Talk:Zoroastrianism/Archive 7

This is an archive of past discussions about Zoroastrianism. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Date of origin of Zoroastrianism

In the section 'History', subsection 'Classical antiquity', it says:

'The prophet Zoroaster himself, though traditionally dated to the 6th century BC, is thought by many modern historians to have been a reformer of the polytheistic Iranian religion who lived in the 10th century BC.'

But one of the most well-known (and respected?) experts on Zoroastrianism, Mary Boyce, writes:

'Zoroaster's date cannot be established with any precision, since he lived in what for his people were prehistoric times. The language of the Gathas is archaic, and close to that of the Rigveda (whose composition has been assigned to about 1700 B.C. onwards); and the picture of the world to be gained from them is correspondingly ancient, that of a Stone Age society. Some allowance may have to be made for literary conservatism; and it is also possible that the 'Avestan' people (as Zoroaster's own tribe is called for want of a better name) were poor or isolated, and so not rapidly influenced by the developments of the Bronze Age. It is only possible therefore to hazard a reasoned conjecture that Zoroaster lived some time between 1700 and 1500 B.C.'

Mary Boyce. Zoroastrians. Their Religious Beliefs and Practices. Routledge. London 2001. (First published 1979.) ISBN: 978-0415239035. Page 18. http://www.amazon.com/Zoroastrians-Religious-Beliefs-Practices-Library/dp/0415239036

Maybe this date of origin (and the quote) can be included in the section as well?

The Flying Fox (talk) 22:16, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Monochrome Monitor due to recent edit, would note that Brian Arthur Brown is United Church of Canada minister (disputed neutrality), and that Zoroastrianism was not established in 6th century and there's no consensus on it, yet as the authority on it Mary Boyce wrote "cannot be established with precision... language is archaic close to Rigveda... 1700 B.C. onwards... Zoroaster possibly lived between 1700 and 1500 B.C.". There 6 sources by Boyce used in the article, while there's almost none consideration on the history and origin of the religion by the same scholar, yet by a Christian minister and some unknown scholar Gerardo Eastburn who has the same POV. The article with such a important topic should have at least a section or paragraph with scholars opposing considerations. I once read, but I can not remember in which source, that as both language, rituals and teaching are similar to the Vedas, it was initially the same belief of the Indo-Europeans, one who migrated to India established Hinduism, while those to Persia the Zoroastrism. Many elements from Zoroastrianism can be found, due to probable influence, in the Abrahamic religions - concept of reward for "doing" good (heaven) and bad (hell), angels, archangels, messiah, doomsday among others. The teachings were temporarily lost with conquest of Alexander the Great, and would return in Sasanian Empire, but again destroyed by the Muslims invasion. However, both Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity, Islam have in its core one monotheistic religion from around 3500 B.C., part of Semitic-Indo European vibration. The age of origin of Zoroastrianism is obviously older than 6th century B.C., but such age was not in the interest of the scholars whose simplified dogma followed the concept that first monotheistic religions were Abrahamic, thus intentionally although erroneously mention that the Zoroastrianism and the Zoroaster emerged in the same period as Judaism. And again, on the article "Monotheism", section "Origin and development", the consideration "Judaism became strictly monotheistic in the 6th century BCE as a result of the Babylonian exile, Zoroastrianism, also monotheistic (though not monist), was founded by Zoroaster around the time of Cyrus the Great" is cited from the previously mentioned Christian scholar Brian Arthur Brown.--Crovata (talk) 07:06, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Same edit at Zoroaster. After second time reading the source, it seems that the topic is controversial ("dramatic politicking among scholars of Zoroastrianism who recognized the impact this issue could have on world history"), the source has biased POV and intention, scholars are open "adherents or affiliates of the Church" and thus should be approached critically. Would note that the source does not use reference to confirm other scholars POV, thus could doubt the authenticity. It mentions how the Axial Age theory partly recognized the 628-551 BCE age of Zoroaster, however in 1977, Mary Boyce considered that the mythical dates of 6500-6000 BCE should be replaced by 1200-1000 BCE minimum. Some 21st century Italian, British and German scholars support the Persian-Arabic dates after dramatic scholarship discussion, and that in spite of some "consensus" (if there is some consensus, then other POV should be appropriately included in both intro and text of the article), says that many respected scholars still cling around or before 1000 BCE due to philological reasons. I am concerned by the neutrality and scientificity of the source which openly states "the study will work backward from Judaism to Zoroastrianism... start with Judaism in Babylon... show evidence positioning Zoroaster immediately before Cyrus the Great, just before consolidation of the Torah... this begins with the Torah as the original touchstone of God's revelation to the family of Abraham, Sarah and Hagar, and through them to the nations, to subsequent religions, and to individual people, as Zoroaster discovered". Existence of God alone is a huge debate, stating in such a irresponsible way his "revelation", and then to be seriously considered as a "reliable" source... The same can be seen "Foreword" (IX), that "Jewish monotheism predates Zoroaster", "Moses or other Hewbrew prophet inspired Zoroaster". It does reveal the Zoroastrianism influence on the Abrahamic religions, and others or connection with other around the world, but it mixes them in ideological constructions "Epiloge" pg. 603-606: "in a manner similar to these discoveries [comparing to the confirmation of Illiad events, and 2008-2011 discovery of Atlantis (!?)], need to verify 1) Zoroaster got monotheism from Israeli exiles in the time of the prophet Jeremiah 2) Zoroastrian tradition impacted Jesus messianic mission 3) Sabaeans in the Quran are Zoroastrians". Using only one and biased source in multiple articles for sentence implying that scholars "have recently changed their position on the time when he likely lived", and that "that there is an emerging consensus", think is not supported by WP:NPOV principles.--Crovata (talk) 11:06, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

As Encyclopaedia Iranica notes, "One of the most vexing problems for a history of Zoroastrianism is the location of Zarathustra in time and place. While there is general agreement that he did not live in western Iran, attempts to locate him in specific regions of eastern Iran, including Central Asia, remain tentative. Also uncertain are his dates. Plausible arguments place him anywhere from the 13th century BCE to just before the rise of the Achaemenid empire under Cyrus II the Great in the mid-6th century BCE, with the majority of scholars seeming to favor dates around 1000 BCE, which would place him as a contemporary, at least, of the later Vedic poets (see, e.g., Boyce, 1975-82, I, pp. 190-91; Duchesne-Guillemin, pp. 135-38; Gnoli, 1980, pp. 159-79; Henning; Hertel; Herzfeld; Jackson, 1896; Klima, 1959; Shahbazi, 1977 and 2002)". Think that the consensus is nonexistent, and the major/minor consideration varies between cited scholars, and date of sources.--Crovata (talk) 11:37, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I'll revert then. :) --Monochrome_Monitor 20:43, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Population figure

