Talk:Zoroastrianism/Archive 2

Date of birth

• During the 7th and 6th centuries BC the ancient polytheistic religion of the Iranians was reformed and given new dimensions by the prophet Zoroaster (or Zarathusthra). Zoroaster's life dates have been traditionally given as (c. 628 - 551 BC), but many scholars argue for earlier dates. [1]
• there are no reliable sources available to indicate the time Zarathustra lived, nor there is any detailed information about the place where he worked. Therefore, it can be said that in the past some researchers would believe that Zarathustra has been living about six hundred to one thousand years before the Christ. However, today some other researchers estimate the life of Zarathustra up to four thousand years before the birth of Christ. [2]

It's hard to say when he was born. It was B.C., though. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 02:42, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

Ed, I know you are trying to be helpful, but the latter website is anything but authoritative. Surely this kind of "footnoting" of websites makes a mockery of the concept of scholarship.

The first proposed text you offer takes as given in the first sentence the very question at issue - the dating. Paul B 03:12, 12 June 2004 (UTC)

Because of the fact that the revelation of the doctrines of resurrection, angels, Satan, and the Messiah comes late in the OT or even in the intertestamental period in early Judaism, scholars have frequently traced these ideas to Zoroastrian influence exerted upon the Jewish people after the Babylonian exile. Moulton examined these points in detail and concluded that they were "not proven." The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls has reopened the discussion, due to the presence of marked "Zoroastrian" influences in the Qumran literature. Some of the most striking parallels to Jewish Christian eschatology can be shown to be very late developments in Zoroastrianism. On the other hand, it would not do violence to a high view of inspiration to admit that God could have used Zoroastrianism as a means of stimulating the Jewish mind to think on these subjects even as he used hellenism to prepare the Jewish mind for the Christian revelation (witness Saul of Tarsus). The magi ("wise men") of the birth narrative may have been Zoroastrian priests. [3]

Paul, I'm quoting the first one again. Okay? -- Uncle Ed (talk) 04:11, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

For the record, that is directly taken from Bakers Reference Library, in their article for Zoroastrianism. The reference is in "Evangelical Dictionary of Theology". 2nd edition no less. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:27, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I concur with Tabu that he seems to have an on-point reference from a reputable source, so that should definitely be included in the article. →Raul654 18:28, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

so let see about the argument that there isn't much infulance

Well so far the evidence for a link appears to be in the form of a data dredge. No matter. Lets see what google throws up for the other side. First http://www.tektonics.org/copycat/zoroaster.html a string of subjective arugements athough they do ok for the particlar case. I does however show quite neatly that the case for a link is largely subjective.Geni 12:53, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I happen to be a zoroastrian, and unfortunatly things are just as cloudy for me!

Influence on Judaism: Wording, Sources and Separate Article

Why exactly is the factual accuracy of this article in dispute? Skimming through the discussion above it seems to me that an editor believes the article to not be NPOV and asking for sources, i.e. quoting scholars directly as regards certain sentences or sections. As Paul has noted, plenty of sources are available but to provide enough quotations and such to back up the idea that there are "many" and/or "some" scholars who believe this and that, would ruin the flow of the article. IMHO, considering the weight of scholarly opinion in this area, there is no need to dispute the factual accuracy of this article since these theories are presented as theories, not facts. For this reason I would also argue that the article is indeed NPOV, but if clarification and expansion is necessary, then so be it.

