Talk:Zoroastrianism/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. 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.

Contents 1 First Line 2 Lede sentence 3 GA reinstated 4 Iran 5 Where do the U.S. pronunciations come from? 6 Warren H. Carroll 7 Dying out? 8 Etymology 9 GA Re-Review and In-line citations 10 Introductory paragraphs 11 Vandalism 12 Neutrality 13 zoro stub up for deletion 14 Noted Zoroastrians 15 Avesta and Veda 16 New uploaded picture of ancient Zoroastrian temple. 17 Exellent Article! 18 Miscalculation in Demographics 19 Recent removals 20 History section 21 BCE 22 Comparison to Chrisitianity 23 I'm a bit baffled. 24 Iranian Zoroastrian and Indian Subcontinental Zoroastrians 25 "unnecessary baggage"? 26 monotheism, monism 27 Circumcision 28 Huh?

First Line

The words "Jesus Loves You" (vandalism) appear and I cannot work out how to delete them or how they were put there. Someone with better knowledge should sort this oout asap. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.152.174.124 (talk) 04:21, 20 January 2007 (UTC).

addendum: as soon as i typed this and returned to the page these words were deleted. Not sure whats going on, can't see it in the page history, very weird indeed. Can anyone explain this?! Very odd. I checked the page source - and am viewing this with another person - its not my mistake - at the time i checked the page source and it was definitely there. Now, checking the page source, its gone. Surely no hacker types are that bothered about Zoroastrianism? Is very weird though. Explanations please...!?

Lede sentence

Would people please refrain from fiddling with the lede (lead) sentence? Much thought has gone into the "Zoroastrianism is the name of the religion and philosophy based on the teachings ascribed to prophet Zoroaster (Zarathushtra, Zartosht). Mazdaism is the name of the religion that acknowledges the supremecy of Ahura Mazda, proclaimed by Zoroaster to be the one uncreated Creator of all (God).".

In this form, the lede is both historically and doctrinally correct and will not offend any sensibilities. It is not as precise as it could be, but it fulfills its purpose without stepping on any toes. The reason Mazdaism occurs in the lede is because Mazdaism is a redirect to Zoroastrianism, which is ok for now since in the context of (at least) modern Zoroastrianism, the two are synonymous.

The typical (repeatedly inserted) additions listed below (usually by anon editors) are either downright wrong, specious, or misleading:

• "Zoroastrianism is monotheistic"

Zoroastrianism was not always monotheistic. If an established scholar of Zoroastrian history has determined otherwise, then a citation would be in order, and should include a definition of monotheism that does not conflict with other WP articles. Until then, don't propagate the myth.

• "Zoroastrianism is the oldest monotheistic religion"

This cannot be stated as fact. The closest that can be stated as fact would be "Z. is counted among the oldest practiced religions" or "Zoroastrianism has been established as the oldest of the practiced credal religions".

• "Mazdaism is the native name of the religion"

It is not. (whatever "native" is supposed to mean). -isms are in any case not non-English.

• The use of Mazdyasnian or Mazdan or Mazdaist as an adjective.

In the english language, the adjective is "Mazdean".

• "Zoroastrianism <equals/is also known as/etc> Mazdaism"

When stating this, take into consideration that 1) Zoroastrianism is synonymous with Mazdaism ONLY in the present-day form of the religion. 2) A belief in Ahura Mazda predates Zoroastrianism by at least several centuries. 3) Mazdaism continued to be practiced independantly of Zoroastrianism until at least the 3rd c. BCE. 4) Mazdaism was definitely not synonymous with Sassanid-era Zoroastrianism.

• Dates for Zoroaster.

This article is on Zoroastrianism, not on Zoroaster, where the issue is explained at length, and can in no way can be adequately parenthesized, eg. "(12th, else 18th, else 6th century BCE)". For heaven's sake, leave well enough alone. When/Where/How Zoroaster was born/lived/died is entirely irrelevant to a brief description of the religion he founded, and belongs under Zoroaster.

Besides, a lede sentence should be *short* and to the point. Nothing but the simplest terms (that need no further explanation) should be in the lede. -- Fullstop 10:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

GA reinstated

If the ref could be in Footnote style or cite.php style it would be easier to double-check the info. Plus it is needed for FA status. Lincher 15:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Iran

This thing looks like an Iranian propoganda piece. For example:

"Following the Iranian unification of the Median and Persian empires in 550 BCE,"...

If I am not mistaken, Cyrus II melded these two into a greater Persion Empire, right? So why the use of the word Iranian? It is also very clumsy English, by the way. -- The previous unsigned comment was posted at 15:58, 22 June 2006 (UTC) by 169.200.215.34

The name Iranian has always referred to the Aryan tribes that moved to the Iranian Plateau as indicated in the cultural history. In addition, Cyrus had a claim on the Median Throne and the merging of the two Iranian peoples took place without bloodshed. That justifies the term Unification.

You are right. The agenda-pushing [1] (not the only instance in this article either), was not part of my original sentence. -- Fullstop 08:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

there is no agenda, iran has always been iran. the term persia is a western term. do not get persia and iran mixed up. iran has been used by iranians for thousands of years (with different variations ofcourse). Persia was adopted by the west from the greeks.Iranian Patriot 15:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

What's the difference between Iran and Persia?!! --Arch3r25 18:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

It's like Paul said: Iran is the name of the region in the native language, Persia is the name that the Greeks gave to the area. See also Iran naming dispute. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 04:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Your are both partly wrong. Iran was always used by the locals to refer to the land (hence the word LAND) of Persians (Parsi's), in similar fashion to United Kingdom being referred to as the land/kingdom of the British people. The people of Iran have always been known as Parsi's (english translation being Persian) since the nomadic roots. However, during the islamic conquest, the Arabs attempt to take out the letter P from the Persian alphabet resulted in most people referring to Parsi as Farsi. To sum everything, Iran is the name for the land of Persians/Aryans. In the same respect as the people of UK being referred to as British people, the People of Iran should be referred to as Persians. This is the only geographic and historically correct term. Infact, the term Iranian is incorrect in many ways although ignorantly being used. Some similar examples to help you grasp this fact, are Dutch people from the Netherland (You wouldn't call the Netherlandis or Hollandians), the British etc. --Sina7 00:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

>> "in similar fashion to United Kingdom being referred to as the land/kingdom of the British people."