List of countries by Zoroastrian population , Time ,Keep the Faith, and Keep Dwindling New York Times ,This ,Telegraph Calcutta ,Last of the Zoroastrians Time and this .The number of Zoroastrians in the World is between 100000 to 250000 .Now where does 2.6 million come from Zoroastrians in Iran states there are 26000 Zoroastrians.Guinness Book of World Records lists Zoroastrianism as the "major religion nearest extinction". per here .We need a better than this given .In India they are declining as per this and In Iran a rise of 2 Million is not backed by census or any source going back to 1900.In Iraq there have been reports of Kurds turning to Zoroastrian but still it not in Millions or any other Middle East or central Asian nation.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:44, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

the prophet

the prophet was actually kurdish but lived in the area we call iran now he isn't iranian. his name is actually zardasht in kurdish and there is a town in iran called zardasht wich is a kurdish town. Kingking268 (talk) 21:01, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Whether Zoraster was Kurdish or not is debatable (a source would be helpful). However even if he was Kurdish that wouldn't mean he wasn't Iranian, since many reliable sources classify Kurds as an Iranian people (the Wikipedia page on Kurds provides some references).Ff11 (talk) 01:29, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Rituals and practice

With the exception of the discussion of head covering, there's nothing here about Zoroastrian practice and rituals, either communal or familial. After reading the entry, I know a lot about what Zoroastrians believe but little about how they live out their faith, beyond the exhortations to think and act for the good. Would one of the experts who wrote this otherwise excellent article please add an extended section on religious practice? Thanks. KC 02:51, 12 August 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boydstra (talk • contribs)

Request: Zoroastrianism and Islam

I think a new article, Zoroastrianism and Islam, should be created on the grounds that the followers of the two religions overlap geographically to a significant extent, that it is useful for readers wishing to understand the history of conflict or any similarities between the two, religious freedom in Iran, and on the grounds that other articles for similar inter-religious relationships have been created. I give a few examples: Protestantism and Islam, Mormonism and Islam, Christianity and Islam, Judaism and Islam, Islam and Hinduism, etc. Perhaps a request could be put through the proper channels. I could draft a stub but I'd have no idea where to start, so I'm not the best individual to follow through with this idea. 38.88.99.222 (talk) 10:08, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 January 2017

This edit request to Zoroastrianism has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

On the top of the article the Persian name (دین زرتشت) should be added as the Islam article has the Arabic language name because it came from Saudi Arabia so this article should have the Persian name as its from Iran 198.52.13.15 (talk) 10:49, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball} 02:24, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Without being an expert in Persian, I can state that the Persian name put forward by OP is approximately "Din Zartithat", and I am probably wrong about all the vowels except for "i" in Din. Please do not use my transliteration in the article. 38.88.99.222 (talk) 10:11, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Probably Zartotht or actually Zartosht which appears in the article. Din means religion in Arabic and Persian, and so Din Zartosht would mean "Religion of Zartosht". Zartosht is a reference to Zoroaster. I cannot confirm, but this should make it easier to find reliable citations if name provided by OP is correct, 38.88.99.222 (talk) 10:17, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Solved. If we go to Persian Wikipedia interwiki, the lede says مَزدَیَسنا یا دین زرتشتی. There's a crucial difference in how the word is conjugated: there is a "ya" at the end of the one in Interwiki. I think that's good enough for me. 38.88.99.222 (talk) 10:25, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 September 2017

This edit request to Zoroastrianism has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change "there number is declining" to "their number is declining". 2601:645:C100:5EA8:28BB:6623:A72C:992C (talk) 06:17, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Done DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 06:39, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 September 2017

This edit request to Zoroastrianism has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Due to duplication, change:

In 2011 the Tehran Mobeds Anjuman announced that for the first time in the history of Iran and of the Zoroastrian communities worldwide, women had been ordained in Iran and North America as mobedyars, meaning women mobeds (Zoroastrian priests).[57][58][59] In 2011, the Tehran Mobeds Anjuman (Anjoman-e-Mobedan) announced that for the first time in the history of Iran and of the Zoroastrian communities worldwide, women had joined the group of mobeds (priests) in Iran as mobedyars (women priests); the women hold official certificates and can perform the lower-rung religious functions and can initiate people into the religion.

to:

In 2011 the Tehran Mobeds Anjuman announced that for the first time in the history of Iran and of the Zoroastrian communities worldwide, women had been ordained in Iran and North America as mobedyars, meaning women mobeds (Zoroastrian priests).[57][58][59] The women hold official certificates and can perform the lower-rung religious functions and can initiate people into the religion. PhilippJFR (talk) 01:53, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Done Gulumeemee (talk) 05:32, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Zoroastrianism's influence on other religions is not determinable; add historical context.

In the first paragraph of this article, it is indicated that Zoroastrianism influenced other religions but does not provide context. The article presents itself as disingenuous regarding the Zoroastrianism's influence on other religions without providing full historical context.

Suggest appending the following information to the first paragraph:

"It is hard to prove either that Zoroastrianism influenced Christianity or that Judaism influenced Zoroastrianism. It is even harder to prove that these religions did NOT influence each other. What can be stated is that the patriarchs of Judaism, Abraham and Moses, lived long before the prophets Zoroaster, Muhammad, and Jesus Christ. The Mosaic Law, the Psalms of David and many of Judaism's prophets wrote before Zoroaster was born. Therefore it is common sense to conclude it is more likely that Judaism influenced Zoroastrianism, Islam, and Christianity than vice versa." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.52.84.153 (talk) 16:18, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

The article is not written as well as for example Zoroaster. It includes many references which are not cited, and which, who actually read them, prove or consider that Zoroastrianism did influence Judaism, and through it Christianity and Islam. The considerations about the influence of Judaism on Zoroastrianism is Abrahamic religions bias and historical revisionism (and geographically does not make sense). The Judaic prophets did not "write", in the mainstream is considered they were written by multiple authors and many centuries later, hence cannot be said to be "common sense".--Miki Filigranski (talk) 01:16, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

The strong assertion of influence by Zoroastrianism on other religions, mentioned in the first paragraph of this article, is not backed up in the body of the article, nor in the references. The influence of Zoroastrianism on Judaism, in particular, seems to be a subject of wide debate. See, for instance, Barr, James. “The Question of Religious Influence: The Case of Zoroastrianism, Judaism, and Christianity.” Journal of the American Academy of Religion, vol. 53, no. 2, 1985, pp. 201–235. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/1464919. I suggest tempering the statement in this article to something along the lines of "Major features... have been conjectured to have influenced other religious systems...." --68.65.174.192 (talk) 06:22, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

"Iranian" prophet? or "Persian" prophet

Shouldn't it really be ascribed to the teachings of the Persian prophet Zoroaster and pre-Islamic Persian empires not Iranian Empires

He was not born in or during Persian Empire.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 18:41, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Could it be ibrahim and zoroaster are one and the same person? Husein5253 (talk) 15:55, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Zoroastrianism did NOT influence Christianity

This idea has been disproven. The more I read Wikipedia, the more I see its atheistic, liberal bias. So much for objectivity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jikipoiopo (talk • contribs) 15:04, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia sticks to professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources. It does not adjust in the face of hissy-fit allegations and bias-motivated tantrums. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:12, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

"The more I read Wikipedia, the more I see its atheistic, liberal bias" : Then just stop reading it and go write a blog where you could expose your POV, this is an encyclopedia, seems that this is not a place for editors like you. Regards.---Wikaviani^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:00, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

@Jikipoiopo:I think the previous comments are a bit harsh. Please provide sources to support the assertion that 'Zoroastrianism did NOT influence Christianity'. Jonpatterns (talk) 16:07, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

No one cares if your feelings are offended.★Trekker (talk) 06:51, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

The paragraph which contains the information of Husayn Marrying Sherebanu is true referring it to as wholly fictious would be offending to others please change it.

