Talk:Mithras

Mithras etymology

I may have made a mistake by omitting the "s" in the etymology I added, but can User:Fullstop provide sources that Mithras in its original farsi can not have three meanings; "love", "sun", or "friend".
The pre-existing un-cited statement there, that "Mithras is however a product of Greco-Roman syncretic beliefs, and the name simply reflects the esteem that the Greeks held for the figure of Zoroaster." is extremely POV-ish. Fennessy 19:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I will have to revert your re-addition of a 1st century BCE date and allusions of continuity. Both these theories derive from Cumont (the *original* author of the "Mysteries of Mithras"), and neither of these ideas are any longer considered valid. For the presently accepted date, and for more information on Cumont's hypothesis, see Mithraism.
Thanks. -- Fullstop 19:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

You posted this on my talk page, however I feel that this is the appropriate place for such discussion.
The source you refered to was published in 2001 —— mine was published in 2005. Clearly this is a contentious issue, I did not realise that when first editing this page.
However I think that my first suspicion was correct and you are aggressively editing to project a POV on this article. Please discuss this issue here to avoid anything escalating. Fennessy 19:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

1. The thesis "in its original farsi" is already busted. On multiple levels. Consequently, what 'X' might mean is rather irrelevant.

2. What specifically is biased (assuming that is what you meant by "POV-ish") in the sentence you quote?

3. Cumont's text is over 100 years old. Its not from 2001.

4. The origin of the name 'Mithras' is not contentious at all. Indeed, its one of the few things about Mithras that are not debated.

-- Fullstop 21:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I added templates everywhere there are problems with the article.
As for your points:
1. Thats your opinion, plain & simple. References?
2. Its a controversial statement that not all people agree with. Just because you ascribe to it doesn't automatically make it true.
3. I meant the source you were using to back up your own view: Boyce, Mary (2001). "Mithra the King and Varuna the Master". Festschrift für Helmut Humbach zum 80. pp. 243,n.18
4. Well as my source showed, thats just not true.

I honestley don't know if we are getting our wires crossed here or if you are being deliberately obstinate, but either way if this has to go to a formal mediation, I dont think they are going to take too kindly to someone who can't provide footnotes to back up statements. Fennessy 21:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Just take a deep breath and relax. Like soooooooo. :) Now, read my original comment (the one you cross-posted) again, note which diff I have linked to, and take a closer look at what I said in that comment. Note that I didn't say anything about the name. Also, take a look at the edit history of the article. Note what my edit comments say, and which changes they apply to.

Answering your questions one by one.

1. Nope, its not my opinion.It is plain and simple, but I can only address it if you specify what precisely you mean by farsi - I suspect you've misunderstood something along the way, and it would help if you tell me precisely what you think farsi means.
2. What specifically is a controversial statement? That Mithras is "a product of Greco-Roman syncretic beliefs"? Or that the figure of Zoroaster was held in esteem by the Greeks? Neither of these is a controversial statement. Why do you think that that either one is?
3. What does Mary Boyce have to do with anything? And when you noted that your source was from 2005 were you trying to indicate something I should be aware of?
   Question (just to determine what your line of reasoning is): Are you trying to resuscitate Cumont? And if so, why?
4. Well, um, I'll address that when you've responded to #1.
   It would also help if you actually told me why you think the origin of the name is controversial. Your "Well as my source showed, [the origin of the name is indeed controversial]" doesn't get us anywhere.

And, it would be nice if we could work to improve the article. Don't assume obstinacy, bad faith, pov-ishness, bias or whatever. Ok? Its not productive.

Also, have you read the "disambiguation" page at Mitra that I referred to in my edit comment? Did you follow the link behind the 'X' in my previous comment here?

-- Fullstop 23:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The etomology part: when you assert that "the name(Mithras) simply reflects the esteem that the Greeks held for the figure of Zoroaster", am I to think that you mean the romans/greeks worshiping Mithra simply meant the word to mean "covenant"? Because that is highly controversial, not to mention un-referenced. The "product of Greco-Roman syncretic beliefs" part is fine & neither here nor there in regards to this issue.
As for Mary Boyce, I assumed that was the primary source you were using to to justify your views?
You are entitled to your views, but this article needs to be balanced out.
And I am trying to improve the article, deleting referenced materal is hardly setting a president of good faith. Fennessy 23:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

>>when you assert that "the name(Mithras) simply reflects the esteem that the Greeks held for the figure of Zoroaster", am I to think that you mean the romans/greeks worshiping Mithra simply meant the word to mean "covenant"?

