This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
more biography about false messiahs-- Yolycool ( talk) 15:11, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
"Mandaeans in struggle for existence". __ meco ( talk) 21:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
"Most Iraqi Mandaeans have since fled the country under the threat of violence by other Iraqis and the turmoil of the war."
Why are they under threat of violence, and what other Iraqis are we talking about? Christians, Yazidis...or Muslims? The people and ideology responsible for this persecution should not be glossed over in this way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.179.230.10 ( talk) 10:22, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
With regard to "anush utra" do we know what this translates to? (Beyond utra meaning, in essence, angel/messenger of god) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.190.11.237 ( talk) 10:22, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Terms of abuse are undesirable, even if they were invented in the twentieth century; and Nicolas Siouffi was an Oriental; a Syriac Orthodox employed by the French. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:48, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Section Mandaean history boldly claims:
I think [citation needed] is the understatement of the year, [dubious – discuss] is better, but [what'e'heck, this seems like a wildly speculative and obviously wrong statement!] is more conclusive.
It is indeed very unlikely that the Mandaeans were directly connected with any kind of Ebionites, who perused a Jesus gospel somewhat similar to Matthew. Mandeans regard Jesus as a false prophet. Their teachings and texts doesn't have anything in common with any Christian texts, nor anything of what today is regarded as Gnostic corpus (retracted by myself). They revere John the Baptist as Yahya the Prophet, and that is the only commonality.
Rursus dixit. (
mbork3!)
18:40, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
This link should be used. Many of the links provided present very POVvy (especially the gnostic ones) and slightly misleading stories. Personally I think that the Mandean story, cosmology and history stands for itself, and don't need to be shoe-horned into imagined heritages of either heretic christians (ebionites), jews, proto-theosophists or gnostics. Mandeans are Mandeans, and that should be enough. Rursus dixit. ( mbork3!) 19:22, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Recent research on Pagan Monotheism suggests a widespread heterogeneous group of 'God-worshippers' known by various names* existed in late antiquity throughout the Roman Empire. The marker in identifying Mandaeans as one such group are the Haranian Sabians, which share the name Sabian, similar gnostic beliefs and who have been identified as Pagan Monotheists.
Can somebody add what language "mšiha kdaba" is from...? Teal'c of Chulak kree, Mar-Vell 16:09, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Why do the Mandaens reject Abraham & Moses?-- Splashen ( talk) 04:35, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
So? That didn't stop Christianity & Islam from taking them on. But, thanks for the answer.-- Splashen ( talk) 04:59, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Will do. Thanks for sharing.-- Splashen ( talk) 03:21, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
The Mandaeans today paragraph and introductory paragraph cover the same information. The Mandaeans today paragraph is less detailed and therefore redundant. It maybe should be expanded on or removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.174.73.99 ( talk) 19:06, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Could someone provide references to the various sections mentioned. There seems to be a severe lack of references in some areas (in particular to citation or qoutes).
-Bill
Sun June 3, 2007
Out of curiosity I keyed "Mandaean" to see what is available about this group. I found this entry in Wikipedia. I started reading only to stop very abruptly early in the narrative when I read something to the effect that the group is now extinct. Being a Mandaean myself and of priestly lineage -although I never adhered to religious rituals - I was totally taken aback by that statement.
The Mandaeans are not extinct, although they are scattered all over the world in small groups. There is also a strong resurgence of interest in the rituals, and language. You will find us everywhere. My relatives are in the United States, England, Sweden, France, Poland, Russia, NewZealand, Australia, Germany, Spain.
Why did we leave Iraq? Someone here asked that question. I very strongly recommend that that someone should enlighten himself or herself on minority conditions in that country since the invasion.
Those who are interested in knowing something about us, I would refer you to "The Mandaeans of Iraq and Iran" by Drower. For additional information on the myths -I recommend her translation of "The Secret Adam". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deshneh ( talk • contribs) 02:02, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
"...but reject Abraham, Moses and Jesus of Nazareth."