As above Husein5253 (talk) 15:58, 29 October 2018 (UTC) no. since when the truth became offending? this is the truth that daughter of the king forced to marry "hussain son of ali" one of the arab invaders. Sepehr.Sǎsǎni (talk) 06:43, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 January 2019

This edit request to Zoroastrianism has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

hello. im iranian and creating wiki pages in fa.wikipedia.org. i wanted to have access to zorosterian page. im not amature. thanks Sepehr.Sǎsǎni (talk) 06:40, 7 January 2019 (UTC) Sepehr.Sǎsǎni (talk) 06:40, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. DannyS712 (talk) 06:45, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 March 2019

This edit request to Zoroastrianism has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I want to add in this statement under the Sub-section, Practices. Zoroastrians believe burying or cremating the dead is considered as a way to pollute nature and create a contaminated environment for the living. Zoroastrians would much rather have the corpses be exposed out in the sun and consumed by birds of prey, such as vultures. Alcline (talk) 21:59, 9 March 2019 (UTC) ^[1]

@Alcline: Hmmm. The article makes mention of 'ritual exposure', although it does not properly explain the term. It also says "Other Zoroastrian communities either cremate their dead or bury them in graves that are cased with lime mortar.", which directly contradicts the first sentence of your proposed addition. I do note the paragraph currently in the article is unreferenced, but I'd be more comfortable with performing this edit with further sources detailing funeral rites. NiciVampireHeart 23:56, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

 Not done for now: per my above comment. @Alcline: if you provide further sources here, please re-open this request by changing "|answered=yes" to "|answered=no". Thanks, 10:00, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

References

1. https://www.npr.org/2012/09/05/160401322/vanishing-vultures-a-grave-matter-for-indias-parsis

Zoroastrianism in Fiction

Interestingly, the religion of R'hllor (Lord of Light) in A Song of Ice and Fire by George RR Martin is inspired by Zoroastrianism. Especially the duality of gods. In addition, the many aspects of choosing "light" over darkness is emphasized.^[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silverphoenix7 (talk • contribs) 03:24, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

References

1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=amArH3ucEYU&t=31s

Iranian religion

Zoroastrianism is an Iranian religion, not only a Persian one, we should add the translations of Zoroastrianism into the various Iranian languages where the peoples still practice the religion. E.g. Kurds, Azeris (Turkic-speaking Iranian peoples) and the Zazas. KhakePakeVatan (talk) 05:25, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Or just remove the Persian translation since translations aren't in Islam or Christianity either. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:51, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

HistoryofIran Agreed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KhakePakeVatan (talk • contribs) 06:04, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Demographics section

@Wikaviani: Hi, the previous version of the article that you reverted to have some incorrect and problematic population figures that aren't provided by the sources and speculates about unlikely population figures using dubious or unreliable sources.

I've based the updated population figures on the 2012 FEZANA study/report^[1], which gives far more plausible figures than most of the news agency sources that are used in the old version. Also, the claim that the FEZANA study in 2004 regarding the global Zoroastrian population went up to 217,000 - is not stated in the NYT source, 190,000 is stated - and even number that is not claimed by FEZANA in their report. The figures for Pakistan were also doubled from earlier years and the source speculated about number of voters, not the actual population.

The large figures (100,000-200,000) regarding recent Iraqi Kurdish converts were mainly based on claims made by a Iraqi Kurdish government official later repeated by news agencies - not statistics from a reliable survey or study. A similar example: Lebanese official election statistics claim thousands of Jewish people remain in the country and vote while the majority of other sources refute this claim.

Wikipedia articles should reflect WP:NPOV and provide well-sourced plausible claims, to ensure this was the goal of my edit. Please note that WP:DUE and WP:FALSEBALANCE does not leave room for giving undue weight to claims from certain politicians or unreliable sources or that all estimates and figures need to be balanced equally while disregarding the validity of the sources and the claims. The current version also breaches WP:OR regarding the Pakistan and Iraqi Kurdish population claims by not reflecting what the sources state properly and making claims beyond them while still referring to the sources. I ask you to revert back to the version with the corrected and updated figures. AntonSamuel (talk) 22:46, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi, i corrected the figures, but i think that the Pakistan part should remain as it is since it's sourced. Same gos for the part where it's said that figures are difficult to speculate upon. Best regards.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:48, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

The demographics section is in need of a greater update and several corrections need to be made. And as I said about the Pakistani figures - they're not figures of the population they're claims of number of voters. AntonSamuel (talk) 12:57, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

@AntonSamuel: Could you please explain why you removed, again, the 190000 figure that was sourced ? IMHO, both figures should be included per WP:NPOV. Thanks in advance.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:14, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

@Wikaviani: The NYT article claims that this figure (190,000) represented an estimate from the FEZANA study from 2004, which is incorrect - their 2004 estimate was 124,953 if you check here: . Regarding WP:NPOV, since the 2004 and 2012 demographic studies were done by the Federation of Zoroastrian Associations of North America, if their estimates are more conservative than that of non-Zoroastrian/neutral sources, I would argue that it makes a lot of sense to use the more conservative figures that FEZANA provide. And again, there is no need for a WP:FALSEBALANCE if one source is clearly more reliable and plausible than the other. AntonSamuel (talk) 13:26, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

@AntonSamuel: Makes sense, thanks for taking the time to clarify and also, thank you very much for updating the article. Wish you a great rest of your day.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:35, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

References

1. Rivetna, Roshan. "The Zoroastrian World A 2012 Demographic Picture" (PDF). Fezana.org.

Use of "Heterodox" in text

It is unclear why the religion is described as "Heterodox" in the second sentence of the article; any information I can find on the term 'heterodox[y]', including Wikipedia's own, has a definitional basis (and bias?) that would seem to violate WP:NPOV. The phrasing "any opinions or doctrines at variance with an official or orthodox position" would seem to require "heterodoxy" to be considered only relative to the official position, if any, of the religion being so described; to claim that Zoroastrianism is "heterodox" would seem to be meaningless or nonsense if considered from the viewpoint of Zoroastrianism itself; considering it from the viewpoint of any other religion makes the use of "heterodox" either incorrect or non-neutral (or both). 206.212.132.44 (talk) 14:19, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