If you take that full sentence at face value, and take it in the context that it appears, you might find that passage says: a) The name Mithras derives from Mithra who is a prominent figure in Zoroastrianism. b) The Greeks revered Zoroaster. c) with Mithras the Romans thought they were following a religion founded by Zoroaster.

The literal meaning of Avestan 'Mithra' does not figure anywhere in there, nor does it suggest that the Mithraists might have known (or thought they knew) what 'Mithra' literally meant.

Prompt me on my talk page if you would like to know what Plutarch thought the name meant.

>>As for Mary Boyce, I assumed that was the primary source you were using to to justify your views?

Which view specifically do you mean? The Boyce citation is not pertinent to anything said in this article, nor to anything under discussion on this talk page.

>>You are entitled to your views, but this article needs to be balanced out.

Which views? For heaven's sake, please be precise. Given your rather arbitrary yank of a Boyce citation out of context, I really have no idea what you think my views are, or why they should be relevant, or why it is so important that you identify them.

And given that the only 'lopsided' tag placed is for a sub-clause that begins with "although", perhaps its time you gave me a hint with which I might be able to to determine what "needs to be balanced out." While some people might be able to read your mind to find out why you added that and other tags, alas, I cannot.

>>And I am trying to improve the article

It would help enormously towards improving this article if you started talking about this article and what you perceive to be its problems and why you perceive those problems exist and how you imagine they could be solved. I stress this why/how because you have the exasperating habit of picking things out of context, then alluding to them in only the most oblique way possible, and then not answering questions that are asked of you.

I need *specifics*, not allusions. Articulate!

>>referenced materal

"Referenced material" is not necessarily "good material." But I had already explained this to you on your talk page (which you cross-posted above).

-- Fullstop 07:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't tell me I'm not being clear when I couldn't be any clearer.
The "Zoroaster" sentance is blatant opinion, you are deliberatly editing to omit any refererence to mithras possibly being mithra. And whats more your presenting it like it's a universally held view, which it clearly isn't.
I couldn't care less what your personal opinion is, you have to provide references & footnotes on wikipedia if you want to make such claims.
Based on your previous edits elsewhere, you have some kind of pro-Zoroastrian POV. I'm putting this issue up for mediation, or finding some other way to resolve this issue. I think you have had this a long time coming but just no one has been bothered up until now to see this issue through. I had hoped to avoid this but its pretty clear by now your not going to be reasonable. Fennessy 13:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

• Excuse me, but have you *at any time* expressly provided an explanation of your tags? You haven't even provided edit summaries! If I ask for explanation, then the proper reaction would be to provide one, and not to assume bad faith, which - as is now evidently clear - you did all along.
• What you have just expressed in your last comment is the first and only time you have articulated what you think my bias is. So your observation that you had previously been "clear" is rather off the mark. If you think I should be aware of any previous attempts where you explicitly state this, then please provide diffs.
• Indeed, I have repeatedly stated that my "personal opinion" is not evident in this article. If you had even thought about that twice, and were not so awfully convinced of your own righteousness and my worthlessness, you might have come to the conclusion that you were doing me a disservice. In effect, you have assumed bad faith from the get go, you have *insisted* on a bias from the get go, which is itself a bias, against me personally, and for your own assumption that only you yourself could possibly represent the "truth." So much for bias.
  But you've now finally gotten around to properly expressing yourself, so you can safely get off that horse. I have absolutely no problem in acknowledging that I can/have been/am wrong, or misguided or unbalanced or whatever. I do not suffer from the conviction that I am always right, or that I know everything or that I am god's gift to wikipedia. I am none of these things, nor do I have an agenda other than to educate myself, and if in the process I can also pass that knowledge along, then so much the better.
• We can move on now that you have identified what you think my bias is. The rest of your comment is unbecoming and unconstructive and if you think anything is "pretty clear" then it is only because you have *JUST* made it so. I can't read your mind, I asked you to explain, you finally have, fine. Lets move on. Ok?

-- Fullstop 19:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I ididn't bring it up until now because:
a) I was trying to assume good faith.
b) I didn't have the time to properly investigate the matter until then.
Next time I'm on I'll try to work-out a compromise presenting all sides of the issue on the article.
It would help matters considerably if Mithras/Mithraism references were easier to come by... But they aren't. Fennessy 00:33, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, for whatever reason you didn't bring it up, you then couldn't seriously claim you "couldn't be any clearer," could you?

a) your justification that you could only now identify my bias (even though you alluded to it all the while) is not convincing.