Mandaeans face enough sectarian violence without drawing more hatred towards them, based on someones interpretations of the religion.
I don't see anyone listing all the negative interpretations of texts associated with Islam, or any of the other religions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Csc300h ( talk • contribs) 19:28, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
To give the picture of the Darfash a home, I have added a new section on symbols and rituals. Unfortunately I don't know anything about Mandaean symbols or rituals, so somebody else will need to fill up the section with relevant information. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 14:45, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
An anonymous editor, hiding behind various IP addresses, persists in changing "CE" ("Common Era") in this article's dates to "AD" ("Anno Domini" = "Year of Our Lord"). In the academic study of religions, it has become customary in the English-speaking tradition to use "CE" for dates in the present era, and "BCE" ("Before the Common Era") for dates in the previous era, out of respect for non-Christian religions. This usage should apply throughout Wikipedia, even in articles on Christianity; but it especially should apply in articles on non-Christian religions, such as Mandaeism.
The anonymous editor contends that his or her revision is appropriate because the Mandaeans "revere John the Baptist, a Christian prophet". This overlooks the fact that Mandaeism regards Jesus of Nazareth with hostility as an apostate. John the Baptist is also a Muslim prophet, but I daresay the anonymous editor would not contend for using the Muslim practice of dating years since the Hijra. Wikipedia is not a place for religious testimony. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 15:13, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't know about others' responses to Jayaguru-Shishya's edits, but I think that removing what s/he thinks are 'overlinks' is way beyond what ought to be done on this article. I personally believe STRONGLY that these edits ought to be reverted because they REDUCE the utility or usefulness of this article to a newbie reader. MaynardClark ( talk) 21:13, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Text - There is some suggestion made by some authors that Mandaeanism was formed post-Christianity as opposed to pre-Christianity, contrary to what the Mandaeans themselves claim.[11]
Reference - 11 - Etudes mithriaques 1978 p545 Jacques Duchesne-Guillemin "The conviction of the leading Mandaean scholars – E. S. Drower, Kurt Rudolph, Rudolph Macuch – that Mandaeanism had a pre-Christian origin rests largely upon the subjective evaluation of parallels between Mandaean texts and the Gospel of John".
A skilled author could actually make the claim that Judaism was formed post-Christianity and support it but the above quote does nothing of the sort. It asserts that authors that Mandaeanism was formed post-Christianity but it is unsupported by the provided reference!
I suggest that it is removed or edited — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.25.109.197 ( talk) 13:39, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Greetings! Does anyone has access to the source: [1]
Fontaine, Petrus Franciscus Maria (1990). The Light and the Dark: Dualism in ancient Iran, India, and China. Amsterdam: J.C. Gieben. ISBN 9789050630511.
It would be highly appreciated :-) Thanks! Jayaguru-Shishya ( talk) 18:47, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Mandaeism. Please take a moment to review
my edit. You may add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 13:38, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Jayaguru-Shishya removed the wikilink from the first mention of Jesus, leaving links for Moses and others. I reverted the change, giving my reason. Instead of discussing the issue here, the editor chose an edit war and re-reverted the change, citing, in the edit summary, "WP:OVERLINK (Jesus)". I decline to participate in an edit war. There was no overlinking with respect to "Jesus": the editor removed the only link to that article on the page. She or he might have argued that the lede had too many links, but that would have required her or him to remove more links than just the one to "Jesus". Jayaguru-Shishya needs to revert his or her edit-warring, and then explain here why, out of all the wikilinks in the lede, the one to "Jesus" ought to be removed. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 19:49, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
An anonymous IP has restored the link, and Jayaguru-Shishya has not reverted it, so I assume the edit war is over, and discussion may proceed.