The entire first paragraph just seems to be full of theological jargon rather than basic information one should expect to find in the first paragraph in an article on a religion such as 'where it is practiced' or 'how many practicioners it has' or 'how long it has been practiced for'. It's not that the information in the first paragraph is necessarily irrelevant, it's just that the article doesn't seem to be structured coherently or in line with the rest of wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:DC08:9000:EDB7:F6FF:AD1:53CD (talk) 14:58, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

I think you are right to query the "heterodox" aspect. The article seemed to use it in a sense of "multifaceted" or "variety of beliefs", whereas classical "heterodoxy" is about deviance from a single, established baseline. I have removed the references to it. Feline Hymnic (talk) 21:30, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

unclear

"With Iranian (especially Persian) support," -- what is the distinction between Iranian and Persian? Kdammers (talk) 15:53, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Persians are a southwestern branch of the Iranians. Persians at that time were mostly a majority in the south, whilst the population of Khorasan and Transoxiana (populated by eastern Iranian groups, such as Sogdians etc) was getting increasingly Persianized. I've just removed Persian. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Foundation of the Religion

Hello there

Within this article "With possible roots dating back to the second millennium BCE, Zoroastrianism enters recorded history in the 5th century BCE.[10] Along with a Mithraic Median prototype and a Zurvanist Sassanid successor, it served as the state religion of the ancient Iranian empires for more than a millennium, from around 600 BCE to 650 CE. Zoroastrianism declined from the 7th century onwards following the Muslim conquest of Persia of 633–654.[11] Recent estimates place the current number of Zoroastrians at around 110,000–120,000,[12] with most living in India and in Iran; their number has been thought to be declining.[13][14]" is written

Within the Fravashi article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fravashi) "According to Mary Boyce, the perplexing anomalies of Yasht 13 are residual traces of fravashi cult, which she defines as a form of an ancestor worship and/or hero-cult that developed during (what she calls) the 'Iranian Heroic Age' (c. 1500 BCE onwards)." is written. And, The Kingdom of the Hetites (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hittites) had a god, the Neo-Hittite storm god "Tarhunzas" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarḫunz) which can be seen (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hittites#/media/File:Hetite_God_in_Aleppo.jpg) to have the symbol of the zoroastrian faith associated with it. The Hetites are placed from c. 1600 BC to c. 1178 BC.

I have stumbled upon a cross reference to the zoroastrian faith within a related article on an obelisk that was supposedly erected in 825BC (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Obelisk_of_Shalmaneser_III). On this obelisk, an early version of the later symbology for the zoroastrian faith (Khvarenah), is clearly chiseled next to Sua, King of Gilzanu (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilzanu). In the same relief King Shalmaneser III of Assyria (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shalmaneser_III) is next what seems to be early symbology of the dharmachakra (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dharmachakra) and within the Khvarenah next to king Sua seems to be the same dharmachakra. For the remainder of the depictions of the Assyrian kings the Dharmachakra or a version thereof can be seen to be depicted on their crowns/hats/dress/person. However, on the same obelisk can be found the reverse of the symbology whereby king Shalmaneser III seems to now have embraced the protozoroastrian faith and is entreating with the supplicating King Jehu (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehu), who's name is possibly mistaken, or entwined with, the jewish god Yahweh (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahweh). It is possible here that in the same way as the king of the zoroastrians was at times considered the speaker to the god of the zoroastrians (read: god king (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_king)), the jewish had a similar situation but muddled the definition and henceforth failed to seperate the two ideas (conjecture). This suggests that there was a conversion toward the zoroastrian like faith from a protoindoiranian religion. The symbology therefore would not be pertaining to the Dharmachakra per se but rather to the religion that evolved into the Seal of Solomon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seal_of_Solomon), Dharmachakra and other such symbols (also conjecture).

The kingdom of Gilzanu went on to be a tributary of the Kingdom of Urartu (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urartu) after it was seen to have the zoroastrian association and before the Kingdom of Urartu, which believed in deities such as Ḫaldi and Tushpuea (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ḫaldi) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tushpuea) which use strikingly similar iconography with that of the proto-zoroastrians of the kingdom of Gilzanu. This suggests that the religions are at least in part related or were at one time cross compatible.

This suggests a migration of the religion from the Hetite Kingdom through the Kingdom of Gilzanu and on to the Kingdoms of of Urartu, and Assyria before finding itself in the Empire of the Median dynasty prior to the Persis revolt (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Persepolis_The_Persian_Soldiers.jpg) lead by Cyrus the great

In conclusion; I'm not sure saying "Zoroastrianism enters recorded history in the 5th century BCE" is correct.

If there are any experts on the matter who could confirm or deny the definition of "recorded history" here such that the specific wording could be changed to more encompass the timeline of what Zoroastrianism is or is not, as opposed to a proto-zoroastrianism, that would be nice.

Best Regards Andrew — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheMuffinManNZ (talk • contribs) 15:45, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Multi-tendency?

What does "It is a multi-tendency faith" mean? This isn't made clear, and there aren't references on the pages of other religions to their tendencies.

Yes, I changed this to - it is a dualistic monotheism but it was replaced by the original multi tendency Atlasrockworld (talk) 00:08, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Zoroastrianism - a perfectly correct universally accepted description rejected

I edited Zoroastrianism to include a more realist factual description in the opening paragraphs itself In place of calling it a multi tendency faith , I replaced by calling it what it is primarily - a dualistic monotheism with references from Brittanica and academia But it was changed back to the original multi tendency which is an unfair description There are many other implications which would be apparent Why a perfectly correct edit is replaced . It means you people have some agenda A perfectly factual and more accurate description is rejected? Atlasrockworld (talk) 00:06, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

@Atlasrockworld: Without even looking at the edits but just the tone of your message, I can safely say that you need to assume good faith and don't be so egotistical about your editing prowess. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:14, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Egotistical? Not at all. The term multi tendency is attested nowhere .... I am a born practising Zoroastrian and I find this term unfair . Can you provide references for this term multi tendency?

Atlasrockworld (talk) 00:25, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Please provide reference describing Zoroastrianism as a multi tendency faith.

Atlasrockworld (talk) 00:40, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

I have just changed the “multi tendency” to multi faceted. Hope that’s acceptable Atlasrockworld (talk) 02:05, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

• @Atlasrockworld: Calling all of your actions "perfect" is the definition of egotistical. Editor experience doesn't matter. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:12, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

I never called my actions perfect Atlasrockworld (talk) 02:17, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

I meant the edits reflect credible sources like Britannica and in that sense used the word perfect, nothing personal.