If I may make a suggestion, what about creating a separate article dealing specifically with these ideas, i.e. theories regarding Zoroastrian influence on Judaism? That way all the relevant scholarly sources can be listed in their entirety, without affecting the flow of the main article. Also POV's from opposing scholars can also be presented. At any rate, the issue is rather complex and I believe it justifies a new article to explain these theories. Thoughts? SouthernComfort 17:23, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't see any POV in this article either. The fact is that most scholars acknowledge the strong influence of Zoroastrianism on Judaism, and later on Christianity. I'm a Christian myself, but I'm not bothered by the fact Judaism & Christianity (and Islam) were heavily influenced by Zoroastrianism. It doesn't negate anything. Alexander 007 04:44, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've read through the Old Testament, and the fact that certain key concepts only appear & are emphasized in the OT after the Persian period is conclusive proof. Alexander 007 04:46, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Okay I may be new to this discussion (and thank goodness), but hope to collaberate and offer any help I can. I've had an interest in Zoroastrianism since High School. Besides the obligatory sources like Boyce and Zaehner, I've read everything on Avesta.org not added within the last year (yes, I do mean everything) in addition to many miscellaneous sources. I don't wish to reiterate what others have said, but anyone who knows Zoroastrianism well and has read the Bible or is even remotely familiar with comparative religion can come to these conclusions by themselves IMHO. It was a pretty universal opinion, or so I had thought, (sic!) that Zoroastrianism has had a profound effect on all the things mentioned above including soteriology and eschatology (and I'll be happy to discuss these points with anyone who does not feel they are NPOV). Even the Catholic Church has reconciled this fact to a certain extent along with evolution, etc. For edification perhaps it would be a good, nay, an excellent idea to create a seperate thread. Not only its influence on Judeo-Christian-Islamic religion but Buddhism, Manichaeism, Mithraism, etc. Especially since Manichaeism and the cult of Mithras had their own impact through Gnosticism as well as Manichaeism rivaling Christianity in popularity directly within Rome - though this is where it does actually get truly theoretical and speculative of how much influence these had... In any case truly a case for a seperate thread if ever there was one. Instead of arguing, such precious effort could be made in other articles, such as prophet where Zarathushtra isn't even mentioned (!), and the Book of Daniel, etc. I hope I haven't come off patronizing, I have a keen interest on the subject that's all. Btw, is it just me or is the Farsi Zartosht misspelled (I have no problems with reading non-Roman languages on other Wiki pages), I didn't want to start a new discussion on it (though I probably should) or adding the Gujarati, I was just wondering before correcting it... a pity unicode doesn't cover Avestan! Khirad 17:24, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's usually spelt Zardosht, but it is transliteration of a sound roughly between t and d, so it is a matter of choice as to the spelling, in the same way that Abu Grabe is also Abu Grape (although this is avoided due to similarity with Grape), when it is really somewhere in-between. ~~~~ 17:57, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I believe Emilyzilch was referring to the name being misspelled in the Persian (Farsi) script, not the transliteration (Zartosht, which is correct). SouthernComfort 01:04, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I was talking about the Perso-Arabic script being 'backwards' apart from 'ze'. Plus I'd use 'gh' to represent ghain in abu ghraib, but that's a whole other topic. :-) The Greek could be added. Khirad 05:01, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You know, this whole time I thought it was another user who brought up this point (based on a comment in the history), while you had pointed it out right there beforehand, which is why I referred to the other user (Emilyzilch, who I also thought the user above was referring to). My mistake. SouthernComfort 07:26, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hello

I have just stumbled on this while checking WP:RFA. One thing strikes me as rather odd, and possibly quite underhand. It appears that after a little discussion between Ta tu bi shi yu and Paul Barlow, concerning Paul's concern about Ta tu bi shi yu's motive for abruptly deleting a paragraph, a large influx of editors appeared who seems to support Ta tu bi shi yu, as if a bullying tactic were being attempted.

If such behaviour is going on, then I consider it quite out of the spirit of Wikipedia, and Ta tu bi shi yu should be ashamed. Particularly as he/she used to be an administrator.