Actually, "Britain" is the land of the British people.

>> Some similar examples to help you grasp this fact, are Dutch people from the Netherland (You wouldn't call the Netherlandis or Hollandians), the British etc.

nope sorry. Doesn't help grasp any facts at all because you haven't completed the sentence. But its probably as unconvincing as your British joke. The Dutch are called the Dutch because they speak Dutch. Similarly, Iranians are called Iranians because they speak one one of the many Iranian languages, which you might be surprised to know, is neither limited to the Republic of Iran, nor is it limited to the Persian language.

>> "To sum everything, Iran is the name for the land of Persians/Aryans."

The Aryans are the Indo-Iranians, one branch of which became the Iranians, and one tribe of that eventually became the Persians. Ergo Indo-Europeans => subset Indo-Iranians => subset Iranians => subset Persians.

Consequently, an an encyclopedic article it is important to use precise terminology, and it simply will not do to go around complementing every instance of "Iran" with Persia (or vice-versa).

>> "Infact, the term Iranian is incorrect in many ways although ignorantly being used."

you should probably bring that to the attention of the Encyclopedia Iranica and all the Iranists who work at universities that teach Iranian studies. None of them appear to know these secret that you have just revealed to us. You might want to start at the Wikipedia:Iranian Wikipedians' notice board before trying to convince anyone else. You know, just test the waters and all.

-- Fullstop 17:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

ps: I'm a mindreader. I predict you will now accuse me of anti-somethingortheother. Wanna bet, darkred?

Where do the U.S. pronunciations come from?

I question the American English pronunciations given in this article, and I'm not sure the British English pronunciations are precisely correct, either. I would have written the American English pronunciation of "Zoroastrianism" (based on General American) as /'zo:-ro-'ae-stri-ən-'Izm/ and the American English pronunciation of Mazdaism as /'mɑ:z-də-'Izm/, where ɑ is the IPA symbol for the "a" in "father" or the "o" in "bother," and I is being used for the IPA symbol for the "i" as in "it." -- Bob (19:04, 22 June 2006 141.156.125.226)

I'm beginning to think there is no one 'correct' way to pronounce Zoroastrianism. In my own pronunciation, I drop the second o altogether and my 'Zor' rhymes with "roar". As in zoɹ-æs-trɪn-ɪzm

• OED draft 3/2001 has /'zɒrəʊ'æstrɪən'ɪz(ə)m/ (presumably RP, "Zoroastrian" + "ism" ?)
• Random House 2nd ed. has RHD: zôr'ō-as'trē-u-niz'um (=> IPA: 'zɔr'o-æs-'tri-ə-nɪz'əm ?)
• Somewhere recently I saw it pronounced as zorro-, but I can't remember where.

and for Mazdaism:

• OED: Brit: /'mazdə(r)ɪz(ə)m/, U.S. /'mæzdəˌɪzəm/
• RHD: maz'də iz'əm (=> IPA: mæz'də ɪz'əm).

So, while there doesn't seem to be an established pronounciation for Zoroastrianism, there appears to be some consistancy with respect to U.S. /'mæzdəˌɪzəm/. OED Brit /'mazdəɪzm/ sounds reasonable too. -- Fullstop 11:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Warren H. Carroll

This guy should not be used as a reference. He is an incredibly biased conservative Catholic. I've read his book, he offers no evidence that Zoroastrianism borrowed from Judaism. He simply says something to the effect that Jews have always been faithful to their religion (which even the bible itself says is untrue; Jews falling into idol worship for example) and have kept it under great pressure, hence they could not possibly adopt Zoroastrian beliefs. This is not evidence, this is barely speculation. Even Jews and Christians would say that Judaism was under pressure to change during the Babylonian exile, anyway.-7:06 July, 29 2006

Ok, nuked in 72584760.

However, the removal of the Carroll cite left the next sentence without a context:

... the Encyclopedia Britannica states, "The debt of Israel to its Eastern neighbours in religious matters is easy to demonstrate on a few precise points of minor importance but less so in other more important points, such as dualism, angelology, and eschatology".

Without the Carroll context, that sentence is ambiguous. As it stands, the EB appears to be making a comparison between Judaism and Islam, which is then irrelevant to the Zoroastrianism article.

Does anyone have something that backs up what Carroll said about the Israelites having influenced Zoroastrians during the time of captivity? Or anything else to balance out (what may be construed to be) a one-sided view?

-- Fullstop 11:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Dying out?

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/06/us/06faith.html Zoroastrians Keep the Faith, and Keep Dwindling -- Sally Ryan for The New York Times; By LAURIE GOODSTEIN; Published: September 6, 2006

This article says that numbers are down from over 40 million to under 200 thousand, and that the religion clings to ethnic purity, resulting in likely dying out over the next century or so.69.87.193.156 13:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the article does not say numbers are down from over 40 million. What it does say is, <quote>"We were once at least 40, 50 million — can you imagine?" said Mr. Antia.<end-quote> Mr. Antia is speculating, no census figures (that reflect such a number) have survived, if indeed, they ever existed.