Atlasrockworld (talk) 02:20, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You called your preferred description perfectly correct in the title of this thread, and in the thread you called your edit a perfectly correct edit that put in a perfectly factual and more accurate description. It is not just semantics to argue that you didn't explicitly call your actions perfect, it's bad-faith and poor semantics. There's also the unaddressed problem that your statement It means you people have some agenda is an abject failure to WP:Assume good faith (a foundational site policy). You should really want that policy to be respected because your attempts to claim your own beliefs as relevant makes you an easy target for accusations of "having an agenda." Now, I don't think you have an agenda, and I don't really care what shape the article takes, but I do think you are approaching this with the wrong thoughts (egotism), which is leading to the wrong words ("perfect," "agenda"), and is going to result in the wrong deeds (edit warring). Ian.thomson (talk) 02:29, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Zoroastrianism is not polytheism

Regarding some scholarly interpretations that Ahura Mazda is supreme god over many gods , the Yazatas are gods they claim, and this based on an understanding of the related word Khodai/ Khwada and the older word Baga (god) seen in Achaemenid rock carvings , both Khwada/ Khoda and Baga used in a plural sense , thus these scholars concluding Zoroastrianism is polytheistic. Have provided these sceptics with almost EVERY SALUTATION IN THE AVESTA where khodai is used only with Ahura Mazda and never in any instance used to venerate any Yazata

However , when the Avesta liturgies were set in place, why is Ahuramazda Khodai present in every primary/ first salutation to Ahura Mazda and then to the Yazad where no Khodai word is annexed

Here are examples:

From the Avesta;

To Sarosh Yazad:

Kshnaothre Ahure Mazdao, Ashem Vohu (3 times) Pa naame Yazdan Ahura Mazda Khodai avjuni gorze khore avazyad, Sarosh Asho tagi tan Farman shekefat jin jin avajar salare damane Ahura Mazda beresad !

To Khursheed Yazad:

Kshnaothre Ahure Mazdao, Ashem Vohu (3) Pa naame Yazdan Ahura Mazda khodai avjuni gorze khore avazyad, Khorshed amrag rayomand auravad asp beresad !

To Meher Yazad:

KHM , Ashem Vohu (3) Pa naame Yazdan Ahura Mazda Khodai avjuni gorze khore avazyad, Meher Yazad davare rasat beresad!

To Avan Yazad:

Pa naame Yazdan Ahura Mazda khodai avjuni gorze khore avazyad, Avan Ardivisur banoo beresad!

To Mahbokhtaar Yazad ( the Moon )

KHM Ashem Vohu (3) Pa naame Yazdan Ahura Mazda Khodai avjuni gorze khore avazyad Mah Bokhtaar Mah Yazad beresad!

To Adur Yazad

KHM Ashem Vohu (3) Khsnaothre Ahure Mazdao nemasate Atarsh Mazdao Ahure hudhao majasti Yazate!

The above first was salutation to Sarosh Yazad and then salutation in the five Niyashes , to Khursheed, Meher, Avan, Mah, Atarsh

In all above the word Khodai is only used with Ahura Mazda , never with the Yazad, mind you this is the pure Avesta

Continue in the Avesta, salutations in the Yashts

To Ahura Mazda - the Hormazd Yasht;

KHM , Ashem Vohu (3) Pa naame Yazdan Ahura Mazda Khodai avjuni gorze khore avazyad, Dadaar Ahura Mazda Khodai rayomand khoremand Davar kerfegar bokhtaar farshogar !

To the Amesha Spentas The Haphtang Yashts:

KHM Ashem Vohu (3) Pa naame Yazdan Ahura Mazda khodai avjuni gorze khore avazyad, Haft Ameshaspando beresad!

To Asha Vahista, the Ardibehesht Yasht;

KHM Ashem Vohu (3) Pa naame yazdan Ahura Mazda khodai avjuni gorze khore avazyad Ardibesht Ameshaspand Beresad !

In the all the 21 Yashts never is Khodai appended to any of the Amesha Spentas or the Yazatas

Look also at the first affirmation to the faith, the Jasme Avanghe Mazda prayer..... fullest affirmation of worship of Zarathustri Mazdayasna faith :

Jaasme avanghe Mazda (3 times) Mazdayasna ahmi Maxdayasna Zarthustris, fravarane asuetascha farevaretascha , aastuye humate mano, aastuye hukhtem vacho, astuye huvarshtam sheothanam .........

A clear affirmation of Zarthustris Mazda worship by affirming the professing the Mazdayasna Zarthustris faith- I am a Mazda yasni, I am a Mazdayasni Zarthustris, professing righteousness, professing Perfection of the world, abiding by good thoughts, abiding by good words, abiding by the best good deeds.........

all this is from the body of the Avesta, not any interpretations from other related books

Although Yazata means worthy of worship, the term Khodai is repeatedly used only with Ahura Mazda throughout the Avesta, and even if the word (khodai/ khwodai) is a later interpolation, it is never attached to any Yazata throughout the Avesta. 94.47.55.111 (talk) 21:43, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 March 2021

This edit request to Zoroastrianism has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Under "Practices" & "Decline in the Middle Ages", the "Tower of Silence" should be linked to "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tower_of_Silence" Carmine.tenaglia (talk) 14:39, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

All set. Thanks! ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:52, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Was Cyrus a Zoroastrian?

Does Cyrus influence the current generation of Iranians? Was Cyrus a Zoroastrian? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C6:D583:5901:5101:191B:72DF:A352 (talk) 15:30, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 November 2021

This edit request to Zoroastrianism has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

There are two minor corrections needed in the last paragraph of the Overview section: "Zoroastrian high priests, have historically opined there is no reason to not allow conversion which is also supported the Revayats and other scripture though later priests have condemned these judgements." The comma is not needed after priests. Also, please add "by" as follows: "...which is also supported by the Revayats..." BeeGhoul (talk) 03:40, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

 Done —twotwofourtysix^{(My talk page and contributions)} 06:10, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Zoroastrianism likely influenced Judaism and Christianity, too

The opening page should include the fact that Zoroastrianism likely influenced Judaism and Christianity, too, along with Islam which is already referenced. To leave these two religions out makes the information basically incomplete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zrstrn (talk • contribs) 06:13, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

 Done well referenced and no need to mention separately Judaism, Christianity and Islam as main Abrahamic religions since it influenced all Abrahamic religions. --Miki Filigranski (talk) 07:00, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

The existence of zorastrianism

Sorry but I realised that in this article it suggests that zorastrianism no longer exists . I am zorastrian and there are still 100,000 of us (one hundred thousand ) in the world as a total population. Just saying this since a Google search on "does zorastrianism still exist?" Has recommended this article which states that the population declined and was lead to the end of zorastrianism. Pls correct it if u can but I know everyone's busy these days :).. just knew that u would want to post something factually correct and known from an actual zorastrian.

