From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Zoroastrianism (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Zoroastrianism, which is a collaboration of editors who strive to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Zoroastrianism-related topics. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of objectives.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus to move the page, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 05:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I am proposing a move of existing “Asha” article to “Asha (Zoroastrian principle)” and the new “Asha” or “ASHA” has to be re-directed to “Asha (disambiguation)” page. (existing ASHA also to move later) This is because I see that a variety of Asha's with distinct senses. An informal discussion about this is available in Dbachmann's talk pg.--Avinesh Jose 07:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

  • oppose - main encyclopedic topic under the title. There is a standard Asha (disambiguation), which is fully sufficient. Avineshjose is free to create a full Asha (name) if he likes. I can see claim to encyclopedicity in Asha (town), but with a population of 33,000, I do not think its notability is anywhere near the Zoroastrian topic. The most notable incidence of the Hindi name appears to be the title of the 1980 movie, where the name is officially transliterated as Aasha, not Asha. --dab (𒁳) 10:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
‘Main encyclopedic topic’ doesn’t mean that the article is ultimate. Somebody (probably by you) has created the “Asha” article so that it becomes the main. If someone had created “ASHA-American Senior Housing Association” earlier, that would have come the main encyclopedic article unless there is disput. In logic wise also, a browser searching in wikipedia, just type “Asha” they may be thinking of ASHA-a charity organization in India or ASHA-American Seniors Housing Association. For that reason it is obvious putting all Asha’s to the disambiguation page instead of as it is now. Please note that I am not interested to create an article about Asha (name) at the present. My intension is this: Asha (Disambiguation) page has to be displayed, if someone search for "Asha", since there are many Asha's.--Avinesh Jose 11:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
it exists, at Asha (disambiguation). ASHA doesn't collide wth Asha. I tried to explain this to you. I'll try again: I just stated my opinion on this, plus my reasons. You are free to disagree. If it turns out that most people commenting on this agree with you, you'll have a consensus to move this. Just try to show a little patience and wait for wider community input. Don't try to haggle with me, I don't have a problem with your having a different opinion, that's fine. dab (𒁳) 12:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • oppose as per dab. Avineshjose appears to have a vested interest in the first name because it is the name of his wife. If we were to follow Avineshjose's argument, Dawn and Hope would become disambigs. -- Fullstop 15:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Nop, you are mistaken, there are many Asha's with distinct senses under the planet. And also There is nothing wrong in showing interest towards our name, our beloved ones names or whatever names.--Avinesh Jose 16:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment (Neutral though slightly inclined to oppose page move)
    From section 3.4 (Page naming conventions) of WP:DAB
    A disambiguation page is usually named after the generic topic (eg "Term XYZ"). "Term XYZ (disambiguation)" is not the mandatory name for a disambiguation page, and is only used when there is a primary topic for the title "Term XYZ". It is acceptable, on the other hand, to create a page at "Term XYZ (disambiguation)" that redirects to the disambiguation page at "Term XYZ". This type of redirect can be used to indicate deliberate links to the disambiguation page.
    So... the question here is whether Asha, the Zoroastrian principle is the "primary" article for Asha or just one of several articles of roughly equal importance and notability. I could go either way on this. I suspect that the article on the Zoroastrian principle is the longest article that will ever be written under this title and thus should be considered the "primary" article.
    --Richard 17:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
indeed. It is undisputed that there are "many Asha's with distinct senses under the planet". This is why we have the disambiguation page. As I said above, the only article that could compare with this one is Asha (town), which falls clearly short in terms of encyclopedicity. If somebody was to write a full Asha (name) article, with a depth of discussion comparable to this one, we might revisit the question. Imho, this is just about Avineshjose's lack of familiarity with WP guidelines, and his refusal to look them up when they are shoved in his face. A discussion that would in fact be valid is, should we turn Aasha into a redirect (and move the present Aasha to Aasha (1980 film))? dab (𒁳) 10:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
What about this situation: A user typed “Asha” on the WP search box while thinking about “ASHA- American Seniors Housing Association”, what’s happening now?...the results takes to Asha (Zoroastrian principle). It suppose to go to the disambiguation page of Asha, right?...--Avinesh Jose 10:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
No, "search for X" is not "suppose(d) to go to the disambiguation page of X." Thats not how Wikipedia works, and thats why we have hatnotes. -- Fullstop 11:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