Second, the NYT article applies specifically the Parsis, i.e. the Zoroastrians of/from the Indian subcontinent, and addresses an issue specific to the Parsis, but not Zoroastrians in general. The WP article on the Parsi community deals with the issue in depth.

Third, and another sign of poor journalism, is that the NYT article states legend as if it were fact. Example: "Seven boatloads of Zoroastrian refugees fled Iran and landed on the coast of India in 936." Actually, legend (see also Paymaster, 1954) recalls for (variously) 5, 7, 9 or an indeterminate number of boatloads. Similarly, "936" is an abstraction based on the Qissa-i Sanjan, which was composed several centuries after events described therein might have occurred, and it is contradictory with respect to elapsed time (and also does not specify how many boats there were). Again, more on this issue is also under Parsi.

-- Fullstop 11:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Etymology

The article states that the word Mazdaism "probably derives from Mazdayasna." Is there any source for this claim? In the absence of any historical evidence showing derivation (e.g. intermediate forms) the simplest explanation for Mazdaism is that it's formed in the same way as Hinduism, Buddhism, Marxism and practically every other -ism in the English language. PubliusFL 12:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the phrasing currently suggests that the "ism" is possibly somehow a corruption of "yasna". I doubt that's what was intended. It's just slightly unfortunate phrasing. Paul B 12:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

GA Re-Review and In-line citations

Members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. Currently this article does not include in-line citations. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. Agne 22:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

On Hold/Fail: I suggest leaving the Zoroastrianism article on GA-"hold" for the moment. In its present state (25 Sept. 2006), the article needs work, in particular the History and Principal beliefs sections: History has a focus on political developments (ok, thats my fault) and Principal beliefs has too much history (also my fault, and that history is not even dealt with under History). Moreover, the substantial evolution that the religion went through over its long history is not apparent, which gives the whole article a "time bias". Some of these developments are alluded to here and there, but as an overview of the religion and how it got to be what it is, the article needs significant work. The WP:V and WP:CITE problems are just the tip of the proverbial iceberg. -- Fullstop 15:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

There is no such option provided in the re-review process. The "on hold" feature is only for new nominations - for articles that are already GAs, the review feature is where concerns can be cleared or discussed. The above notice only concerned inline references, a detailed reassessment will follow in due course. Until then, the article remains listed as GA, unless somebody would delist it. If you believe it is not quite there at the moment, try to improve it before the re-review occurs. That said, even if the article would be delisted, it can be re-nominated later on, after the improvements are made. The bottom line is - I am removing the article from the nominations list, because it is not a new nomination. Bravada, talk - 16:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Introductory paragraphs

I edited the first paragraph to be more ambiguous. I am not personally familiar with W.H. Carroll but I was aware of the controversy over the "influence" Zoroastrianism allegedly had on Judaism and thought it best to simply say that some people had one belief and some people had the other. I had not yet seen the discussion page or the interaction between Fullstop and the person who made the Carroll edit.

200.108.27.63 18:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

May I just ask why Masdaism is added to the first paragraph. I was confused. This article seems to need help.69.122.62.231 15:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Mazdaism and Zoroastrianism are (effectively) synonymous. The relationship between the two is explained in the second paragraph of the Terminology section.

But I see your point. The two boldfaced terms in the lead sentences need a "bridge" between them. Perhaps something along the lines of "Z. is also known as M., which ..."

-- Fullstop 01:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

It appears that at the same time I was making my changes, someone else was vandalising the article. I tried to restore it but am not familiar enough with the Wikipedia interface to do so effectively. Please remedy this as soon as possible.

200.108.27.63 18:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality

I am concerned with some of the assumptions the article bases itself upon. I realise the topic I am concerned with is especially controversial. I would just like to mention that when laying out the core structures of a religion, the only way to maintain a kind of just neutrality for believers and non-believers is perhaps to approach belief systems phenomenologically. The so-called 'objective' position adopted is situated in opposition to "belief" and that is surely not neutral. For example, the article seems to persistently mention that some of the abrahamic faiths "borrowed" their central ideas from zoroastrianism, which quite directly opposes the understandings and positions of "believers" of these Abrahamic faiths who would regard their respective teachings as divinely received, (while they would either reject affinity with other abrahamic faiths or at least admit that have also been individually and seperately ordained for different groups and eras). A material perspective which appears to suggest that like technology, religions are random collections of rituals and beliefs which have been exchanged and borrowed etc, disrespects the understandings of believers. Finally, since the article is directed towards the global english speaking community on earth, it would be just to reflect and appease the opinions of the large majority of mankind who do indeed hold metaphysical beliefs, rather than attempt to maintain an external secular "objective" perspective, which when analysed in detail, hides significant amounts of JudeoChristian-abrahamic inheritance. 1

Please do not dismiss my concerns. I am sure they are the concerns of many Thankyou —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.46.129.236 (talk) 00:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC).

So you are saying because there are a large number of adherants to abrahamic religions in the Enlgish speaking world the encyclopedia should appease the opinions of them as a priority over factual information? I cannot think of a worse way to compile an encyclopedia. Vexorg 01:31, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

zoro stub up for deletion

Wikipedia:Stub_types_for_deletion/Log/2006/December/6#.7B.7Btl.7CZoroastrianism-stub.7D.7D_.2F_.7B.7Bcl.7CZoroastrianism_stubs.7D.7D —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dangerous-Boy (talk • contribs) 23:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

Noted Zoroastrians

It is mentioned or rather implied in this part of the article that Bollywood actress Smriti Irani is a Zoroastrian. She is not. By the very fact that Zoroastrians do not proselytize and Smriti's navjote has not been performed she is not a Zoroastrian. She is married to an Irani that does not make her Zoroastrian either. As of now and what is widely asserted is that only those whose navjotes have been performed are entitled to be called Zoroastrians. A non-Zoroastrian does not become part of this faith by marriage either. The same could be the case with actress Aruna Irani, the surname cannot be the basis for the assumption that a person is of Zoroastrian faith. Benaifar 02:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

fixed as per your objections. -- Fullstop 13:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

ps: Please don't hesitate to fix things yourself.

