From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Zoroastrianism (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Religion (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.


it makes absolutely no sense to keep a "botanical identification" section both here and on Soma: Any identity hypothesis must compare Iranian and Indo-Aryan traditions. I do not think it was a good idea to split this article off the main Soma article in the first place. dab () 09:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

First, your comment in history "what is your problem?" is totally out of line. I saw your edits, but I did not see your comment here on talk.
Second, just because a workshop (not conference) is titled Haoma-Soma doesn't mean anything more than the fact that it established a common origin for Haoma-Soma (an already known fact) and it was dominated by discussion on botanic determination of Haoma-Soma.
Third, your assumption that the split was gratuitous (if that is what you are assuming, and your comment here in talk certainly sounds that way) is not substantiable, nor does it assume good faith, nor does it consider that someone (me) may actually have something to say that goes beyond what Vedic (the only kind) Soma can legitimately include.
Fourth, your point-of-view that Haoma/Soma is one and the same is based ONLY on the common origin of the term. This conclusion, which may be forgiven since you only appear to see things from the Indologist's point of view, but it entirely ignores the fact that linguistic commonality is only one facet of a big picture.
At this point, I would like to draw your attention to the (obviously overlooked) fact that the Vedic article is called "Soma", and not "Sauma". Soma is Hinduism's cousin of Zoroastrian Haoma, but neither are Hinduism/Zoroastrianism equal, nor are Soma/Haoma equal. Again, your assumption that they are the same is a reflection of your Indologist/linguistic background, but ignores all historical and cultural development since the division of the Indo/Iranians.
Liebe Grüsse aus Mainz -- Fullstop 08:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
wow. who is out of line now? All of your five points are entirely mistaken. The article on Soma/Haoma resided at Soma so far because it needed to have a title. If you were unhappy with this, you could have suggested a change of title (such as a move to Sauma) or a re-arrangement of material, on the talkpage, instead of just running roughshod over a well-developed article. This has nothing to do with assuming bad faith but rather with simple wikiquette.
I am well aware of the differences between Vedic and Zoroastrian traditions, and at no time did I claim they were "identical". Still, I argue that any discussion of the botanic identity needs to take into account both traditions.
Of course there can be a debate about each individual tradition, but this will necessarily be informed by comparison. Therefore, separate discussion of botany on a Soma and a Haoma article will just needlessly duplicate material. It is a possibility to have separate Soma and Haoma articles, and a third article dedicated to botany and comparison, but I wish you would have suggested that rather than just tearing the article apart.
I have no delusions of article ownership, but I have invested some time in the Soma article, and it is in shambles now. I am now presented with the choice of investing more time just to reach a satisfactory state once again, or to walk away and hope other people will solve the problem. I must say, I was already less than pleased with your split of Mitra into Mitra (Vedic) and Mithra. What is this, divide and conquer? The result is that Mitra looks like a disambiguation page now, and we have three poorly developed articles in place of one well-developed one.
A Wikipedia article can easily have 50k, there is ample space to discuss both Mitra and Mithra, both Soma and Haoma, in a single article. Of course your actions were done in good faith, but you need to recognize that they may be controversial, and that you should discuss them before tearing articles apart. Such 'divisionism' makes it especially difficult to place comparative discussions because it falls between the 'articulules' scopes. We opted for such an approach only after long and careful deliberation on Wodanaz/Woden/Odin, and only because there was enough comparative/etymological material to warrant a full Wodanaz article, and I am still not convinced it was the right approach even there. dab () 10:03, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
  1. First, don't you come at me with wikiquette. Your reverts are anything but nice, the comments to your edits are way out of line, you have no idea what I have in mind, you have no idea of the material I have in hand, you have not once asked me for my motivation, but have assumed incompetence or ignorance multiple times. So stuff your comments on "running roughshod" and being "divisionist". Your area of competence is not my area of competence, and vice versa, but I am not an idiot, and take offense to being considered someone who does not know what he is doing. My edits may not meet your approval, but just as I can't consider your opinion if you don't express it gracefully, you can't evaluate my motivation if you don't ask. So get out of ivory tower, and come visit mine.