I feel it would clear the air if those editors who recently appeared, namely, User:Slrubenstein, User:SouthernComfort, User:Ed Poor, User:Geni, User:Raul654, User:Decius, and User:Khirad, together with Paul, and Ta tu, would indicate their religious allegiances below. ~~~~ 17:44, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Just saw this, and would like to register my disgust at the behaviour of Ril. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:19, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

---

Space for indicating potential bias:

---

I should point out in addition, that, as a linguist (comparative philology a.k.a. historical linguistics), I am aware of internal textual evidence pointing to a pre-13th century BC origin for the Gathas (generally considered the oldest part of the Zoroastrian holy texts), which if written by Zoroaster (or someone exhibiting his ideas), would place him at least before 1200BC. Namely this evidence is that they are written in a form of Persian believed by most mainstream linguists to have died out around 1200BC (i.e. they were written before this date). I won't mention anything more detailed than this generally held view, since, as an academic researcher in linguistics, I would be somewhat biased towards my own research, and thus couldn't guarentee neutrality over any greater detail than this.

I should also point out that Plato (living about 400ish BC) thought that Zoroaster lived 6,000 years before him (though this is not likely to be so accurate). N.b. since 600BC was only 200 years before Plato, he is likely to have known a more accurate version than we would by similarly simple methods (e.g. we are more likely to correctly understand the datings of the South Sea Bubble than a (non-specialist) person in the year 4015 would). ~~~~ 17:52, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree completely on using the dating of Gathic Avestan to determine an approximate date. It should be noted as many might know, that some fringe right wing Zoroastrians assign the date to 10,000 BC/E. But I find 600 BC just as inplausable. Plus far too much emphasis is placed on Classical sources I believe. Not only did Persians keep their own records, but so did their other neighbors. Khirad 05:01, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I resent being accused of religious bias. Nothing I have written on this page suggests religious bias. If you accuse me of religious bias, provide evidence. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:27, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"recently appeared"? a quick scan of this page shows I have made comments on it as far back as november 2004.Geni 23:28, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have no religious alleigences, but I have a scholarly interest in nineteenth century theories about about ancient religions. Like everyone, I have a "bias" in the sense that I'm more inclined to be sympathetic to some views than to others, and in some cases what may seem obvious, or simply factual, to me may seem to be a POV to someone else. Ta tu bi shi yu has stated he is a Christian evangelical, but did not specify the denomination. As for the others, some users, including Slrubenstein, indicate their views in part on their User Pages. Guy Montag, who has added a "hidden message" in the text is very clear about his POV. Ta tu bi shi yu did say he was going to ask other people to comment. Where and how he did that, I don't know. Paul B 10:22, 22 June 2005 (UTC)

A little off topic, but I think Nietzsche's explanation in Ecce Homo is interesting on why he chose Zarathustra as his antihero. Khirad 05:01, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've indicated my religious allegiance in a previous statement. I have no religious bias here, except for the fact that I consider Zoroastrianism a great religion. How do we judge bias anyway? I think the fact that someone is not a Zoroastrian should be enough. Alexander 007 10:29, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I will admit that I have such admiration for the faith that I could be considered biased, but my views in formats such as these are based on much research, and not my faith (or lack thereof). And I may have a Parsi User Name, but I am not Zarathushtrian myself, nor could I be if I wanted to! I do not think I've consciously tried to bully anyone (and am sorry if it felt that way), but merely offered my opinions based on linguistic, archæological, and other pertinent data. I'm not at all shy to say that I am an orthodox Agnostic (pardon the pun, I don't seriously say orthodox!), and would like to know the reasons behind myself and others being included. I assure you, it was by chance/bad timing that I entered the discussion at hand. I merely wished to introduce myself and my sincere interest/passion in the study of the Mazdayasni Zarathushtrian religion. I'm not part of some shadowy secular-humanist conspiracy to "persecute" Christians. And all that's probably unfair, and should be taken as a light-hearted comment, not a jab at anyone or their heart-felt convictions - or what merely may be their objective suspicions. Just remember that colloquial saying about 'assuming' and what you make out of yourself and I when you do. I would honestly like to know why you feel this way, and where you're really coming from so as not to pigeon-hole you (c.f. Matt 7:1). Sometimes a top hat is just a top hat, sometimes a coincidence is just pure chance or qismet, and nothing underhanded - though I can only speak for myself.