I can easily believe that "Jesus" may be overlinked in many articles, but WP:OVERLINK isn't about Wikipedia as a whole: it's about individual articles. In this article, there is only one link to "Jesus", at the first mention of that person. Except for its being in the lede, where arguably links should be kept to a minimum (see WP:LEADLINK), the link is entirely appropriate, and should not be removed. This case illustrates the importance of human judgment in the use of scripts and other automated tools. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 16:13, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
In this particular case, regarding Jesus, I also tend to think that the main Jesus article probably gets linked to a little too often around here. Part of that could be addressed by developing the content on that subject better, particularly with the creation of the whole range of directly relevant subarticles which could or should exist. Might it be that one of the spinout articles for Jesus might be a more useful link for the reader?
John Carter (
talk)
22:00, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Mandaeism. 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:00, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Mandaeism. 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:25, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
"Mandaeism does not allow conversion" is ambiguous. It could mean "Mandaeism does not allow conversion to Mandaeism", "Mandaeism does not allow conversion from Mandaeism", or "Mandaeism does not allow conversion to or from Mandaeism". I assume the first is true, but the article should be clarified. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
71.126.170.227 (
talk)
23:58, 17 August 2020 (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) 09:11, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Is this correct:
? In ictu oculi ( talk) 12:24, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Do Mandaens have any Coming-of-Age rites or ceremonies? If so, what are they?-- Splashen ( talk) 23:32, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
It seems Mandeanism suppose Abel and Seth to be Uthras (angels), not prophets (for example, https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hibil). So they should be removed from the list of saints. May be, the best solution is two lists: for saint humans and for saint spiritual beings, like Hibil, Ptahil or Abatur. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.250.233.180 ( talk) 19:53, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
The article features a picture identified as "'Mandaean Cross' (darfash)", but nothing in the text refers to any such emblem or device; nor does any other article on Wikipedia mention the "Mandaean cross" or the "darfash". If the Mandaeans employ a cross among their religious symbols, that fact would be of great interest to the history of Christianity, as well as to that of Mandaeism itself. The article should elucidate. Otherwise, the picture is merely a perplexing puzzle. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 17:14, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Definition of abrahamic religions, per article:
Abrahamic religions (also Semitic religions) are monotheistic religions of West Asian origin, emphasizing and tracing their common origin to Abraham or recognizing a spiritual tradition identified with him.
Mandeism does not seem to fit. Editor2020, Talk 01:24, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
If Mandeizm belongs to the "same family of religions as Judaism, Christianity, and Islam", it should be monotheistic. But according to this article, it seems to have dualistic beliefs, which would discard it out of the family of "Abrahamitic religions. Which is correct? HâlitM ( talk) 22:02, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
There is a debate going on here that will affect this article. Greenhighwayconstruction ( talk) 21:09, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
This is an important topic for Mandaeans as it pertains to our identity. I write this as a member of the Mandaean community. Please respond. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.77.93.151 ( talk) 10:29, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
Jesus is regarded to be a Mandaean, as evidenced in the Ginza Rabba. However he is not revered. Ethel Drower states in her book, The Secret Adam, A Study of Nasoraean Gnosis, "It is a striking fact that in all the Mandaean texts the word msiha (Messiah, Christ) is only used with the qualification ‘lying’ or ‘false’ of Jesus". There is no evidence in any of the Mandaean scriptures of reverence for Jesus. 92.239.198.135 ( talk) 11:12, 24 December 2022 (UTC) The cited LA-Times article is inaccurate and on several occasions it is contradictory to Mandaean beliefs. This article has likely mis-quoted the source. For example: 1. Mandaeans have no tradition that Jesus will return. 2. Mandaeans do not worship the planets and stars. Rather, their Uthri reside on planets and stars. They worship a single god, Hayyi Rabi. 3. Mandaeans are not formally recognised as a Christian sect. Their views of Jesus prohibit this classification. They are a gnostic Nasoraean sect as stated elsewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.77.93.151 ( talk) 10:21, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
Are mandaeans arab? 83.251.223.138 ( talk) 21:53, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
more biography about false messiahs-- Yolycool ( talk) 15:11, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
"Mandaeans in struggle for existence". __ meco ( talk) 21:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
"Most Iraqi Mandaeans have since fled the country under the threat of violence by other Iraqis and the turmoil of the war."