Many thanks and have a nice day :) 121.6.71.6 (talk) 09:27, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, but unless you are having difficulty reading the article, it clearly states, "Recent estimates place the current number of Zoroastrians in the world at around 110,000–120,000...". This can be found near the end of the 2nd paragraph. This has been in the article since before Jan 2020. --Kansas Bear (talk) 11:41, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Zoroastrianism possibly copied those other religions in the 9th centaury

Hello, based on "The Image of Zoroaster: The Persian Mage Through European Eyes (Persian Studies Series) Hardcover – 1 May 2000" (the published thesis of Professor Jenny Rose - currently teaching Zoroastrian Studies at the Department of Religion at Claremont Graduate University, California) Zoroastrianism is an extremely fluid religion that most likely copied from those other religions. To directly quote page 17: "The incorporation of certain motifs into the Zoroastrian tradition in the ninth centaury CE could indicate the conscious attempt of the priesthood to exalt their prophets in the eyes of the faithful, who may have been tempted to turn to other religions." This is backed up by my second source, which says Zoroastrianism "changed over time" (page 20). Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 20:17, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, but this only proves my point that the addition was WP:SYNTHESIS and personal interpretation. Even your current comment ("Zoroastrianism is an extremely fluid religion that most likely copied from those other religions") isn't the identical to the quoted information. The quote of the second source is extremely vague, you said that you used page 1-20, do you have anything else from it? --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:21, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough. Can I get back to you? I've gotta ask the friend who owns the book to send me more scans. At the least, I think adding the manuscript dates would be interesting. Would that be okay with you? Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 06:32, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

No mention of any festivals or holidays in Zoroastrianism

Maybe helpful to add a section introducing the main holidays/festivals and their significance to Zoroastrianism on this page - rather than having to dig elsewhere in small print or categories to find any links. 2A00:23C4:E987:5001:3021:3338:2577:D3C1 (talk) 11:10, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Suggested Edit

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

This sentence should only have one "while". I suggest taking out the second one, which I've strikethrough'd:

While some scholars consider that key concepts of Zoroastrian dualism (good and evil; divine twins Ahura Mazda "God" and Angra Mainyu "Satan"), image of the deity, eschatology, resurrection and final judgment, messianism, revelation of Zoroaster on a mountain with Moses on Mount Sinai, three sons of Fereydun with three sons of Noah, heaven and hell, angelology and demonology, cosmology of six days or periods of creation, free will among others influenced Abrahamic religions, while other scholars diminish or reject such influences.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Govt Hates Me (talk • contribs)

•  Done. dudhhr ^talk _contribs (he/they) 19:05, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Division of zoroastrianism

How zoroastrianism are diverted? 110.226.178.79 (talk) 08:46, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

"Ahriman and Ormuzd" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Ahriman and Ormuzd has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 18 § Ahriman and Ormuzd until a consensus is reached. Veverve (talk) 21:06, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

"Aryaee" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Aryaee has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 18 § Aryaee until a consensus is reached. Veverve (talk) 21:08, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

"Majosism" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Majosism has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 18 § Majosism until a consensus is reached. Veverve (talk) 21:09, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

"Gheber" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Gheber has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 18 § Gheber until a consensus is reached. Veverve (talk) 21:10, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

"Magianism" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Magianism has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 18 § Magianism until a consensus is reached. Veverve (talk) 21:11, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

"Pendar" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Pendar has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 18 § Pendar until a consensus is reached. Veverve (talk) 21:12, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

"Guebres" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Guebres has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 18 § Guebres until a consensus is reached. Veverve (talk) 21:13, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

"Zoroastrianism:" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Zoroastrianism: has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 18 § Zoroastrianism: until a consensus is reached. Veverve (talk) 21:16, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 February 2023

This edit request to Zoroastrianism has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Historically, the unique features of Zoroastrianism, such as its monotheism,[5] messianism, belief in free will and judgement after death, conception of heaven, hell, angels, and demons, among other concepts, has either directly or indirectly influenced other religious and philosophical systems, including the Abrahamic religions and Gnosticism,[6][7][8] Northern Buddhism,[7] and Greek philosophy.[9] Juniper Gnowell (talk) 08:27, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. changing current "may have" to a definite "has either directly or indirectly" needs explicit backing Cannolis (talk) 09:36, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Also, I have no idea what the user wants to be added, deleted, or modified. Veverve (talk) 10:20, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Adding a sub-section about the Avestan period to the history section

It is nowadays widely believed that the Avestan period, ie., the period in Iranian history when the Avesta was produced, mostly covers the late Bronze age to the Iron age and therefore predates the Acheamenid perios by several centuries. I wonder whehter a subs-section should be added to the article that summarizes the current state of scholarship on this topic. Kjansen86 (talk) 15:38, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Deleted paragraph from History section about the connection with Chinese practices

I deleted the following paragraph from the history section because most of the beliefs attributed to Silk Road Seattle were not evident upon inspection of the source.

Silk Road Seattle believes that Chinese wu practices in the 9th century BCE, which inspired later Taoist beliefs,^[1] lost to history might have been inspired by Zoroastrians.^[2] The Silk Road Seattle writer also believes that Zoroastrian magi might have served in Western Zhou courts, and implies that Victor H. Mair's writing about the cross potent's appearances in both Neolithic West Asia and China later on and the cross potent's ties to the character for wu is possible evidence for this connection.^[2] Pmokeefe (talk) 12:22, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

References

1. Cleary, Thomas F. (1998). The Essential Tao: An Initiation Into the Heart of Taoism Through the Authentic Tao Te Ching and the Inner Teachings of Chuang-Tzu. Edison, New Jersey: Castle Books. p. 123. ISBN 0-7858-0905-8. OCLC 39243466.
2. "Zoroastrianism". Silk Road Seattle. University of Washington. 2002-05-07. Retrieved 2023-03-01.

possible demographic shift

according to a 2020 poll by GAMAAN, with a sample size of 50.000 iranians conducted by phone interview, approximately 7.7% of iranians identified as zoroastrian. despite this being from one survey, considering it was conducted by a non iranian institution, i think it’s important to consider as that would mean possibly 6.7 million followers of zoroastrianism live in iran. 160.3.241.49 (talk) 07:38, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

This article is very problematic, for it treats Z im a very different manner than e.g. Christianity. To name but one example:

"Historically, the unique features of Zoroastrianism, such as its monotheism, messianism, belief in free will and judgement after death, conception of heaven, hell, angels, and demons, among other concepts, may have influenced other religious and philosophical systems, including the Abrahamic religions and Gnosticism, Northern Buddhism, and Greek philosophy."