Actually there are significant differences between the Parsis of India (who are strict about not accepting converts) and Iranian Zarathushtrians (who not only accept but generally welcome converts). Though obviously in post-revolutionary Iran converts do not make public their true adherence. SouthernComfort 07:07, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's not my intention to get between anyone's internal disputes, nor to engage in any heated arguments of my own. Although calm and reasoned debate is always welcome. And it is not my place to judge anyone who wishes to argue either. Suum cuique. Please, please, please, try not to intrepret this as 'holier than thou', I absolutely loathe people that preach to me, but we need to perhaps focus more on humata, hukhta, huvarshta - Good Thoughts, Good Words, Good Deeds. Universal concepts which the Zoroastrians perhaps put the most succinctly. There are many other topics that can be addressed in this article. E.g., I have my own opinions on things like AD/AH/AY/CE, etc., but there are bigger topics to address, add or augment and I'd rather just let you make an educated guess as to my opinion on the semantic issue rather than re-opening that wound. I'd much rather focus on covering things of substance which are backed up by scholarly consensus and academic research - not religious axes to grind. These are my personal opinions, not part of some concerted agenda to bully anyone. In America, all non-Christians know what that feels like all too well. I hope to be able to discuss and propose more things to this article or other related articles, but will sadly consign myself to reviewing my resources and notes until this storm passes; for I fear not much can be accomplished productively until issues have been resolved and people have made peace with each other when/if applicable and/or possible.

Perhaps an 'opposing views' might be an option to achieve some sort of compromise so we can all move on? Although; I've read quite a few, and they all end up having such a poor understanding of Zoroastrianism, and history in general, as to invalidate their own points - even when written with the best of intentions. I wouldn't want to put one of these up as an example, because that could be seen as demeaning to someone who held opposing views for some more tangible reasons (I have yet to see one, but I don't deny the possibilty one exists - I'm Agnostic after all!), and not just because it is seen as a threat to the foundations of their own faith. As Decius said, it doesn't have to. Galileo was almost burned at the stake for supporting the Heliocentric theory. Christianity is still a thriving and politically powerful religion to all, and a spiritually powerful one to its adherents. Imagine that, a part of the Bible was wrong and the whole religion didn't spontaneously combust. It just required re-evaluating certain aspects. Zoroastrianism itself was dying before the Arabs even arrived, because of Kartir's, and the other dastur's rigidness which had sucked much of the meaning out of the religion. Religions, like languages have to adapt and grow or they eventually die. Look at the Parsis today, and the conservatives who recently also applied the intermarriage rule to men (to avoid sexism). Google the Indian census numbers over the last 58 years or visit BBC: Parsis ponder future, and you'll see that if the trend continues that they are on the verge of extinction within 100 years in part due to this and their low birth rate of often only one child per couple. Just one example that I'm not some Zoroastrian "evangelist" trying to put a positive spin on everything Zoroastrian. I am capable of a NPOV.

btw, I think I forgot to mention earlier that this is an excellent article as it is and I would never even pretend I could have done a better job creating it (note, I'm not the flattering type, I mean what I say and say what I mean). I apologize with all my heart for being sooo long-winded, it is one of my many 'actual' faults. As I am new, I thought I'd resolve the accusation leveled in part against me definitively. I would like to leave nothing ambiguous about why I am actually here. I tried to avoid writing a diatribe - hope I succeeded, I don't take kindly to my integrity being questioned and in the past would have gotten very acerbic, but I have matured a little since then. Ushta! Gratias vobiscum. Khirad 05:01, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you, and the article (from my perspective) is fine. The "dispute" no longer seems to be pressed, but just in case it is brought up again I will still be gathering sources slowly for a (potential) separate article to help in clarifying certain points and to provide extensive references. I'm hoping that other editors including yourself, Paul, Decius, and any others interested in this matter will also expand on this. IMHO, the initial dispute was perhaps due to a misunderstanding, but at any rate, it's certainly something which can very easily be resolved thankfully. SouthernComfort 07:58, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Actually, User:-Ril-, you are completely right: we are all part of an ancient secret semi-Zoroastrian society dedicated to tracking down and destroying the minions of Azhi Dahaka and Angra Mainyu. Taking over this article is the first step in our clandestine plot. Alexander 007 01:30, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Cleanup Request

I've placed a cleaup tag in the art'l.

