Talk:Avestan geography

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Zoroastrianism, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.ZoroastrianismWikipedia:WikiProject ZoroastrianismTemplate:WikiProject ZoroastrianismZoroastrianism articles

Afghanistan

	Afghanistan portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Afghanistan, a project to maintain and expand Afghanistan-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AfghanistanWikipedia:WikiProject AfghanistanTemplate:WikiProject AfghanistanAfghanistan articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Iran

	Iran portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iran, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Iran on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project where you can contribute to the discussions and help with our open tasks.IranWikipedia:WikiProject IranTemplate:WikiProject IranIran articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Religious texts (defunct)

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

OR and Synth[edit]

The article "Avestan geography" is necessary for wikipedia. But I think the present one is violating 1. wp:nor 2, wp:synth and more importantly with sections like "conclusion" seem to have some pov. I will remove the texts that are unsourced, not related, or can be found in other articles related to Zoroastrianism. I will wait if the others can give proper citings (the article has 10's of sources but no direct citation!). Xashaiar (talk) 14:55, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The sections that User:Xashaiar have removed are reverted, as they are now provided with reliable sources. Therefore, the term "original research" is not applicable here as it refers to material not already published by reliable sources. The districts "Gava = Sogdiana", "Mōuru = Margiana;", "Bāxδī = Bactria", "Harōiva = Areia, Herat", and "Haraxᵛaitī = Arachosia", need no source because no one is likely to object to it, but we know that sources for those exist. The remaining locations of the sixteen regions stated are provided with sources that are both directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the material as presented. If no source existed for them, it was "original research".--Artacoana (talk) 10:18, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear you are violating wikipedia policies in every line. Here are my concerns:

1. The two sections Avestan_geography#Yasht_references and Avestan_geography#Conclusion are unsourced and your own OR. They can be sourced but need NPOV.

2. You have added your own OR and interpretation (that is corrupting the RS source) by indicating "[your words]" in brackets inside a sentence that is from the source. This is a serious problem.

3. If you do not want to collaborate or see others to edit this page please at least leave the cited source un-edited.

4. You are making a mistake in turning a potentially good article into a place for edit wars.

for the moment I delete your "[]" which I guess should be OK.Xashaiar (talk) 13:10, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The statement (among others) 'identifications of Airyana Vaēǰah with Chorasmia are quite unfounded' surely has no place in an encyclopedia and represents the author's opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.30.244.75 (talk) 22:55, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Improving the article[edit]

I already like the article a lot and think it is an important addition to the subject of Zoroastrianism, but I think it still needs some revisions to improve readability and comprehensibility. As it stands, the article still contains unusual wording and idiosyncratic phrases that can affect readability. In addition, there are still some passages that are taken directly from the corresponding article in the Encyclopedia Iranica. Such direct quotations are not only a plagiarism problem, but the Encyclopedia Iranica also has a very different style than Wikipedia. In Encyclopedia Iranica, articles are often written by a single scholar expressing his or her own point of view, whereas this is explicitly not encouraged in Wikipedia. Some passages of the article still do not comply with this. Finally, the article contains a conclusion section that has already been criticized. I agree with this criticism, because this section is written in the style of an essay, which contradicts the goals of the style guidelines of a Wikipedia article.

I would therefore suggest to clean up passages taken from Encyclopedia Iranica, improve overall readability, getting rid or at least strongly rework the conclusions section and possible add some short introduction to better frame and contextualize the article. To avoid an edit war, I would first like to wait for some feedback from people who care about the article and who may not such changes. Fhesse (talk) 05:33, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]