• Either you assumed I had a bias, and had to go looking around for a justification which you only just found
• OR you didn't assume I had a bias to begin with, but thought you'd throw the accusation at me anyway.

In any case, you throw the term "POV" around as if you actually knew what it meant. It does not mean bias. It is not the opposite of NPOV. And adding "may" to a sentence does not make that sentence npov. It makes it weaselly.

b) that you "didn't have the time to properly investigate the matter" doesn't wash either.

• Either you had added the pov/lopsided tag without having a "properly investigated" reason for adding the pov/lopsided tag.
• Or you were back then already aware that you didn't know enough to justify them, but added the tags anyway.

Anyway, where does your not "bringing it up until now" leave you? Are you now in a better position to explain your tags? Are you now prepared to provide a valid contrasting opinion? If so, where are they?

At the very least, you have to be able to identify the reason why a statement is not neutral so that it can at all be neutralized. POV/lopsided/tone tags are subjective. They are not self-explanatory. They are worthless without explanation. Which - as you say - you couldn't provide before you had properly investigated the matter. Since you say you have now investigated the matter, lets have those explanations then.

Its not hard to find references. And not being able to find references is not a valid reason after the fact. You have already added tags and made statements, you ought to already have a reason for them, and should not need to have to go looking for references now.

--- Fullstop 07:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Stop arguing with me it's getting ridiculous.
I gave footnotes in my edits, that gave my reasons for why there were issues with the article.
a) The date the Mysteries of Mithras began to be practised is in deispute
b) "Greco-Roman Mithras should not be confused with Mithra or Mitra, which although having similar names are not the same entity.[citation needed] For these similar names, see *mitra."
This statement is opinion. There are other views on this.
c) "the name simply reflects the esteem that the Greeks held for the figure of Zoroaster."
Same as for b.
d) "It appears that the cult was particularly attractive for low-ranking soldiers and slaves, and dedications from higher-ranking soldiers are rare."
Another opinion, how about a reference?
e) "Cumont's hypothesis that Mithras was an offshoot of Zoroastrian Mithra has since been established to be untenable"
Opinion.

And literary references are hard to find in regards to this subject—— look on the internet long enough for anything and you'll find it. Fennessy 16:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Right off the bat, I can tell you that you have never written an academic paper, or taken the trouble to write a good wikipedia article. You don't know what "original research" is. You don't know what "reliable sources" are, nor do you know how to recognize one.

This is the basic tradecraft that you should have down pat, and these are basic things you are expected to know.

--

The fact that you didn't know the difference between "bias" and POV should have already set the bells ringing, but they finally started ringing when you overloaded with "opinion."

The irony is that your a/b/c/d/e cruft is all your own opinion. All those objections you made are how you feel. You don't actually have any solid reasons.

And a solid reason would look like this:

"I think that sentence X is unbalanced because in book Y (page N) author Z clearly states W."

Then, if book Y is not a current tertiary source, you will additionally have to establish that your author Z is an authority.

This is what I have been expecting from you all along. But because you do not have the basic tools of proper writing in your head, you rambled on and on about how you felt. But nobody cares about how you feel. Your feelings may be real to you, but they are not actually real. And more importantly, they are not relevant to anyone but yourself.

--

Following the realization that you really have no idea how to distinguish a valuable source from a crufty one, I checked your other edits from the past week. That stuff you pasted to this (Mithras) article was horsepuckey, and I won't bother to go into it here again, because you never bothered to answer the questions that I asked of you. But then there is this absurdity. And I can tell that you have never hadthis book in your hands. Not that it ever was reliable. And this is outrageously original research, as is also this. Indeed, not only have you never read any one of those "sources" that you mis-cite, none of them are usable to support what you are saying in the accompanying edits.

--

You've had the benefit of the doubt long enough, I am going to draw a line right now. I have pointed you in the right direction, whether you go that way is up to you.