(deindenting) Sorry, Fullstop. I agree with you that "Asha" should not go to the disambig page in this case but your rationale is incorrect. Read the WP:DISAMBIG guideline again. A search for "X" should take you to the primary page for "X" if there is such a beast. Otherwise, it should go to the disambig page. This discussion should be about whether this article is or should be the primary article for this topic.

We could argue that it is the primary article because it is the longest and most encyclopedic topic; however, we could also argue that it is not the primary meaning that people think of when typing in Asha. I agree with dab that, in the absence of any other substantial encyclopedic article, Asha may as well point here with the use of hatnotes to direct the user to other uses of the name.

I favor linking to this article because it is the most encyclopedic article but we should not dismiss AvineshJose's argument as totally without merit. It's a question of weighing the many Indians who might possibly be interested in the name "Asha" vs. the fairly limited number of people who might be interested in the Zoroastrian principle "Asha".

--Richard 14:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

  • nod* we were making the same point ("primary page"), I just didn't express myself very well. (I should not have addressed what a search shouldn't go to, but instead to what it should go to). -- Fullstop 20:09, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

May rewrite[edit]

Fullstop, I somehow missed your "rewrite" back in May. Apart from some minor points which I have taken it upon myself to fix, a few questions remain:

  • how did you get the idea that Avestan š is "/Ř/"? What is this even supposed to mean? Ř isn't an IPA symbol and would need explanation. Our Avestan language article simply identifies š as /ʃ/
  • what is the meaning of the apparently garbled "ṛtá r╠út├í 72.CC.A3.74.C3.A1" you put in html comment?
  • what is the meaning of the underdot in OP ạrta?

dab (𒁳) 11:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

You might find that you're less likely to make mistakes if ask questions before taking it upon yourself to "fix" them. Anyhow,...
  1. In the 1800s, when the Avestan alphabet was deciphered, the Avestan language letter that we transliterate with 'š' was thought to represent the sound 'š' (which is of course why 'š' was chosen to represent it). Today, this is not so sure, and it appears that - under certain circumstances - the symbol represents another sound, or is a ligature that looks similar to the symbol that represents š. This issue applies to all words in which '-r|t-' is the expected form, eg aši, frauuaši are similarly affected. Bottom line: we don't know for sure what sound(s) the symbol represents.
    Ergo, the change from The Avestan language word may be transliterated as either arta or aša/asha.
    to The Avestan language word is attested both as aša and arta.
    is incorrect. Also, this issue also has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with etymology.
  2. >>how did you get the idea that Avestan 'š' is "/Ř/"?
    Directly from the source being cited. Which you've screwed up with your "fix" of course.
  3. Some unicode characters with a "diacritic modifyier" (i.e. when the diacritic and character are distinct symbols, with the diacritic being a modifier for the preceding symbol) do not always render correctly when that character is in italics. If I recall correctly, that was a remnant of my attempts to ensure backwards compatibility.
  4. Its not really necessary to know what 'ạ' represents. Thats how the Iranica writes it, ergo thats how I write it too. But to answer your question: The a+underdot represents implied-leading-short-a. Ergo, its not 'ar-' that you "fixed" it with.
-- Fullstop 17:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

look, fullstop, even if your source says 'š' is "/Ř/", it is perfectly useless to repeat this without making clear what the author means by "/Ř/". This whole topic belongs on Avestan language, not here. I assumed in good faith that your claim of alternation of aša vs. arta was true. Now it transpires that it is aša after all, and you're just trying to make a point about Avestan phonology on the side. Don't do that. No, you cannot just copy transliteration conventions from your sources without explaining them. You'll either have to convert them to standards that are explained on-wiki (e.g. in the Old Persian article), or you have to explain them as you use them. It is perfectly useless to copy Iranica's a+underdot without copying the definition. Your "implied-leading-short-a" is an interpretation of OP phonology. It isn't the way the term is attested. The attested OP term is arta, I presume (or 𐎠𐎼𐎭, a-ra-da). dab (𒁳) 08:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

