Talk:Mandaeans/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Indigenous?

The article asserts that the Mandaeans are "indigenous to the alluvial plain of southern Mesopotamia", but also that they migrated from the Jordan Valley. Both contentions cannot be true. Of course, no population of homo sapiens can be said to be strictly indigenous anywhere outside of Africa (as far as modern paleontology has yet discovered); but the Mandaeans appear to have become self-consciously a people somewhere in the Jordan Valley, and thereafter to have migrated to Mesopotamia. If that is true, they may occupy the alluvial plain of southern Mesopotamia; they may be resident there; they may dwell there; they may be its inhabitants since ancient times; but they cannot be indigenous to it, in any sense of the word. A more knowledgeable person than I should revise the article appropriately. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 16:48, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Mandaeans. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:40, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mandaeans. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 18:07, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mandaeans. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 12:49, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Section: "Origin"

The section Origin is written from a (scholarly) minority point of view. The scholarly majority, and the Mandeans themselves, claim that they originate from Judaism. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 14:34, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Many Mandaeans believe that they originate from Ancient Mesopotamia. There is no archaeological evidence of a Mandaean presence in ancient Israel.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sjalel (talk • contribs) 08:49, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mandaeans. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 02:24, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Point of view?

I'm a bit concerned about some of the Origins section. That something "cannot be denied" is a very strong statement; when it is backed up by only one source, one has to wonder if this is a denial, in effect, of positions to the contrary. This and other statements in the section seem to have a flavor of argument, not unvarnished fact. I'd tone them down a bit. This is not to say that the article isn't researched, documented, etc., but it's a tad short of being "encyclopedic". --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 14:13, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

This claim is supported by most Gnostic scholars, including Kurt Rudolph, THE expert in Mandeism. I will play down the tone and add more references.--Rafy talk 21:57, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

It's flat out awful. The aricle claims they are the first to practice Baptism and this is nothing short of nonsense. There are numerous problems with the citations in this article (they seem to be jumbled).174.64.72.81 (talk) 21:02, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Ur

Does the name of their evil force ("Ur") have anything to do with the Mesopotamian city of Ur? 76.189.141.37 (talk) 15:09, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Probably not. Nebulousquasar (talk) 11:42, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Mandaean origin

I have copied below what Sjalel added to my talk page in order to move the discussion here.Mcvti (talk) 00:21, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

As a member of the Mandaean community I feel obligated to convey accurate information about my community and my heritage. From a scientific perspective I am right about the origins of my community which is substantiated by the DNA results of myself and other Mandaeans from the Iraq DNA Project. I have no doubt that I am of ancient Mesopotamian heritage. This subject is personal and sensitive to me and I would like my community to not be mislead by arguments without sound historical or archaeological credibility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sjalel (talk • contribs) 23:54, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Please provide reliable sources to back up your claims. Scholars such as Buckley, Drower, Haberl, McGrath, Lidzbarski, Macuch and Gunduz are not misleading when they consider Mandaeans to be from the Jordan valley in the 1st Century. This is corroborated by the Mandaean Synod of Australia which is lead by Rishama Salah Chohaili.Mcvti (talk) 00:21, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
@Sjalel: Both of you are right. Mandaeans, like Iraqi Jews, have mixed with indigenous Mesopotamian and Persian populations over the centuries, but they also have ancestry from the Levant. There is no such thing as a "pure" race. Sjalel is welcome to provide his counterargument as long as reliable sources are cited. Nebulousquasar (talk) 11:41, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

I believe that it can be problematic to suggest that Mandaeism originated from Palestine when there is no archaeological evidence or historical evidence such as any records or historical sources that document a Mandaean migration from Ancient Israel in the 1st Century to Southern Mesopotamia. The Haran Gawaita is a religious text which mentions a migration from Israel however it is full of legends and myths and should not be considered as a purely historical document. There is also no evidence of persecution of Mandaeans by "orthodox jews" in Jerusalem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sjalel (talk • contribs) 09:16, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Both the Palestinian and Mesopotamian components of Mandaeism are undeniable. Mandaean texts clearly show Essene-type influence, as well as influence from Mesopotamian religions. Nebulousquasar (talk) 22:53, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Disregard of WP:UNDUE and WP:POV