Avesta and Veda

While there's almost a glut of information on how Zoroastrianism relates to Abrahamic faiths and much on its socio-religious history, there a strange paucity of information regards to the very clear sisterhood of the Avesta and the Veda(s). The the homa ritual (fire) which is central to Vedic faith (and subsequently Hinduism), the deva-asura split, the extremely close relationship of the holybooks in terms of language and structure.... all these are given an extremely casual glance, which is very strange. The same thing is obvious in the Hinduism page. I wonder if a "Vedism/Hinduism vs. Zoroastrianism" or some such page might be created, exploring this, and referenced in the main body of both the Zoroastrianism and Hinduism articles for those interested in this. I don't know, it seems frightfully more interesting than the way it's currently been presented in both the Z'ism and H'ism articles. --68.173.46.79 02:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Much of the discussion of this isssue is on pages related to Indo-Iranians and the Aryan concept. Paul B 07:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

There's an emphasis on Z'ism's influence on the west because that's where our bias lies. I'd love to see a page showing the connections between the Avesta and Vedas, with a summary here. I didn't find this material on either the indo-iranian or aryan page. Jonathan Tweet 16:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

My three cents:

1) Hindu homa is neither linguistically nor functionally connected to Avestan Haoma. Haoma is linguistically and functionally related to Vedic Soma. Avestan Haoma is also not connected to fire (which is Atar in Avestan, no/unknown Sankrit cognate), but to "the waters" (Apo in Avestan, Apas in Sanskrit).

2) With respect to I wonder if a "Vedism/Hinduism vs. Zoroastrianism" or some such page: There is - Zoroastrianism and Hinduism, but should probably be renamed 'Zoroastrianism and Vedic religion', which could then safely include Hinduism without actually equating 'Vedic religion' with Hinduism (as that article presently does to stay within the confines of the topic).

3) See also Proto-Indo-Iranian religion.

--

btw, it is the reverence for *water*, not fire, that is common to Indo-Iranian religion. In a nomadic herdsmen society on the steppes, it is water and not fire that one would pray for/to. It is water, not fire, that is associated with wisdom ("Mazda" in Avestan. See also Aredvi Sura Anahita). In both Avestan and Rigvedic mythology fire is actually born of the waters (cf. Apam Napat, also an Avestan entity). In the Gathas, Zoroaster is seen to have his revelation on a river bank while making an offering to the waters. In a earlier passage, Ahura Mazda Himself sacrifices to the waters. Even in living Zoroastrian tradition, it is water, and not fire, that is the focus of the Yasna service/purification ritual. See also: Ab-Zohr.

In the Vedas we have (among others) the connected mythologies of Saraswati, Apam Napat, the Apas and Vahuranis. See also Rigvedic rivers. In Hinduism (that is, post-Vedic religion) we have the association of Varuna with the waters (only alluded to in the Vedas, properly developed later in the Puranas). Likewise Ganga/Ganges.

-- Fullstop 14:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

New uploaded picture of ancient Zoroastrian temple.

I just uploaded this picture of a 5000 year old Zoroastrian temple in the Wakhan Valley of Tajikistan. I thought you guys might want to add it to this article. So here it is:

Image:ZoroastrianTemple WakhanValley Tajikistan.jpg

Behnam 03:40, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Either that construction is not 5000 years old and/or its not Zoroastrian. If it were 5000 years old it would predate Zoroaster. Even if it were half that age, it cannot be a Zoroastrian fire temple. Finally, I must draw attention to the tendency to identify every structure whose purpose is unknown as a fire temple. (eg this) And even if it is indeed a fire temple, it is not necessarily Zoroastrian. (eg, this).

As always, it is extremely important to check sources, which tourist-oriented publications rarely do. For instance, what does the archaelogical survey of Tajikistan say about this structure? -- Fullstop 15:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Exellent Article!

I think that this article is very informative and is full of information. This has not been suect to vandalism and I personally want to keep it that way.

Miscalculation in Demographics

This article says that there are ~69,00 Zoroas. in India, and by 2020 there will only be ~23,00, and then it claims that their percentage of the entire Indian population will go from 0.006 to 0.002. That is more than likely wrong because although there will be only one third the Zoroas. left there percentage will be even less than a third than it's current amount because India's population would've increased. If the percent went from 0.006 to 0.002 after a 46,000 person decrease, it would mean that India's population would've stayed the same for 19 years, even though India has a high growth rate.