>>it is perfectly useless to repeat this without making clear what the author means by /Ř/
In case your question is "what sound does /Ř/ represent?," the answer is "uvular trill with (secondary) palatalization" or "iotated post-velar liquid rhotic non-glottal."
>>No, you cannot just copy transliteration conventions from your sources without explaining them.
/R/ is both an IPA and APA symbol and the haček is likewise a standard diacritic for softening.
If you think that /Ř/ needs to be described though /š/ or /ā/ isn't, you're out of your mind.
But just because you don't know what it represents still doesn't mean that you can arbitrarily change it, or that you are exempt from informing yourself first: even if you don't have the source, you can tell that its a rhotic from the context and from the additional remark in the article's notes section. Even then, what you should have subsequently done is revert yourself when you discovered that you had made a mistake.
>>Now it transpires that it is aša after all
Really? Are you sure? Or is that again your own interpretation of something that I did not say?
>>This whole topic belongs on Avestan language, not here
You're quite welcome to copy it to Avestan alphabet. You might wish to brush up on the scribal accuracy issues before you do.
>>Your "implied-leading-short-a" is an interpretation of OP phonology. It isn't the way the term is attested
1. all transliterations are interpretations. There is no such thing as a standardized OP transliteration of anything. Ambiguity is part of the system.
2. it does not matter how it is attested. Nobody writes the attested r?t?c?
3. in its attested form it is not a noun but an instrumental coordinate for the preceding "auramazda(m)".
4. the meaning of the phrase in which this word occurs is not certain. It is thus often discussed and of varied transliteration. Sometimes even varying between the publications of one author.
You really might get better results if you ask questions before you edit. It would save everyone a lot of time, and wouldn't be so darn annoying. -- Fullstop 20:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

/R/ is not an IPA symbol. You mean the small capital, /ʀ/. The IPA symbol for palatalization is a superscript j. The IPA for "uvular trill with palatalization" would be [ʀʲ]. "all transliterations are interpretations" is nonsense. Your attitude is needlessly obstinate, uncollaborative and annoying. This might be excused if you turned out to be somehow right, but I am tired of your just avoiding the actual questions. I am not sure if this is your idea of rhetorics or if you really cannot appreciate the points raised. You did the same at Talk:Zoroaster. I find this sad because you are generally a good contributor. Can you not take a step back and consider a more constructive approach? dab (𒁳) 14:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Its precisely your "needlessly obstinate, uncollaborative and annoying" attitude that I'm hoping to emulate. And - just for your information - Czech R+hachek is not completely [ʀʲ] either.
"'all transliterations are interpretations' is nonsense" can only come from an arrogant assumption that you were around when OP was spoken. Excuse me if I doubt that that is the case, or that you - better than anyone else past or present - know exactly how the vowels in a consonantry were pronounced. Somehow unlikely, particularly since I don't believe in divine revelation, haven't seen your name up in lights, and have seen the sort of argumentative incoherence that you are predisposed to churning out.
With respect to your comments (here or at Zoroaster) about my person/editing style,... you can shove your supercilious condescension where the sun doesn't shine.
Start contributing instead of pretending like you ever actually do anything other than nitpick. I doubt you can actually point out even ONE constructive edit to this or the Zoroaster article. So save your "generally good contributor" comments for one of the articles where you actually have written anything worthwhile. You may comment on my editing/person in an article where you succeed in contributing something of merit. Until then/there, I'd appreciate it if you put a cork in it.
FWIW: I intentionally did not respond at Zoroaster while your Arbcom was in progress.
With respect to my avoiding the "questions": I am sorry that you have such poor comprehension skills and/or are otherwise incapable of paying attention.
In any case, it doesn't matter one iota what you or I have to say. This is not a WP:FORUM, and you don't listen anyway. The statements are sourced, and in partially direct quote, and with accompanying explanation in a footnote, and the relevant sources are even available on JSTOR. Whether they are "true" or not is neither for you or me or anyone else to judge. Wikipedia is not a purveyor of "truth." If you have contrary information, provide it as per WP:NPOV requirements and cite it properly per WP:V and without adding your own "special" garam masala OR. Any undiscussed/unexplained deletion will result in a revert.
Since you have made it adequately clear that discussing things after the fact does not work (because you don't listen), I can and will - this time at my discretion - decide what is and isn't "unconstructive" or "nonsense" or "annoying." According to my definition, and in contrast to yours, this means I will insist on strict adherence to policy. And I will insist on proper sourcing, with page numbers, sans OR, using the appropriate referencing style and with due explanations (if necessary) in the footnotes section. So, put your money where your mouth is and do some work.
-- Fullstop (talk) 23:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I know this is not a forum. I meekly point out that much of what you say is simply wrong (or just non sequitur. Wtf does Czech have to do with anything?). My contributions to both this and the Zoroaster article in their early phases, especially to the etymology sections, is substantial. I agree with your conclusion that since communication is not possible, we'll simply need to do this the "tight" way. happy editing. dab (𒁳) 11:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