This is true for pretty much every religion (external influence), yet such a paragraph right in the beginning is missing in the article about Christianity. 2001:1716:4604:4B00:C5A5:8935:67F5:A69F (talk) 09:26, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Scholars note that the Zor faith changed over time

I've added a scholarly work that explains that Zoroastrian has morphed over the centuries. I feel this justifies adding a note to a later section on influence towards other faiths, as it seems credible that this can go in either direction. I feel that the main lead should be broken up into explanatory sections so that people can find what they are looking for more easily. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 09:08, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Hey Researcher1988. Could you explain more about why you removed the line? The entire paragraph is uncited, so it's very hard to see why. I added it to increase neutrality, and I think it fits based on what we know of the Zor faith changing over time. Tiggy The Terrible (talk)

@TiggyTheterrible , We know for certain that Zoroastrianism has influenced other religions and philosophies, But we don't know how it was influenced by other faiths and religions. adding a claim for increasing neutrality is not accepted. we should provide sources for every claim or important change. Researcher1988 (talk) 15:18, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Researcher1988 If that is the case, then we should remove that entire section as there are no citations. I notice you have already shunted my main edit down into the weeds. I feel this is a bit of a 'rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic' sort of move, since the leed is already as long as the rest of the article and features many other (uncited) claims that could well fit your same criteria. If you have no objections, I will proceed to create a section on the influences to and from that religion tomorrow. I think there is good reason to believe Zor has been influenced by other religions. Likely much more so than it has influenced others. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 20:09, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Zoroastrianism had influenced other religions such as Judaism, Christianity and Islam. But Those religions had no influence over Zoroastrianism. Because they were created centuries after Zoroastrianism and there is no evidence for your claim. Researcher1988 (talk) 19:08, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Researcher198 Zor being older doesn;t mean a lot to be honest. The Zor faith was entirely oral for most of that time, and wasn't written down until the 6th century. The oldest copy of their book is nearly 14th, and we know Zor has also changed radically over time, but Christianity/Judaism have not. There is no evidence that Zor influenced Judaism, etc, but plenty pointing to Zor being influenced by other faiths. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 13:15, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

In addition, I've found sources that seem to counter a lot of the claims in the article. For example this Analysis found no influence on Judaism by the Zor faith. And, indeed: "Chapter four found that Zoroastrianism has a unique theistic doctrine which combines dualism, polytheism and pantheism. Therefore, Zoroastrianism should stop being referred to as the oldest monotheistic religion. Chapters five and nine surprisingly revealed how little influence orthodox Zoroastrianism had within Achaemenid Persia. The implication of this is that a reflection may be needed in Achaemenid Studies regarding what this discovery means for other aspects of Achaemenid history". Tiggy The Terrible (talk) Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 14:09, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Zoroastrianism is monolatrous, not monotheistic.

There are many deities in Zoroastrianism so it cannot be considered monotheistic. HonestAnglo44 (talk) 19:19, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

There are multiple deities indeed, and Mazdaism is known more as a dualistic religion rather than a monotheistic one. However, one may argue and say it’s monotheistic because Ahura Mazda (aka Ashura) is the supreme being with no equivalent evil force or deity.

If you’d like, you can provide some sources that can attest to your statement and an editor may include it somewhere in the article! :)

WikiAmerican1 (talk) 05:14, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Zoroastrianism passed through both a monotheistic and a more dualistic phase. It succeeded a prior Iranian pantheon, many of whose entities were internalized within Zoroastrianism as angels and demons, from where they influenced the Abrahamic tradition. I'm not aware of it ever being a monolatry though. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:28, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Zoroastrianism is Monotheistic, not Monolatric. There is Only one Single Uncreated Deity in Zoroastrianism. The Angels should Not be Confused With Deities. Researcher1988 (talk) 10:40, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

I believe there may be various levels of understanding due to how Zoroastrianism changed / was perceived over time. Ahura Mazda, the creator of the universe, and Angra Mainyu, the opposing force to Ahura Mazda. This is why it’s seen as a dualistic religion. WikiAmerican1 (talk) 14:41, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Judging by this source, it may actually be polytheistic. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 11:18, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Minor Edits

I moved a link to an article which challenged Zoroastrian Influence on Judaism to the Original section about "influence on other religions," which actually discusses this subject, and reverted the lead to its original form, because the added text from the user @tiggytheterrible was not in accordance with the Article, the article does not mention that Zoroastrianism is not "monotheistic," and I think header is perfect in this current form. Researcher1988 (talk) 13:16, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow, @Researcher1988. The source is quite clear. "Like the rest of the Zoroastrian texts, the Old Avesta does not teach monotheism, and this severely undermines the argument of Zoroastrian Influence Theory, which sees Zoroastrianism as the source of the Bible’s monotheistic beliefs." Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 16:52, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Given that there is a revert, I advise reading about the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 21:18, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

warning against vandalism

I think there is a vandalism attempt on this page for some time. some user is trying to change former edits according to their personal views. I suggest greater care must be taken in protecting the page. Researcher1988 (talk) 17:53, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

@Researcher1988 I have to point out that if the page is protected then you may be the one going to be left out from editing because of how many edits you have. Also, please read the vandalism policy to know what constitutes vandalism and what is not vandalism. Finally, we have an assume good faith guideline. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 18:05, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I just try to protect the page from pointless edits that alter the purpose of paragraphs and concepts. Researcher1988 (talk) 18:11, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

According to the editing policy, I can point out to be cautious with major changes: discuss.

Prevent edit warring by discussing such edits first on the article's talk page. One editor's idea of what is not major or what is an improvement may be another editor's idea of a desecration.

Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 18:42, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Shortening the Lead

According to Wikipedia the Lead section should be short and to the point. I think the current section has gotten out of hand, and needs to be divided and trimmed. I will move a section or two and see if there is consensus. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 15:42, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Bad decision. Because that section is in fact a short review of Zoroastrian history and its better to be in the lead, not history section which discusses Zoroastrian history in detail. and it was in the introduction for a long time. your change is unnecessary. Researcher1988 (talk) 18:39, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

@TiggyTheTerrible

That Section is a very important part of the Introduction and a short review of Zoroastrianism's history. It must be in the lead, in order for introduction section to remain complete. Researcher1988 (talk) 19:04, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Researcher1988 Not really sure how it's a bad idea. Even without it, that section is a bit of an essay. Wiki style guide makes it seem like the lead should be a about a paragraph or so, and as assessable as possible. Essentially just defining what the thing is. Even after my edit, it goes far too deep in the weeds and mentions academic theories that are spoeculation at best. Tiggy The Terrible (talk)

"Wiki style guide makes it seem like the lead should be a about a paragraph or so". Hmmmm. Not sure where you got that idea from. According to the Manual of Style: Lead section length,

As a general guideline—but not absolute rule—the lead should usually be no longer than four paragraphs.

Most featured articles have a lead length of about three paragraphs, containing 10 to 18 sentences, or 250 to 400 words.