  2. You have incorrectly asserted that I split Mitra into Mithra and Mitra (Vedic). I did not. I drew your attention to somebody else's stuff (from 2004/2005) in Mithra. RandomCritic cleaned it up and split it the way it is now, after asking for opinion, to which you did not object.
  3. And, just as the case is with Haoma/Soma, the only connection between the two are the linguistic origins. If your sole argument for the coalescing of articles is putative origin (linguistic, and in the case of Haoma, the botany issue), then you obviously requires the establishment of some arbitrary parameters with respect to when (from what period onwards) two entities may be considered equivalent enough to warrant inclusion under one title.
  4. While your objections to Mitra/Mithra may to a degree be justified because *mitra is the root of both, it is not when it comes to Soma/Haoma because Soma is not the root of both.
  5. With respect to comparison, well, as Jan Houben (9/1b) established for Haoma/Soma, which you preemptorily removed (because it did not fit your view of the issue?), "apart from occasional and dispersed remarks on similarities in structure and detail of Vedic and Zoroastrian rituals, little has been done on the systematic comparison of the two" (keywords you didn't consider are underlined). Under those conditions, any Komparatistik on Haoma/Soma would perforce be a good measure of "original research", unless of course such a comparison only reiterated the tangential connection, which, though still a comparison, is not particularly useful.
  6. IFF Soma was a well-developed article before but was so heavily dependant on material only remotely connected to Soma that it now no longer is well-developed article, then it wasn't one in the first place. Only four sentences on Soma in living religion is hardly a criteria for a "well-developed" article. Oh, and two completely irrelevant quotes (one totally out of context) that make up the majority of the text on Zoroastrianism is hardly a criteria either. Oh, not to mention the citation of stuff that says exactly the opposite of what the article says. Sorry, we may well have different standards of "well-developed" means, but Soma was a long way from being well-developed. The only thing that may have been "well-developed" was the linguistics bit, but lacking citation is still of questionable quality.
  7. That the botanic identity of Soma-Haoma is not a "well-developed" article is only because you chose to not make it so. For one, even though you've taken my otherwise logically and chronologically built text and squeezed into a structure for which it was not written. For another, the text you left in Haoma/Soma had neither a logical middle nor an end. Moreover, you were in such a hurry to reestablish the putative connection between Soma/Haoma that you forgot to consider that an author, in the process of developing an article, may have material in hand that you do not. So, now I've added a "Comparison of haoma/soma" section to Haoma which is essentially a rephrase of what the introductory text of a common "Sauma" article would have been.
  8. As you have correctly noted, "any discussion of the botanic identity needs to take into account both traditions", and it was not my intention or interest to deal with only one or the other. In fact, just the opposite was case, which you would have either determined by waiting a few days, or by asking. Botanic identification of a common *sauma may be interesting to a botanist or someone otherwise interested in the common origin of the plant, but is only tangentially relevant to Zoroastianism/Hinduism. The culture/customs/tradition/et al of the two religions is not going to be influenced by whether plant XYZ is identified as Soma/Haoma or not.
  9. Finally, as to whether my split was "controvertial" or not: well, I don't see a heck of a lot of discussion on it, besides from you. The only thing controversial is your opinion that "divisionism" (your word) is destructive, since that is neither supported by any other person, nor by the texts, nor by any studies on the subject. In fact, just the opposite is true. The persistance of an academic tradition that only studies one or the other (and inversely, the lack of comparative scholarship) is indicative that the split was sensible. Moreover, your opinion also does not take into account that articles can grow, nor does it take into account that others may have more to add, nor does it take into account that the growth may may not be in the interest of the original roof you choose to force it under.
  10. As to "All of your five points are entirely mistaken". Well, you didn't address how these may be so, and it should now be apparent that they were not.
-- Fullstop 13:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Haoma = Cannabis?[edit]

In China, cannabis is called Huo Ma, or literally "fire hemp." Relatedly, ephedra is called Ma Huang, or literally "hemp yellow," (perhaps referring to the Huang He region rather than a color). In any case, substantial identification has been made by Chris Bennett in Cannabis and the Soma Solution. ( Would it be appropriate to add some reference to this in the text of the article? —Whig (talk) 23:19, 24 February 2013 (UTC)


gotic haúrn — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:46:D46:AAEB:C190:1A3C:D533:207A (talk) 04:16, 17 September 2015 (UTC)