Talk:Gatha (Zoroaster)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religious texts, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Religious textsWikipedia:WikiProject Religious textsTemplate:WikiProject Religious textsReligious texts articles

Zoroastrianism C‑class Top‑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
C	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

No Mention of Martin Haug ? It's a scandal

He's literally the first westerner to isolate the Gathas from the rest of the Avesta and to translate it. The only known written piece by Zoroaster himself, the seventeen chants, the Gathas. He's also the first to understand that Zoroaster theologically professed monotheism, and "ethically" dualism in human mind and though without any interfering objectivity.

This page needs more accuracy, it feels like it's a disrespect to Iranic people and their culture, the Gathas and Zoroaster lack very much honesty by contributors. It's literally a page about a text that is basis of monotheism. 2A02:8428:809E:6701:3CD9:49D6:D54B:1DF8 (talk) 02:25, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This topic might be appropriately covered within the page for Martin Haug himself, which in itself is a bit stubby. I don't see that it's necessary to include him in this article, however, as other 19th-century translations of the Gathas exist.[1] It may also be worth considering whether the Haug is linked to the Gathas specifically, or to Zoroastrianism as a whole.

To claim that a scholar is inextricable (per the framing of contemporary historical understandings) from a work which precedes him by millennia is not preposterous, though difficult to prove. A well-argued case for his notability as it pertains to this article might be constructed, but finding reliable and appropriate sources supporting such a conclusion would be quite the task. Doughbo (talk) 01:30, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gathas in five sections, or six?

This articel says that the Gathas "are divided into five major sections", but then there is a list of six sections, not five.

Ten years ago, this article listed five sections. But in 2014, an anonymous editor added the sixth section (Airyaman ishya gatha): [2]

Should it be five or six? — Lawrence King ^(talk) 05:09, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is five according to all search engine results. See the text on Wikisource.[3] Airyaman ishya is not one of the Gathas (referring to a specific set of works), rather a prayer written in the Gathic Avestan language not belonging to this set of works.

As such, I will be removing all reference to Airyaman Ishya in this page. If anyone catches any detritus that I fail to notice, please remove it as well. Doughbo (talk) 01:04, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]