Recent removals

"Fullstop (Talk | contribs) m (→Adherents - rm more of the recently inserted "lets call all Iranians Persians" crud.)" - People of Iran are Persians, in a similar way English people are British and people from Netherland/Holland are Dutch. Parsi translated to English is Persian (Persian=Parsi). Unfortunately during the Islamic conquest, the Arab attempt to remove P from the Persian alphabet resulted in a small number of words beginning with P to use F instead. Hence Farsi, which correctly is Parsi. Even today, the Arabs do not have P in their alphabet: Palestine = Falestine (in arabic), Pepsi = Bebsi in Arabic and so on. Anyone who speaks a dialect of Farsi/Parsi is considered a Persian. This includes many Afghani's, Kurds, Azari's and of course, all Iranians. A growing number of Persians have also started to say Parsi instead of Farsi due to their dislike of the unwanted Arab influence. Also on another note, possibly unrelated but good to know: it is wrong to say "the people of Iran speak Parsi/Farsi", the correct way is to say "the people of Iran speak Persian". You wouldn't say "the people of Germany speak Deutsch" or "the people of Denmark speak Dansk", you would offcourse say "the people of Germany speak German, the people of Denmark speak danish.
"Fullstop (Talk | contribs) (Zoroastrianism was not "formed approximately 1600-1200 BCE", nor is "north-eastern region of Iran" "Persia", nor were his teaching recorded as the Avesta, nor is Z. monotheistic per WP definition.)" - According to many books, the BBC, history channel and university professors Zoroastrianism was formed between 1600-1200 BCE, and /Zorostrianism is one of the oldest monotheistic religion. Wikipedia is NOT made for defaming other religions or twisting history.
And why was the picture of Zoroaster removed?
I will revert things back as soon as possible.
--Sina7 00:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sina7 (talk • contribs) 16:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC).

Please spare us the bile. Your assertion that "People of Iran are Persians" and "English people are British" etc is completely irrlevant to an article on Zoroastrianism. This article is not about the people of Iran, or about the language they speak, or about what the native name of that language is. That you are not in agreement with what is in academia understood by the term Peoples of Iran is your own personal affair.

As for your "according to many books" etc remark, I suggest you actually read properly cited material, which - even if you don't have a library in your neighbourhood - can also be gathered on Wikipedia itself. For example, for the date of Zoroaster, under Zoroaster. As for being "one of the oldest monotheistic religions", and in connection with what you learn for the date of Zoroaster and at monotheism, you'll have to cite more than the BBC (yes, you will actually have to use an academic source) and you will have to explain precisely what the source considers to be monotheism, which is a very vaguely defined term and very culture-dependant. You should perhaps also read the points listed in #Lede sentence below.

Didn't I bet you would accuse me of being anti-somethingortheother?

-- Fullstop 18:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The BBC who writes academic material for high schools all across the United Kingdom, as well as assisting the Open University with research and academic video's and books is surely a qualifying source. Im sure they are not stupid enough to mislead all the high school population of the United Kingdom and have their information based on globally accpeted studies, books and sources. Not only did I source BBC, but also the World Zoroastrian Organisation etc. If monotheism is a "very vaguely defined term" by your saying, then denying that it is not one of the oldest monotheistic religion is also wrong. If you think the definition is vague, then you could possibly say "Zoroastrianism is seen by many as one of the oldest monotheistic religions, however, some do dispute this". Perhaps you should also go and dispute the "monotheism" tag on Judaism too, since its "very vague". I have asked BBC for their sources which should be interesting and will help shape this article further.

To the other point regarding the Academia, I will send you a reply via a message later on, as I do agree it may be somewhat irrelevant to this discussion page. Never the less, what is Relevant to this article, is the exclusion you made by removing "Persians" or "Persian" when the article was referring to the people of Iran, since both Iranian and Persian serve the same purpose and are both equally right. --Sina7 17:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

On the use of adequate attribution: (see also: WP:Attribution)

• Don't confuse the direct product of a news agency with the product of its research facilities. The BBC has vast research facilities, the contents of which are independently a) used by the company's news delivery channels and b) made available to the public at large. When one cites the BBC, it is the news that is being cited, not any eventual research behind that news. This may be compared to the work of a scholar who uses a library - one cites the scholar, not the library.
• A primary source (which is what the BBC is) is very easy to misuse, and (in Wikipedia) are citable only within a very narrow scope, under very special conditions, and only with an appropriate disclaimer. In the Zoroastrianism monotheism case, one could very carefully cite the BBC as an example that some people consider Zoroastrianism to be monotheistic. Even then, such a citation would have to be very, very, carefully phrased, because even a sentence such "Zoroastrianism is sometimes considered<BBC ref goes here> one of ..." is both original research and a mis-citation.
• Actually, don't *ever* cite a primary source on wikipedia unless you are writing an article on a current event (and this is permissable only because there are no secondary sources yet). An article with credibility is an article that cites only secondary or tertiary sources and only when these secondary/tertiary sources themselves always cite other sources.
• A word of caution while I'm on the subject of citation: There are a few Wikipedia users who quote themselves. That is, they have built a website somewhere suggesting earnestness by stealing reputable articles from elsewhere (giving themselves credibility), then add their own articles to it and then quote those on wikipedia are a "reliable" source. For knowledgeable readers, the errors are blatant and cause wikipedia to lose credibility. If the reader is also an editor, it might discourage them from editing further. But far more insidious are the implications for the user who doesn't know better, who then absorbs it as "fact" and spews it out again elsewhere.

On the removal of "Persians" or "Persian" when the article was referring to the people of Iran:

• In the absence of any modifiers (such as 'Greater'), and in particular when applied to the 'Adherents' section (where your edits were), the term "Iran" refers exclusively to the present-day nation, per the Wikipedia definition of Iran as the proper name of a political entity, known in full as the Republic of Iran.
• Until recently, and continuing at least for the History section, the article uses the word "Persian" exclusively in a specific, narrow, precise context to refer to the tribe of Parsa, Persia proper, for which there is no other name, and following which the two empires are referred to as Persian empires. The term is hence strictly an ethno-linguistic descriptor.
• So, no. As far as this article is concerned, Iran(ian) and Persia(n) are not equivalent, and do not serve the same purpose. This article's references to "to the people of Iran" (as you put it, the brackets so you can check (!) what you are referring to) is not only distinct from Iranian peoples (note plural), but also distinct from Persian people (note singular).