@Mcvti: According to the Jabir ibn Hayyan article, especially this section [1], his existence and background is widely disputed, yet you still attempt to make it as a fact ('Jabir ibn Hayyan is considered to have been a Sabian-Mandaean') that he was Sabian-Mandaean in this article and Sabians. I hope you have a good explanation for this. Also, kindly reply to my question here as well regarding those questionable sources [2] ---HistoryofIran (talk) 23:10, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Sources state that Thābit ibn Qurra, Jabir ibn Hayyan and Al-Battani were Sabian-Mandaean or were of Sabian-Mandaean origin. In fact at least two sources state Jabir ibn Hayyan was a Sabian/Mandaean. I wrote 'considered' rather than the definitive 'was' to account for sources that disagree. However, your continuous reverting shows you do not accept the slightest possibility that Jabir ibn Hayyan may have been a Mandaean indicating you do not have a NPOV. I am willing to change 'considered' to 'mentioned', but not to remove Jabir ibn Hayyan outright as you clearly want to. Mcvti (talk) 23:32, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
What does Thabit ibn Qurra and al-Battani have to do with this? Kindly stop making theories of what I am thinking (WP:ASPERSIONS). The neutral definition would have been 'he may have been Sabian-Mandean' or something like that. Simply writing 'considered' means that it is an undisputed fact. It's not my job to correct your edits, hence why I reverted it. Kindly change it to something more neutral or remove it. As for those sources, they do not appear WP:RS, and are still needing an explanation at [3]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:42, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
I am not making theories of what you are thinking, and making false accusations against me accusing me of such is tantamount to violating WP:NPA and WP:BULLY. Instead of reverting twice on three separate articles and edit warring, you could have discussed your objection to the word 'considered' on the article's Talk page. EIR and IIIT (International Institute of Islamic Thought) that publishes the source are available on the web. Mcvti (talk) 00:22, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
[4] This is not the called rewording, this has the exact same meaning. Oh please, false accusations? Haven't you just accused me of loads of stuff? This is WP:GAMINGTHESYSTEM at best. Sigh, I will reword it for you then. --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:32, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
Your tone is confrontational, kindly maintain Wikipedia:Civility. Mcvti (talk) 01:27, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
More WP:GAMINGTHESYSTEM. --HistoryofIran (talk) 01:35, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
Kindly refrain from disrupting the article with your continuous reverting. At least check the sentence you are adding before posting it. Mcvti (talk) 01:41, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
How ironic. --HistoryofIran (talk) 01:42, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Scholars supporting the Palestinian origin theory

@Mcvti: with regard to the scholars you added here supporting the Palestinian origin theory:

  • Drower 1960 does not support it: on pp. xiii-xiv, she is relating the account of the Haran Gawaita, which she herself calls "semi-legendary". Her true view is found on p. xi, where she advances a kind of two-origin hypothesis with a partial origin in Jewish colonies in Parthia, Media and Babylonia, and a partial origin in South Iraq.
  • You also added Mark Lidzbarski, Eric Segelberg, James F. McGrath and Charles G. Häberl, but none of the references have page numbers. Could you please provide them, since they are needed for verification. One of the refs was also a Youtube video by Häberl, which is not an acceptable source in this context (see WP:RSPYT; it is also unneeded if the published Häberl source says the same).

Thanks for looking up the page numbers, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 17:21, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

That will take a while, but I'm working on it. If anyone would be kind enough to share sources with page numbers regarding these scholars point of view on Mandaean origins, that would be great. Mcvti (talk) 19:20, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
Why not remove the claims and re-add them when there are proper page numbers? The burden to demonstrate verifiability is on the editor adding content.
It's also kind of worrying that I just showed you from Drower's own book that she does not support the Palestinian origin theory there, and yet you add a review that would show this, without page number?
In general, why not make life easier for your fellow editors and just add the page number when you are checking and adding the source? ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 22:29, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
The review ref clearly shows the page numbers 246-249. Yet again you are misrepresenting a source deliberately or not understanding it as you did with Van Bladel.Mcvti (talk) 22:58, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
@Mcvti: why not simply give the page number, and the column while you're at it? Please just work with me. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 23:01, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
Ok, so I've read it and found it for myself. I presume you take as evidence p. 246, "In particular the Assyro-Babylonian elements that can be found in both vocabulary and ritual usage have been neglected in The Secret of Adam in favor of a Palestinian origin for Mandaean gnosis." But if you would read Drower 1960 p. xi, you would see that Drower's hypothesis is that the Mandaeans originated in the Jewish colonies of Parthia, Media and Babylonia, and then spread into the Jordan valley and into Palestine. Within this hypothesis, it's perfectly possible for some elements of Mandaean doctrine (Mandaean gnosis) to have originated while the Mandaeans were in Palestine, and that's clearly what the review is alluding to. This is not the Palestinian origin theory of Macúch and others, which posits that Mandaeism and Mandaeans as such originated in Palestine. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 23:14, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

The view that Thabit ibn Qurra and other Harranian Sabians were Mandaean

@Mcvti: with regard to your restoration of the paragraph only giving Nasoraia and Drower's point of view about Thabit ibn Qurra and other Harranian Sabians being Mandaean, and your subsequent edits to it: do you consider the points of view of De Blois, Van Bladel 2009 p.65, Rashed 2009a p. 646, Rashed 2009b p.21 and Roberts 2017 p. 253 that they were pagans to be illegitimate (per Wikipedia's policies & guidelines)? If you do consider them to be legitimate points of view, why did you not include them in your proposed version of the paragraph?

@HistoryofIran: I of course agree with your edsum here that the removal of multiple RS in not warranted, but the political magazine was not re-used: rather, the sources used for the view that Thabit was Mandaean are the same as in my revision. Oops, didn't see that you already retracted that. My apologies for the unnecessary ping! 17:47, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 17:38, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

I respect the high amount of patience you have, and I sure wish I had at least half of it. But let's face it, we're dealing with a WP:NOTHERE user, who is gatekeeping Mandean/Sabean related articles, adding his own POV whilst reverting anyone he disagrees with. Users have been indeffed for less. Which he probably will, when an admin is heroic enough to jump into this mess [5]. I don't blame admins avoiding it. Only when he gets indeffed (or a least topic banned) can constructive edits be made to these kind of articles. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:19, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mandaeans/Archive_1&oldid=1136986444"