... primarily bcz of the lack of a lack of "Famous Zoroastrians" sub-sec in a "Documentation" sec'n, where i could go to look for the evidence that Freddy Mercury, the AIDS-killed Brit rocker was a life-long practitioner of his family's religion, and that no member of the three industrial families is an apostate. Both of these need evidence, in light of the likelihood of people having (at least before there was a parallel Parsi#Prominent Parsis secn, obviously derived (except my Jhabvala entry) from this list) from this, that every Parsi was dumped here without attention to their religious practice. (If Z'ism is tolerant of gays & promiscuity, (or Mercury had neither attribute) and if Z'ism is noted for its complete lack of apostates), then detail doc'n by individual may be dispensible, but this talk needs to at least point to doc'n of those facts.

We are entitled

• to the presumptions that
  • most traditional religious involve substantial promiscuphobia and homophobia,
  • most rock stars who die of AIDS were promiscuous gays,
  • all religions have a significant apostacy rate among those who become prominent outside their religious communities, and
  • cognitive dissonance promotes apostacy, and thus
• to either
  • documentation of what implies otherwise and an explicit statement in the article, or
  • a statement in the secn (or at least in a comment at the beginning and end of the secn, where editors will see it) that not all Parsis are or remain Zoroastrians, despite the historical link and strong correlation.

--Jerzy·t 30 June 2005 17:01 (UTC)

I've clarified the wording slightly (from stating that he was Zoroastrian to simply Parsi, and that his family chose to give him a traditional Zoroastrian funeral), and removed the tag. His personal religious beliefs were ambiguous at best, and as far as I know, there's no evidence that states that he was or wasn't religious. Regardless of whether he or not he ever formally renounced Zoroastrianism (unlikely, considering he remained close with his family), since his family did give him a Zoroastrian funeral, I believe his inclusion here is warranted. SouthernComfort 30 June 2005 21:25 (UTC)

I think that is an excellent response to my concerns, tho of course the emergence of more detailed info in one direction or the other would be still better. Thanks for coming up with a creative approach that i did not at all anticipate! --Jerzy·t 2005 July 5 00:28 (UTC)

Hey, you who said Freddie Mercury's sexuality disqualifies him from his religion, The singer was probably not too much of a conventional Zoroastrian or even Indian once he came to Britain but, from the people who knew him best, he followed a number of Zoroastrian practices such as kindness and generosity. That makes him Zoroastrian if anything does. And as for the Indian industrial families, these people are indeed traditional Zoroastrians. Hey, JRD Tata, got himself accepted back into the Parsi fold by a court order. That should be proof enough of his faith.

misleading texts

Some of the text relating to India don't seem to be 100% correct. I'll review it later. PS Please archive this page. =Nichalp «Talk»= July 9, 2005 09:23 (UTC)

Influence on Judaism etc. re-visited

I have no problem with saying "Most scholars..." if a source is cited. A BBC web article which doesn't even use the words "most" or "majority" is a massive scholarly stretch for such a source. Cite a decent source...then make the claim. That's simply proper. KHM03 00:30, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

The point is exactly that. The BBC quotes it as a fact and not as a theory. I.e. it is their opinion that the situation isn't even remotely in question. The BBC is well known for putting Caveats in even the least disputed issue, and yet they don't here, the sources they have all point to it being a fact and in no dispute whatsoever amongst relevant academics. ~~~~ 18:03, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