Why are they under threat of violence, and what other Iraqis are we talking about? Christians, Yazidis...or Muslims? The people and ideology responsible for this persecution should not be glossed over in this way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.179.230.10 ( talk) 10:22, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
With regard to "anush utra" do we know what this translates to? (Beyond utra meaning, in essence, angel/messenger of god) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.190.11.237 ( talk) 10:22, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Terms of abuse are undesirable, even if they were invented in the twentieth century; and Nicolas Siouffi was an Oriental; a Syriac Orthodox employed by the French. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:48, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Section Mandaean history boldly claims:
I think [citation needed] is the understatement of the year, [dubious – discuss] is better, but [what'e'heck, this seems like a wildly speculative and obviously wrong statement!] is more conclusive.
It is indeed very unlikely that the Mandaeans were directly connected with any kind of Ebionites, who perused a Jesus gospel somewhat similar to Matthew. Mandeans regard Jesus as a false prophet. Their teachings and texts doesn't have anything in common with any Christian texts, nor anything of what today is regarded as Gnostic corpus (retracted by myself). They revere John the Baptist as Yahya the Prophet, and that is the only commonality.
Rursus dixit. (
mbork3!)
18:40, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
This link should be used. Many of the links provided present very POVvy (especially the gnostic ones) and slightly misleading stories. Personally I think that the Mandean story, cosmology and history stands for itself, and don't need to be shoe-horned into imagined heritages of either heretic christians (ebionites), jews, proto-theosophists or gnostics. Mandeans are Mandeans, and that should be enough. Rursus dixit. ( mbork3!) 19:22, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Recent research on Pagan Monotheism suggests a widespread heterogeneous group of 'God-worshippers' known by various names* existed in late antiquity throughout the Roman Empire. The marker in identifying Mandaeans as one such group are the Haranian Sabians, which share the name Sabian, similar gnostic beliefs and who have been identified as Pagan Monotheists.
Can somebody add what language "mšiha kdaba" is from...? Teal'c of Chulak kree, Mar-Vell 16:09, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Why do the Mandaens reject Abraham & Moses?-- Splashen ( talk) 04:35, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
So? That didn't stop Christianity & Islam from taking them on. But, thanks for the answer.-- Splashen ( talk) 04:59, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Will do. Thanks for sharing.-- Splashen ( talk) 03:21, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
The Mandaeans today paragraph and introductory paragraph cover the same information. The Mandaeans today paragraph is less detailed and therefore redundant. It maybe should be expanded on or removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.174.73.99 ( talk) 19:06, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Could someone provide references to the various sections mentioned. There seems to be a severe lack of references in some areas (in particular to citation or qoutes).
-Bill
Sun June 3, 2007
Out of curiosity I keyed "Mandaean" to see what is available about this group. I found this entry in Wikipedia. I started reading only to stop very abruptly early in the narrative when I read something to the effect that the group is now extinct. Being a Mandaean myself and of priestly lineage -although I never adhered to religious rituals - I was totally taken aback by that statement.
The Mandaeans are not extinct, although they are scattered all over the world in small groups. There is also a strong resurgence of interest in the rituals, and language. You will find us everywhere. My relatives are in the United States, England, Sweden, France, Poland, Russia, NewZealand, Australia, Germany, Spain.
Why did we leave Iraq? Someone here asked that question. I very strongly recommend that that someone should enlighten himself or herself on minority conditions in that country since the invasion.
Those who are interested in knowing something about us, I would refer you to "The Mandaeans of Iraq and Iran" by Drower. For additional information on the myths -I recommend her translation of "The Secret Adam". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deshneh ( talk • contribs) 02:02, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
"...but reject Abraham, Moses and Jesus of Nazareth."
