Talk:Alexander Bard

"Co-conspirator"
"co-conspirator", is that a partner in conspiracy? ^^
 * Yes

Conversion to Zoroastrianism
It might be note that conversion to Zoroastrianism (not to mention bisexuality) are usually forbidden, though not in the case of some Liberal Zoroastrians as in Sweden Khiradtalk 22:26, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Um, where would conversion to Zoroastrianism be forbidden? And what does bisexuality have to do with it? I'm confused. :) MMad 01:13, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I think he means that Zoroastrians outside of Sweden are much more strict on following certain traditions and are have a far more conservative view on non-heterosexual relations.
 * Peter Isotalo 18:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I've restored mention of sexuality which had been deleted by an anon – but this whole article needs references per WP:CITE ..... dave souza, talk 10:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Satanism? http://scontent-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn2/t31.0-8/1780101_10202495399438721_154436152_o.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.156.43.47 (talk) 06:38, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Birthplace
enwiki says he's born in Motala. Swedish Wikipedia says he was born in Bloemfontein in South Africa. What's correct? Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 12:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * ... and his webpage says he was born in Linköping...  Jobjörn  (Talk ° contribs) 12:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd say he was born in "Hindu Linköping" then. You know, in the town in "Zoroastrian Sweden" thats up there between "Buddhist Norway" and "Jain Denmark", just to the west of "Muslim Finland" on the "Bahai Baltic". Cripes. -- Fullstop 12:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Fixed both issues. -- Fullstop 13:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Removed per BLP/SOAP
I've removed the following sentence from the "Religious and political views" section:
 * Bard has on many occasions, in online debates and in conference speeches, advocated a return to the Pantheist original form of the religion known by its followers as the Mazdayasna interpretation of Zoroastrianism.

Now, I see no evidence that Bard is advocating such a thing, but the sentence is itself soapboxing such a position, and given the elementary incorrectness of the premises, I've removed it per WP:BLP. Formally, the faults lie in "Pantheist original form" and "known [...] as the Mazdayasna interpretation of Zoroastrianism". There is no such "pantheist original form" (Bard isn't in a position to decide the value of anything anyway) and "Mazdayasna" is not some special  but a common Avestan language word that merely means (quite literally) "worship of Mazda". If -- as the editor is suggesting -- Bard is advocating a pantheist interpretation, then this has to be duly written as
 * "Bard advocates his own pantheistic interpretation of Gathic Zoroastrianism, and recycles the generic Avestan language term "Mazdayasna" to denote this interpretation."

But I don't think Bard does anything of the kind. In a Yahoo groups thread datelined "Monday, June 30, 2008, 4:53 PM" he wrote "We are just going to have to accept that there are full-blown Zoroastrians who are theist, atheist and pantheist and all kinds of varieties in between. The Gathas do not support any specific stand in itself on this issue. At least certainly not any theist-dualist dogma." Either way, we can't have WP advocating on Bard's behalf. -- Fullstop (talk) 01:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but now there's nothing on that aspect of his career at all. It went down the memory hole. 173.173.20.99 (talk) 13:04, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Philosopher
What's with this "philosopher" stuff? What academic degree, and what genre? Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 14:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * He promotes some kind of existentialist reasoning in the current high-tech IT environment, citation still needed. Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 06:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely. To be regarded as a "philosopher" in something like Wikipedia, at very least we'd expect a higher degree in the subject, or a relevant academic position at a recognized school, or publication in peer-reviewed philosophical journals. Bard may be interested in philosophy, and may have studied some philosophy, but he is not a philosopher by any normal use of that word. Removed that assertion from the opening, and reprioritized the list to reflect what he actually is, an author and music dude. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.114.182.125 (talk) 23:17, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

That might be true in Europe, but not in America. No one cares about degrees; one would think that would be especially true in philosophy! "To be regarded as a "philosopher" in something like Wikipedia, at very least we'd expect a higher degree in the subject, or a relevant academic position at a recognized school, or publication in peer-reviewed philosophical journals." Is this an actual policy of Wikipedia?173.173.20.99 (talk) 13:06, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

He, together with Jan Söderqvist has published five books, none of which could be accurately categorised as anything other than philosophy. The ideas explored in these books are based on philosophers like Nietzsche, Hegel, Spinoza, Whitehead, Deleuze, Heidegger, Freud etc. He does himself say that it is his main area of focus and that he is a philosopher. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cedrickaris (talk • contribs) 22:28, 17 April 2019 (UTC)