-- Fullstop 13:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

BBC is not just a "news" source. I can see your understanding of the BBC as an organization lacks a wider scope, possibly because you do not live in the United Kingdom. Perhaps you should look at the extensive material BBC writes for schools, colleges and universities. http://www.bbc.co.uk/learning/ , http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/revision/ .. BBC educational videos are the most popular videos used in schools and colleges in the United Kingdom. Alot of people rely on BBC materials for their exams and education up until university. BBC seldom publishes many books and materials to help students.

Persian means Parsi/Farsi and Persia means Fars/Pars. Try typing in "Farsi" in Wikipedia. "Persian" is the name for the language spoken by the People of Iran. In other words, anyone who speaks Farsi are Persians. Don't people refer to people of Holland as the Dutch? Because they speak Dutch? Yes. You speak Deutsch/German, so you are a German/Deutsch. A person who speaks English, is English. A person who speaks Persian, is Persian. But I understand when you say this article restricts its usage due to the Persian tribes \ Parsa's located in India.

--Sina7 01:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

History section

The history section states "The Zoroastrian religion was formed approximately 3000 BC (1200 BCE)". As far as I know, BC and BCE are synonymous, so which number is correct? --Danogo 09:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

According to these following books - "Zoroastrians, Their Religious Beliefs and Practices" by Mary Boyce, "Daily Prayers of the Zoroastrians" by Framroz Rustomjee, "History of Zoroastrianism" by Maneckji K. Dhalla, "Zoroastrianism and Judaism" (1918) by George William Carter, the dating ranges from 1600-1400 BCE. I think the 3000 BC was probably put there by mistake trying to reiterate another dating scale as the BCE is in ( ). BBC's account says 1200 BCE, I have asked them to detail their source. I will remove 3000 BC for now. --Sina7 19:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The 3000 BC may be an error for 3000 years ago, which would roughly fit with the bracketing of 1200BCE, though the 200 year difference is odd. It's probably the result of multiple editors altering bits and messing up the whole. Paul B 12:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The date of Zoroaster does not in any way contribute to a history of Zoroastrianism. Also, whether he lived in the early stone age (3000 BC!) or late bronze age is completely irrelevent to his teachings. Boyce and others have made estimates, but every estimate is (and will forever be) disputed, which is why there is a whole section dedicated to the subject over at Zoroaster. -- Fullstop 17:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

You don't mean that really, do you? It is relevant in which age Zoroaster lived. His teachings are a mirror of the troubles of his time. Have a look again at Boyce's work. Just my two cents! Shabdiz | Talk 10:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, his teachings are a mirror of his upbringing and society, not of his time, otherwise we would be able to define with reasonable certainty when he was around. As Gershevitch and Zaehner put it, Zoroaster's teachings were "timeless and ageless" insofar that they were so universal that they could apply to any time and any place.

Then, since you're calling on Boyce, I will too: :) Because Zoroaster's background is that of the arch-conservative priestly traditions of the nomadic pastoral society of the steppes, its hardly relevant whether he lived in 1500 BCE or in 500 BCE - the traditions were the same. (so Boyce, Z1, Ch.1) Indeed, the fundamental assertion that Boyce makes is that (with the exception of the Zurvanite phase and Haug's contributions) Zoroastrianism accurately preserves the conservative traditions of Zoroaster's time.

Further, ask yourself this: What would the improvement to the Zoroastrianism article be if you chose any particular estimate?

a) it wouldn't improve the Zoroastrianism article one iota

b) it would contradict what a whole section over at Zoroaster attempts to address

c) every Tom, Dick and Harry would be trying to "correct" it. This is amply supported by the article's history.

-- Fullstop 18:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

ps: Your two cents are valuable! :)

BCE

It really annoying constantly finding references to BC replaced by BCE. BC doesn't mean anything (B.C. indicates a shortening), moreover B.C. is before Christ (a greek name for an oily person), whereas B.C.E. is before christian era. As this is highly inflamatory to anyone who is not a christian I would have thought this would be the last place to find such terminology.

May I remind you that the Roman calendar was finally sorted out on 26th February 1BC, which whereas Christ was born around 4BC, which makes B.C. refer to a period before the modern calendar (when all dates have to be adjusted) Mike 11:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Is this a joke? Paul B 12:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Paul, no it is not a joke. I can't see why people are starting to use "Before Christian Era" as a new notation. I'm sick and tired of reading articles and having to stop to think whether it says 4BCE or 48CE - it is no joke - try searching the internet for BC, B.C. BCE, B.C.E. and probably a few others and you'll realise that this PC notion is absurd. Historical texts will always have BC (because that is how they were written), - perhaps we should have another acronym for the 3rd millenium AD (latin for from referring to from the start of the 4yearly leap year cycle in the calednar) and call it "APC" - "after polical correctness" or even better "ACS" - after common sense. Mike 14:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Your original comment was written in such a way that it wasn't very clear what you were saying, especially your weird claims about "Greek for an oily person", which seemed to be rather beside the piont, since the "Christ" in question is obviously Jesus. BCE can be interpreted to mean Before Common Era or Before Christian Era. This is important to some people, not to others. BCE/CE notion is quite common in academic literature, especially on the history of religion. Paul B 14:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Paul, sorry for being obtuse - crestos being annointed coming derived etymologically in greek from oil - without checking it probably could be translated as "oiled". I did for a while use BCE - but it just made tables longer and at made reading documents slower. As I read a lot of historical documents from around "0"BC it is very annoying. Indeed, to search for all English documents within a century of 0BC would require the following searches: require: "0..100BC", "0..100B.C." "0..100BCE", "0..100B.C.E.", "0..100AD", "0..100A.D.", "0..100CE", "0..100C.E.", add to that spanish, etc. and you may understand why I get screaming mad that we didn't just stick with BC & AD, and explain that they had no particularly meaning but if they did it was to refer to the beginning of the modern calendar with 4yearly leap year. From a poll of British archaeologists, I understand that they are sticking to BC/AD, so as BCE has no particular benefit I suspect it won't be long before people start going back to the tried and tested method where 48BC / 48AD can't be confused (both suffixes are same length with no letters in common)whereas 4BCE is easily confused with 48CE (different length, two letters in commons, the difference letter easily confused with 8 - any communications expert will tell you this is a disaster!)Mike 21:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Comparison to Chrisitianity

