Talk:Mithras (name)

[Untitled]

I tagged this with POV because the effect of it, in context, was to lead readers to suppose that Roman Mithras was the same as Persian Mitra. The final paragraphs indicate this. The first sentence is backed, not by scholarly research, but by stuff from dictionaries, and these are not reliable sources for the point desired to be proven (although I suspect the basic point is actually sound -- Mithra is somehow connected to a Persian word). Likewise I tagged it as OR because I am not sure that the links outlined are the conclusions of scholars, even though the references back up individual points. But that we do need an etymology section I agree. For the moment I have moved this out here, while we decide what to do about it. It's a good first stab at the subject, but would distort the Mithras article in its current form. Roger Pearse (talk) 12:29, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

On a quick read-through, it appears to me to be clearly-linked by some of these sources. I agree with Kalidasa below that dictionaries are reliable sources pending other sources that somehow cast doubt on their conclusions. I'd suggest the POV and OR tags get removed. -- Khazar (talk) 07:22, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Done.--Civilizededucation^talk 18:12, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Historical note

The material on this page was moved by Roger Pearse from the page Mithraic mysteries, where its history can be found. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 02:28, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Dictionaries and scholars

I am rather puzzled by Roger's distinction between "scholarly research", and "stuff from dictionaries" -- how does he think dictionaries are compiled, if not by "scholarly research" into occurrence of words in texts? I have raised some further questions on Talk:Mithraic mysteries... Kalidasa 777 (talk) 02:28, 21 April 2011 (UTC)