š vs. rt[edit]

Discussion of the phonetic value of Avestan š is offtopic here and belongs on Avestan language. The Avestan word is aša, for better or worse, whatever š may be. The Old Persian is arta. Bartholomae is not aware of any variant spelling arta in Avestan. I request citation for the claim that the Avestan word "is inconsistently written". Failing that, we will simply follow Bartholomae and cite the Avestan as aša and the OP as arta, and export the discussion of the phonology of š to Avestan_language#Phonology. --dab (𒁳) 11:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

There probably are better sources available, but this, for example, accurately reflects my understanding of the difference between transliteration and transcription. It would seem that aša is the correct transliteration, while arta or ạrta could be the more accurate transcription. rudra (talk) 11:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


ASHA (pronounced "Asya" in the Tagalog vernacular) also refers to a popular hotel school in the Philippines, the first and largest of its kind in the country. ASHA stands for "Asian School of Hospitality Arts" which is a center for higher learning in the Philippines. The school offers a four (4) year course on Bachelor of Science in Hotel and Restaurant Management (HRM), a one-year Certificate course in Hotel and Restaurant Operations (CHRO) and a Diploma in Hospitality Management. It offers certificate (short) courses on Bartending, Food and Beverage Services, Professional Cooking Services, Housekeeping and Front- desk service.

It is also the only hotel school which is partnered with some of the industry's most formidable hotels and restaurants, which include The Coffee Beanery (TCB), The Cravings Group, Classic Cuisine (C2), The Orange Place, C3 Events Place, Oceana and Seven Suites hotel observatory.

The school offers a competency-based modular programs which allow their students to get theoretical knowledge as well as experience working in a first of its kind real hotel and restaurant environment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rickyrivera888 (talkcontribs) 13:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Àṣe (yo)[edit]

That every existence is realized and individuated by its action (instead of, by any substance) is the central idea of the animism; it is rather good conserved f.ex. by the Yoruba believe (which is very suspect to have indo-european origin) and is there called Àṣe ('what acts, what make existent') and also associated with the fire. Although the animism has a supreme God, Ọlọrun , the belief mutated there to the cultivation of creatures (like in the Edda), instead of to that of God. See ch. 1 in (talk) 01:53, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Asha. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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) 12:41, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Topic, not word[edit]

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, so the article should focus on a topic, not the word 'Asha'. The lede is almost incomprehensible and betrays muddy thinking. We need to choose a topic and make the article about that. If 'Asha' has multiple meaning in Zoroastrianism, they need separate articles. Ashmoo (talk) 10:32, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Etymology: druj[edit]

Does anyone know if there is any demonstrable connection between druj and Welsh drwg / Irish droch ("bad, evil")? -- Picapica (talk) 04:25, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

@Picapica: They may have same PIE root. See dʰrewgʰ- (PIE), dʰrúkš (PII), and drukos (PC). --Wario-Man (talk) 06:26, 25 February 2019 (UTC)