There is a table there you can check out for more guidance. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 05:06, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Okay thank you, and that is fair enough. Though I do think that claim that it "may have influenced other religious and philosophical systems" needs to be cited or removed as it's controversial. If not, I'd say it needs the addendum "or been influenced by them". Since the other citation there says the Zor faith has radically changed over time, and the text itself is uncited, it seems more reasonable than not. Especially as the faith was entirely oral until about the 6th centaury. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 20:09, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Per Manual of Style/Lead section citations,

The verifiability policy states that all quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports it.

Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 21:58, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Thinker78 Would that not mean that the statement that Zor has influenced other religions needs a citation, or to be removed, since it doesn't have an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports it and it is being challenged? Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 11:24, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Aren't you challenging it? Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 20:42, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Thinker78 I'm a little confused here. It needs a citation, regardless of if I'm challenging it. But I can say I'm challenging that section if that is what is required for wiki protocol. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 13:17, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

No, info in the lead does not necessarily need citations because it is basically a summary of the contents of the body of the article, which should contain said citations. I cited the relevant policy, I don't know if you read it. But given that you reasonably challenged some of the info then it needs citation per said policy.

You would need to provide reasons for your other challenge though (as you did before), because just trying to bypass policy and challenging any lead to force editors to place citations in the leads is not how things work and would be kindda negatively disruptive. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 22:01, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Thinker78 I do think such a controversial claim does need to be cited, and I thank Researcher1988 for adding one. Though, reading it, I feel it could be stronger as the authors seem to assume Zor influenced other religions simply because it claims to be older. Which assumes it has remained unchanged, which we know it has not. However, I've added a contrary source as well for balance, and I believe I have more perspectives I can offer on this. With a little looking, I may find one that says the influence is bidirectional. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 11:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I think this user should add his link in the section: "Relation with other religions," and leave the lead alone. lead is perfect in its current form. but there is a whole section which discusses Zoroastrianism influence on other religions, and these Subjects belong to that section. Researcher1988 (talk) 13:28, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Researcher1988 While I agree the section about Abrahamic faiths should include a section indicating other academics disagree, it's well known most people only read the lead. That means the lead must also be modified to reflect the facts in that source in order to prevent the spread of misinformation, rather than only giving one side. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 15:29, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

The lead was in this form for a long time, and there is no reason to change it to other forms. the Zoroastrian influence on other religions and philosophical systems is well stablished and there is a consensus among scholars that Zoroastrianism had influenced major religions of the world, so it is not misinformation.

there is a whole section about "Zoroastrian relation with other religions," which is dedicated to this subject. Researcher1988 (talk) 15:38, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Researcher1988 There are quite a few sources in that section that throw doubt on the claim. I have added some content there, including quotes from existing sources. I hope it is to your liking. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 16:39, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I'd also like to note that one of your primary sources literally calls the evidence "circumstantial". Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 16:46, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Researcher1988, the consensus policy states,

Consensus is Wikipedia's fundamental method of decision making, and involves an effort to address editors' legitimate concerns through a process of compromise while following Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 21:15, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Researcher1988 I'm very confused by your editing. You said the lead was "perfect", but now you've added a large section of text to it that contradicts one of the primary claims of the article. I.e. that the Zor faith is dualistic. It would help if you spoke to us directly about what you're trying to do, otherwise I will have to assume you are merely territorial about the lead and are simply trying to push a particular angle on it. I am going to have to insist that we modify the section about influence on other religions to take into account scepticism in your own sources, and other sources on the page. As of yet, I've seen nothing that actually shows proof the influence is in the direction described, and several items that cast doubt. The claims about monotheism seem directed at me spesifically, and seem argumentative. The entire angle is very strange as we have sources showing that monotheism is merely one strain of the Zor faith, and not the oldest. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 12:58, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I did not add anything new to the lead. I added a Text to "Theology" Section, which is supported by the source a cited.

I think this user @TiggyTheTerrible, is violating the Wikipedia's Rules. Researcher1988 (talk) 14:10, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

How? Thinker78 (talk) 22:59, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

he is using talk page for expressing his personal views. Researcher1988 (talk) 23:34, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

@Researcher1988, @TiggyTheTerrible it is most useful to try to not lobe accusations against each other because it derails the discussion, which should focus objectively and collegially on the content—even if there is disagreement or opposing positions. I advise reading the consensus policy. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 23:40, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Researcher1988 Apologies. I checked the history of the page to see what you did, and it looked like you had edited the lead so I was confused. You are right. Sorry. You edited Theology. However, I think the edit needs to be changed as there are multiple strains of Zor, and many of the historical ones are not monotheistic. We at least need to note that your own source says "Zoroastrianism started as an Indo-Iranian polytheistic religion" Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 09:09, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Guys, I don't want to sound overbearing but why don't you try to sort out your dispute in the lead before jumping to other issues? Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 18:01, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Thinker78 Don't worry you're not being overbearing at all, and I like having a voice of moderation here. Your idea seems to be a good plan. I was editing the main article as I thought it made for a good compromise with Researcher1988 and avoid an edit war. However, it seems not to have gone over well despite my attempts to quote directly from their own sources. I'm not really sure what to do about this, and I don't want to come across as being the bad guy here. Without knowing what they think is wrong with what I wrote, I'm not entirely sure how to proceed. However, I will try to make my edits as small as possible and see if that helps. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 20:03, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I suggest, instead of changing the whole paragraphs and distorting the meaning and purpose of the texts, create your own paragraph. Researcher1988 (talk) 20:06, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Happy to help moderating. I suggest suspending edition and instead discussing to try reach a compromise. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 20:08, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you @Thinker78. I've made a very small and mostly aesthetic edit to see if that works. @Researcher1988, thank you for your suggestion. I am not trying to distort any of the text here. Only to quote the sources, which seem to agree that Zor is polytheistic. I take it you have no issues if I re-add sections I wrote myself? Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 20:16, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

There is a consensus that Zoroastrianism is Monotheistic. so, in general, the article should express that view.

if you believe otherwise, you should create your own paragraph and discuss that issue. Researcher1988 (talk) 20:22, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Very well. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 20:28, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Researcher1988, why do you suggest creating a paragraph outright if you have opposite views? Wouldn't you revert the paragraph if you don't find it to your liking? Are you suggesting to create the paragraph in this talk page instead? Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 20:33, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I feel that the article could be so much more interesting if it were to be written in a back-and-forth style that shows off the breadth of scholarly thought on this subject; but it seems like everything I write is removed, neutered, or pushed to the bottom of the article. Even if I'm directly citing from @Researcher1988's own sources. I don't think I'm being unfair in wheat I've tried to add at all, but it seems even dividing the article into subsections is controversial. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 17:14, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Which is why I suggested suspending editing and discussing instead. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 22:46, 1 March 2024 (UTC)