Mandaeans face enough sectarian violence without drawing more hatred towards them, based on someones interpretations of the religion.
I don't see anyone listing all the negative interpretations of texts associated with Islam, or any of the other religions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Csc300h ( talk • contribs) 19:28, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
To give the picture of the Darfash a home, I have added a new section on symbols and rituals. Unfortunately I don't know anything about Mandaean symbols or rituals, so somebody else will need to fill up the section with relevant information. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 14:45, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
An anonymous editor, hiding behind various IP addresses, persists in changing "CE" ("Common Era") in this article's dates to "AD" ("Anno Domini" = "Year of Our Lord"). In the academic study of religions, it has become customary in the English-speaking tradition to use "CE" for dates in the present era, and "BCE" ("Before the Common Era") for dates in the previous era, out of respect for non-Christian religions. This usage should apply throughout Wikipedia, even in articles on Christianity; but it especially should apply in articles on non-Christian religions, such as Mandaeism.
The anonymous editor contends that his or her revision is appropriate because the Mandaeans "revere John the Baptist, a Christian prophet". This overlooks the fact that Mandaeism regards Jesus of Nazareth with hostility as an apostate. John the Baptist is also a Muslim prophet, but I daresay the anonymous editor would not contend for using the Muslim practice of dating years since the Hijra. Wikipedia is not a place for religious testimony. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 15:13, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't know about others' responses to Jayaguru-Shishya's edits, but I think that removing what s/he thinks are 'overlinks' is way beyond what ought to be done on this article. I personally believe STRONGLY that these edits ought to be reverted because they REDUCE the utility or usefulness of this article to a newbie reader. MaynardClark ( talk) 21:13, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Text - There is some suggestion made by some authors that Mandaeanism was formed post-Christianity as opposed to pre-Christianity, contrary to what the Mandaeans themselves claim.[11]
Reference - 11 - Etudes mithriaques 1978 p545 Jacques Duchesne-Guillemin "The conviction of the leading Mandaean scholars – E. S. Drower, Kurt Rudolph, Rudolph Macuch – that Mandaeanism had a pre-Christian origin rests largely upon the subjective evaluation of parallels between Mandaean texts and the Gospel of John".
A skilled author could actually make the claim that Judaism was formed post-Christianity and support it but the above quote does nothing of the sort. It asserts that authors that Mandaeanism was formed post-Christianity but it is unsupported by the provided reference!
I suggest that it is removed or edited — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.25.109.197 ( talk) 13:39, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Greetings! Does anyone has access to the source: [1]
Fontaine, Petrus Franciscus Maria (1990). The Light and the Dark: Dualism in ancient Iran, India, and China. Amsterdam: J.C. Gieben. ISBN 9789050630511.
It would be highly appreciated :-) Thanks! Jayaguru-Shishya ( talk) 18:47, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Mandaeism. Please take a moment to review
my edit. You may add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 13:38, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Jayaguru-Shishya removed the wikilink from the first mention of Jesus, leaving links for Moses and others. I reverted the change, giving my reason. Instead of discussing the issue here, the editor chose an edit war and re-reverted the change, citing, in the edit summary, "WP:OVERLINK (Jesus)". I decline to participate in an edit war. There was no overlinking with respect to "Jesus": the editor removed the only link to that article on the page. She or he might have argued that the lede had too many links, but that would have required her or him to remove more links than just the one to "Jesus". Jayaguru-Shishya needs to revert his or her edit-warring, and then explain here why, out of all the wikilinks in the lede, the one to "Jesus" ought to be removed. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 19:49, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
An anonymous IP has restored the link, and Jayaguru-Shishya has not reverted it, so I assume the edit war is over, and discussion may proceed.
