209 (talk) 21:16, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree that this reads as incredibly biased and authoritative without even addressing the broad range of views on the topic. Maybe the section and line at the top of the article need to be rewritten with a more neutral, less conclusive angle, in a way that addresses the varying viewpoints without hiding any and claiming that they're obsolete. Bagabondo (talk) 00:10, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pseudo-Turkic Word, "Div"

There are many evil spirits in Turkish language. Cin (Djinn), Albastı, Almasty, Karabasan, Gulyabani (Ghoul), İblis (Diabolus), Karaconcolos, Canavar, Yaratık...

Div isnt one of them. I looked up literally all etymology dictionaries (including but not limited to TDK and Nişanyan) and this word or anything similar to it does not exists. I was thrilled and excited for a moment that Indo-European word for divinity exists in Turkish language, but no. If it does exists then is there any source to support this claim? Cactus Ronin (talk) 06:30, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

False alert, i have found one source that supports this article's claim. Nevermind, I will correct myself. Cactus Ronin (talk) 06:35, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]