Someone recently removed the comparison of the flame to the Christian Crucifix. I reverted it because it is an apt comparison. I would not understand that section of the article without the comparison. --Savant13 16:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm a bit baffled.

I've done some research on Zoroastrianism and perhaps what catagory of religion does Zoroastrianism fall under? Abrahamic, Dharmic, or perhaps it falls under Mystery Religion. Can anyone give me an answer? Because I think it should be added to this article. Anker99 04:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi it doesn't fall under any religion! Zoroastrian religion is only non-Semitic faith (apart from Hinduism and Buddhism, subject to considering them as religions); -However, it is considered to be the oldest, and the only Indo-European religion in the world. ← ← Parthian Shot (Talk) 16:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

@Anker99: The rubric "Abrahamic" and "Dharmic" are used to collectively refer to sets of religions (by name) with common doctrine. This sort of collectivization (by name) is not possible for Zoroastrianism because there are no surviving belief-systems that can be clustered with it.

 

Taxonomically, Zoroastrianism clusters with the other immediate derivative religions of the prehistoric Indo-Iranians. This does not of course mean that Zoroastrianism is itself that old, it only means that there are no other immediate ancestor belief-systems from which Zoroastrianism descends. In turn, Zoroastrianism has no surviving daughter religions. Where historical Vedic religion (taxonomically, Zoroastrianism's nearest relative) has long since evolved into other religions (including the dharmic ones), none of the religions that evolved out of Zoroastrianism have survived. In that sense, Zoroastrianism is a living fossil (or would qualify as one if it were organic): it has no close living relatives (its nearest relative has long since evolved into something else), has survived major extinction events, and has no surviving sub-species (Zurvanism is long dead). But like other living fossils, it is liable to bite when confused with something else. :)

Nonetheless, this hasn't prevented attempts from trying to categorize Zoroastrianism anyway. The two favourite ones are "Eastern philosophy" and "Western philosophy". Both sides have valid points of comparison:

• In favor of the "Eastern" argument we have the derivation from Indo-Iranian culture and the points of comparison in terminology and ritual. Zoroastrianism also clusters with "Eastern philosophies" in many points of its theology - e.g. in its cosmogony; the distinction between mind and matter (later a western philosophical development, eg in Aristotle); the assignation of physical and moral phenomena to hypostatic entities; a monotheistic but non-monist creator principle; the universal coexistence of benign and malign; all being is good; all creatures have a "soul" etc.
• In favor of the "Western" argument we also have numerous points of Zoroastrian theology - such as personal and final judgement; autarky from God (cf. clockmaker hypothesis); that the universe (and life) has a specific purpose and fixed lifespan; that good and evil conflict (not just coexist); the lack of a philosophy of reincarnation; the immensely strong doctrine of free-will and the complementary rejection of pre-determination/"karma" (this is specific to Mazdaism, contra now-extinct Zurvanism with its astrological foundation); the notion of an infallible God; and so on.

Some of Zoroastrianism's basic principles are downright unique, and thus - regardless of geography or epoch - not categorizable at all. For instance, the rejection of asceticism and that mortals have an *active* role to play in the conflict between good and evil. This distinguishing characteristic (which is a doctrinal consequence of Zoroaster's concept of free-will) is so crucial to Zoroastrian theology that placing Zoroastrianism "in a drawer" with another religion would result in most of the doctrine hanging out of that drawer. :)

-- Fullstop 14:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

ps: Notwithstanding the invalidity of the supposition that mystery religions cannot also be something else (Abrahamic, Dharmic whatever), no, Zoroastrianism is not a mystery religion either. Some of the rites/rituals are limited to the initiated only, but that doesn't make any more a mystery religion than, say, the serving of the eucharist in a closed communion. Initiation is by itself of course not unique to mystery religions, otherwise all the Abrahamic and Dharmic religions would also count as such.

pps: your question (posted elsewhere) about the Magi: The common era use of "Magi", in particular in Greek (which the New Testament was originally in) and Latin (and thus also in other European languages), is a reference to either a Zoroastrian in general or specifically a Zoroastrian priest. However, this was a 4th century BCE development and should not be confused with earlier (or non-European language) uses of the word. There is no particular reason to believe that the Magi were specifically Medians (as that article suggests) or of any other particular tribe or people. That the Biblical Magi were supposedly proficient in astrology - as is implied from the 'following a star' story - suggests that they were Zurvanites.

Iranian Zoroastrian and Indian Subcontinental Zoroastrians

With immigration and globalization how often do the two main geo(-ethnic?)groups of Zoroastrians interact? Do they intermarry? What are the religious differences if any? Do they share congregations in the communities outside of the Asia? Arthurian Legend 05:57, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

the two groups rarely, if ever, interact in/from their own home countries. Notable exceptions are immigrants to a third country (the US or UK for example), where they may come in contact with members of other groups at religious functions. But only a few cities have well-mixed Zoroastrian communities; Toronto, LA and Sydney come to mind. The emigré/exile Iranian Zoroastrian community in India is fairly well integrated as well (though the Indian Zoroastrians won't hesitate to point out the differences).

