Talk:Names of God in Zoroastrianism

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Names of God in Zoroastrianism article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Zoroastrianism High‑importance

	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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Lists Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Reverted

Why was edit reverted with the reason (rm off-topic. Meher Baba's stuff is not recited in Zoroastrianism) when the 101 Names of God are at the beginning of every Khordeh Avesta that are published by Union Press in India. Any Atash Behram or Atash Adaran in India will contain books on the 101 Names of Ahura Mazda and their meanings. Therefore, it is recited in Zoroastrianism and that revert was baseless and with no facts. Warrior4321^{Contact Me} 15:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please pay attention to what this article is ABOUT. Note the categories, infobox and sources. It is about Meher Baba's 101 Names. Meher Baba's prayer is NOT in the Khordeh Avesta. Please PAY ATTENTION! Your "therefore" is invalid because your premise is false. And check your email. -- Fullstop (talk) 15:21, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One suggestion. Perhaps this ought to be renamed (moved) "Meher Baba's 101 Names of God." Dazedbythebell (talk) 21:27, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting to two separate articles is unnecessary. The main article should be about the 101 names per se, with a section for translations to English, of which Meher Baba's is one. If you make a separate article for the translation, it should incorporate anything else that is said in that book; i.e. it should be about the book or Meher Baba. It is possible that this article should be moved to 101 Names of Ahura Mazda. Wnt (talk) 22:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Changes by 24.129.89.31

Twice User:24.129.89.31 has made original uncited changes to the prayers. The first change was here, which was reverted to the cited version, and the second was here. This was also reverted. The cited source taken from the Baj prayer is here. Dazedbythebell (talk) 23:20, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of devotee-published sources

I have removed the reference to Kalchuri, Meher Prabhu. For discussion, see RS/N and this Talk page. Simon Kidd (talk) 08:50, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing in the RSN page you link that indicates you have the right to go around removing references.Hoverfish Talk 20:06, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from acting against consensus. Hoverfish Talk 20:12, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I linked to two pages. Fifelfoo said on his Talk page: "I'd suggest editing out OR and inappropriately sourced content, citing policy and appropriate discussions, and discussing at length on the talk page." The relevant policy/guideline says that an article "must be based upon reliable third-party sources, and meets this requirement if [among other things, it] is independent and unaffiliated with the subject, thus excluding sources such as self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, and promotional materials". Kalchuri fails this test, since he is published by an organisation affiliated with the subject. Simon Kidd (talk) 23:03, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can't unilaterally decide that Lord Meher is not a reliable source. You can't unilaterally decide that it is devotional and not a reliable biography. What is "Devotional"? and who decides. Not You, Mr Kidd. Hoverfish Talk 16:26, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]