I can easily believe that "Jesus" may be overlinked in many articles, but WP:OVERLINK isn't about Wikipedia as a whole: it's about individual articles. In this article, there is only one link to "Jesus", at the first mention of that person. Except for its being in the lede, where arguably links should be kept to a minimum (see WP:LEADLINK), the link is entirely appropriate, and should not be removed. This case illustrates the importance of human judgment in the use of scripts and other automated tools. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 16:13, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
In this particular case, regarding Jesus, I also tend to think that the main Jesus article probably gets linked to a little too often around here. Part of that could be addressed by developing the content on that subject better, particularly with the creation of the whole range of directly relevant subarticles which could or should exist. Might it be that one of the spinout articles for Jesus might be a more useful link for the reader?
John Carter (
talk)
22:00, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Mandaeism. 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:00, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Mandaeism. 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:25, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
"Mandaeism does not allow conversion" is ambiguous. It could mean "Mandaeism does not allow conversion to Mandaeism", "Mandaeism does not allow conversion from Mandaeism", or "Mandaeism does not allow conversion to or from Mandaeism". I assume the first is true, but the article should be clarified. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
71.126.170.227 (
talk)
23:58, 17 August 2020 (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) 09:11, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Is this correct:
? In ictu oculi ( talk) 12:24, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Do Mandaens have any Coming-of-Age rites or ceremonies? If so, what are they?-- Splashen ( talk) 23:32, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
It seems Mandeanism suppose Abel and Seth to be Uthras (angels), not prophets (for example, https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hibil). So they should be removed from the list of saints. May be, the best solution is two lists: for saint humans and for saint spiritual beings, like Hibil, Ptahil or Abatur. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.250.233.180 ( talk) 19:53, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
The article features a picture identified as "'Mandaean Cross' (darfash)", but nothing in the text refers to any such emblem or device; nor does any other article on Wikipedia mention the "Mandaean cross" or the "darfash". If the Mandaeans employ a cross among their religious symbols, that fact would be of great interest to the history of Christianity, as well as to that of Mandaeism itself. The article should elucidate. Otherwise, the picture is merely a perplexing puzzle. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 17:14, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Definition of abrahamic religions, per article:
Abrahamic religions (also Semitic religions) are monotheistic religions of West Asian origin, emphasizing and tracing their common origin to Abraham or recognizing a spiritual tradition identified with him.
Mandeism does not seem to fit. Editor2020, Talk 01:24, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
If Mandeizm belongs to the "same family of religions as Judaism, Christianity, and Islam", it should be monotheistic. But according to this article, it seems to have dualistic beliefs, which would discard it out of the family of "Abrahamitic religions. Which is correct? HâlitM ( talk) 22:02, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
There is a debate going on here that will affect this article. Greenhighwayconstruction ( talk) 21:09, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
This is an important topic for Mandaeans as it pertains to our identity. I write this as a member of the Mandaean community. Please respond. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.77.93.151 ( talk) 10:29, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
Jesus is regarded to be a Mandaean, as evidenced in the Ginza Rabba. However he is not revered. Ethel Drower states in her book, The Secret Adam, A Study of Nasoraean Gnosis, "It is a striking fact that in all the Mandaean texts the word msiha (Messiah, Christ) is only used with the qualification ‘lying’ or ‘false’ of Jesus". There is no evidence in any of the Mandaean scriptures of reverence for Jesus. 92.239.198.135 ( talk) 11:12, 24 December 2022 (UTC) The cited LA-Times article is inaccurate and on several occasions it is contradictory to Mandaean beliefs. This article has likely mis-quoted the source. For example: 1. Mandaeans have no tradition that Jesus will return. 2. Mandaeans do not worship the planets and stars. Rather, their Uthri reside on planets and stars. They worship a single god, Hayyi Rabi. 3. Mandaeans are not formally recognised as a Christian sect. Their views of Jesus prohibit this classification. They are a gnostic Nasoraean sect as stated elsewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.77.93.151 ( talk) 10:21, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
Are mandaeans arab? 83.251.223.138 ( talk) 21:53, 19 September 2023 (UTC)