There are also organized tours that visit the sites of the other group, but like tourists everywhere, they rarely come in close contact with the "natives."

A particularly noteworthy difference between the two groups is their observance of different religious calendar(s) (cf Zoroastrian calendar), which effectively defines religious observance and the observance of the Zoroastrian festivals. These differences also contribute to the isolation of the two communities outside their respective home countries, since there is then no particular day when the groups are likely to meet.

In general and in particular with respect to rites and rituals, the Iranian Zoroastrians are far less pedantic then their Indian co-religionists. This is in part due a more pragmatic world-view by Iranian Zoroastrians, and in part due to a lack of an Iranian orthodoxy/formal priesthood: most (if not all) Iranian places of worship are managed/maintained by laypersons. There are very, very few (only 2 or 3 IIRC, with one over 90) professional Iranian priests left, so there isn't much religious guidance available from that quarter. There are also a handful of priests of Indian origin who provide ritual services. Little else however because of language difficulties and because of their attitude - the Indian priests frequently see it as a "punishment" posting, a time to be bridged until they get a position back home.

Although doctrinal differences are few, there are some customs preserved in one country that have either long since died out in the other. Each group also has a few distinguishing customs/characteristics that have come about through the syncretic influences of their respective environments. Further, the naming conventions (not only pronounciation) of the one group are not necessarily the same as those of the other.

-- Fullstop 14:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the info!Arthurian Legend 17:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

"unnecessary baggage"?

In this edit, User:Bobisbob justified the removal of For example, one of the popular strains within Zoroastrianism considers both good and evil as creations of God. This relatively recent development is attributed to influence from Christianity ... as "unnecessary baggage."

• As is evident from the edit immediately preceding Bobisbob's, this "unnecessary baggage" is actually a very commonly identified (whether correct or not is here immaterial) characteristic of Zoroastrianism.
• Even if something were actually been "unnecessary baggage," it seems rather remarkable that precisely that one sentence but no other would qualify as 'unnecessary' or 'baggage'.
• But it is precisely that sentence and no other that an anon had only a few edits ago and (repeatedly) over many days attempted to mangle.
  But a quick scan of the other edits of the anon - 69.29.10.36 aka 69.179.63.191 aka 69.179.62.52 aka 69.179.104.64 - and those of Bobisbob, demonstrate a consitant edit pattern. They are obviously all the same person, who has now finally gotten around to creating an edit account, but who just "happened" to fly-by this article in his 27th edit.

Anyway, the sentence is not 'unnecessary', so back it comes. Bobisbob is of course quite welcome to share his take on it here on talk. Perhaps that sentence really has a problem and only Bobisbob has noticed. But if so talk is in order.
-- Fullstop 00:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Well I didn't think we needed an example of Zoroastrian influence since it already discussed that in the following paragraph. Plus correct me if I am wrong, but the sentence says that Zoroastrianism was influenced by Christianity but the scholar cited (Boyce) says the opposite Bobisbob 00:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

You have again tried the "unnecessary" argument, even though I have already explained that that sentence is anything but unnecessary.

Anyway,...

• No, the sentence you removed is not an example of Zoroastrian influence. It is quite specifically an example of influence on Zoroastrianism.
• An example of influence, irrespective of direction, is quite appropriate in a section titled "Relation to other religions."
• And no, it is not being discussed in the following paragraph, which until the addition of the Bahai stuff a few days ago, deals only with the prehistoric/formative influences on Zoroastrianism.
• And no, Boyce is not being cited, and even if she were, she does not say the opposite.

Please read the sentence/paragraph/section again.

-- Fullstop 13:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay then, sorry for the trouble Bobisbob 16:29, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

monotheism, monism

but the Zoroastrian definition of monotheism is neither comparable nor compatible with the monotheism of other religions because, unlike other monotheistic religions, Zoroastrians are not monist.

but which monotheistic religion is monist ?
they are exclusively different, should this phrase be removed ?
--Khaled Khalil 13:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Somehow I get the impression that the "monotheism" tag is being treated as some kind of "Quality Approved" stamp.

In any case, "exclusively different" is not quite true for Christianity where God is the creator of everything, including the fallen Angel Satan, aka the epitome of evil.

So, IMO,

"unlike other monotheistic religions ... not monist"

could be read as ...

"unlike religions in which the (the epitome of) evil was at some point created by God (fallen Angel etc), evil in Zoroastrianism does not originate in God, who is only benevolent."

Does that make more sense? I really dislike the "monotheistic" stamp though. Because it depends on the definition of "God", its so vague that it can be interpreted to mean just about anything (or nothing). Go ahead and remove the statement.

-- Fullstop 17:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I first tried to incorporate Run4fun's addition, but then decided it was not this article's place to make sense of vague/subjective labels. Either readers know that "monotheism" is a dumb label (in which case the article doesn't have to explain its caveats), or they are going to have inapplicable preconceived notions (which then can't be fixed with two sentences). -- Fullstop 04:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Circumcision

Are Zoroastrianists circumcised? Just curious. 62.128.42.30 06:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

If you meant "is there a religious commandment...," the answer would be "no." -- Fullstop 16:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Huh?

I'd never even HEARD of this religion before I saw the name in a BBC World news article online in the sentence "Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus and Zoroastrians are attending the event organised by the Sant'Egidio Community, a Catholic lay organisation." Weird.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.235.192.165 (talk) 16:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Asians know math. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.39.21.10 (talk) 18:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)