In the last seven days,

1. You have templated two articles without knowledge of the material (your own admission).
2. You have failed to state what could possibly be objectionable about those templated statements (and not just that they "are" objectionable).
3. You have not provided an explanation to support your assertion of lopsidedness. Your assertions of "pov"/"view"/"opinion" have not once been accompanied with a reason why those sentences are "pov"/"view"/"opinion". Nor have you ever provided a balancing or even contraindicatory source. I have repeatedly noted - to no avail - that these tags are subjective and that I cannot read your mind and that without accompanying specifics, all your assertions of lopsidedness are worthless.
4. You have not provided an explanation of the tone tag. Again a subjective judgement with no rationale provided, not even in an edit summary, leave alone a full explanation that the tag itself prompts you for.
5. Not once have you answered any of the many direct and simple questions I have posed.
6. The irony of your acknowledgement that you don't have anything in hand (while continuing to ramble on about "pov"/"view"/"opinion"!) evidently escapes you entirely.

You have had seven days, I will give you another two. By that time I expect that you will either have provided the missing information here on talk, or you will have taken down those tags.

You have until Saturday 6:00 UTC. I will not acknowledge any response that does not provide material to unambiguously further/benefit this article.

-- Fullstop 05:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

OK I read the erroneous insults at the start and just skipped to the end, I've definately heard more than enough from you these last few days.
Your not a moderator so you have no right to take down the perfectly vaild tags.
You can set all the deadlines you want, it makes no difference what-so-ever. Fennessy 16:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Fennessy, Fullstop is a veteran editor in excellent standing. You would do well to read through all of his concerns, and address them in good faith. Regarding the 1st c. BC thing, we can well state that such a date has been hypothesized in the past, but we cannot treat it as a fact. --dab (𒁳) 17:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Ulansey (1989) places the origin of Mithraism in the early 1st century BC. Ulansey's thesis is bold, but it is perfectly respectable, and not too outdated. We can say that the origins of Mithraism are suspected to lie in the 2nd to 1st century BC. This nonwithstanding, it only becomes tangible in the 1st century AD. It is perfectly reasonable to assume that the origins of the cult lie a century or so before its rise to notability, I don't see much of a dispute here. --dab (𒁳) 17:40, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Dbachmann, I agree with your edits and think it presents the issue in a more balanced manner. However regardless of how long Fullstop has been editing, we really dont need people throwing around insults, a clear breach of Wikipedia:Civility, and trying to maintain a monopoly on an article to disregard Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. For that matter failing to provide clear footnotes could be interpreted as Wikipedia:No original research. Fennessy 18:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I fail to see any blatant insult. It won't do to exasperate people and then cry WP:CIVIL when they get annoyed. Also, it is useful on Wikipedia to grow some callous, so as not to take criticism of your edits too personally. Let's just focus on the topic, alright? dab (𒁳) 19:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Is the 'controversial issue' tag really justified it seems to me, the only controversy is between you two. It seems to me (though I have no expertise on Greco-Roman mystery religion of late antiquity) that the article is of a resonible standard though far to wordy in places and poorly balanced, and refocused as characteristics contains not one characteristic.That its differcult to tell who he exactly was isn't really good enough, surely something can be put down.Worship section needs work also as there is little infomation on actual worship as opposed to initiation ritials etc. I feel that the mithraism article may be useful for fixing up this offshot and perhaps a lead can be taken from their etymology section "Although scholars are in agreement with the classical sources that state that the Romans borrowed the name of Mithras from Avestan[3]" I agree completely with Dbachmann comments above (on a side note I think he took offence at the first three lines of the post), espicially concerning reading comments in their entirety. 125.237.164.5 10:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, this will be the last word I'm saying on this subject, I'm throughly bored of arguing with people over this. I don't take anyhing personally on here, but Fullstop definately breached WP:CIVIL(after skimming through the rest of what he wrote in his last post, I'm not even going to stoop to get involved in it). I didn't goad the guy at all.
Whats more I agree this probably could do with being merged with Mithraism. Whatever Mithras actually was, it's inseparable from Mithraism. Fennessy 16:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Missing Content

This article was much bigger and well-written around Sept 07. Now it reads like it came from a children's book and is barely a handful of sentences, and there's no justification given, nor anyone complaining of vandalism. What happened? Who decided to effectively blank the article? Unless there's some good reason that all the content was removed I'm going to have to be bold and revert to when it was a real article. 121.45.169.173 (talk) 19:19, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the version of around Sept. 7 was fine, but was changed into a redirect some time later since the material was covered at Mithraic Mysteries anyway.

I don't think the edits (which were really only of today) were in bad faith. The editor appears to have simply been unfamiliar with the subject.

I've restored it to be the redirect to Mithraic Mysteries and left a note on the editor's talkpage.

Thanks for the heads-up.

-- Fullstop (talk) 22:53, 26 December 2007 (UTC)