The BBC is not a scholarly source, it is a new organization. You're quoting an anonymous reporter who is a non-expert; hardly an encyclopedic resources for this kind of issue. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:58, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

The BBC is the largest news organisation in the world, and it is widely considered amongst the most neutral (indeed to the extent that on many controversies both sides frequently claim the BBC is biased towards the other side, such is its adherance to neutrality). The BBC (news) does not publish information as factual unless it is absolutely certain even beyond a measure of doubt, because the entire world is listening, and a single mistake would do vast damage to it. Indeed it frequently waits until things are confirmed for so long that many other news sources break the story first, sometimes by days - the BBC is more concerned with accuracy than being fast, which is why it maintains such a large audience, it isn't about popularity, but about trust. When asked by an american reporter how he first knew of the coup against him, Gorbechov said that he had heard it on the BBC. ~~~~ 19:09, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

You are speaking of accuracy with current events. This is a historical subject. These are two very different things. It's a bit like me saying that because I know lots of information about Windows 2000 then I also know lots of information about the situation in Iraq. That does not compute. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:26, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Your opinion is interesting, but it's still a news organization, not a scholarly source, and it doesn't list its own sources. An anonymous BBC reporter just doesn't compare to an actual scholar. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:24, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Do you mean acute scholar? ~~~~ 07:00, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

No, I meant "actual scholar". Jayjg ^(talk) 17:37, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

The detail of the text will come from the BBC's vast research arm. I should point out at this time that the BBC is a major component of the Open University (an official University). ~~~~ 07:00, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

"Vast research arm". That has a nice authoritative ring to it, doesn't it? You have no idea where that information came from, or who wrote it. Please find me some evidence (beyond your claims) that news organizations are scholarly sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:37, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Does the BBC make a claim for itself as a scholarly or academic source? I really don't know for sure, being an American. In America, a news organization using itself as a scholarly source is a BIG no-no (news anchor Dan Rather basically lost his job over this issue after the 2004 elections). Maybe that's common practice in Europe or Britain. If that's the case, then please cite another reliable academic source for those of us across the pond who ethically cannot abide the apparent dual nature of the BBC. KHM03 13:03, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Tolerance

I removed the following passage for now. Someone should rephrase it.

"Religious tolerance was evident throughout the Zoroastrian period of Persian History; Zoroastrian rulers allowed all religions and peoples to coexist."

If there is some propensity within Z. itself or theological reasoning, this should be stated clearly, especially since the first section deals with the Zoroastrian belief system.

The historical question is a different one, as Zoroastrian ruler have not always been so tolerant. The Achaemenide rulers generally were (though Kambyses (non-Zor) and Xerxes (non-Zor) were not always). It's not completely clear which Achaemenide was a Zoroastrian. The Sassanide rulers were Zoroastrian and some were tolerant, while others persecuted Manichaeism and Christianity.

Str1977 09:16, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Indeed. Zaehner also says this. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:27, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Annoyed by Ril's POV pushing, have provided a source that shows he's wrong. If he wants to provide a source that says otherwise, by all means go ahead. I just don't think one will be available. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:39, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

And is tolerance really a principal belief of Z.? - If so, the passage should show how. If not, the passage shouldn' be in there and if it's a question of behaviour of Z.'s adherents throughout history, it should be covered in a "history" section.

Can tolerance actually be a principal belief of any school of thought (I mean tolerance, not relativism)? IMHO tolerance is a virtue, which a human being has or hasn't got. Some belief systems might be more prone to tolerance than others, but if tolerance is principal what kind of belief is this.

Str1977 13:33, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

-Ril-, I also like to comment on your edit summary

"Sentence is NOT wrong. The tolerance is the very reason that judaism still existed after the captivity Cyrus (who released the Jews), was the most powerful person on earth,+could easily have destroyed."

I deemed the sentence wrong, because Zor. rulers have not always been tolerant.

• No one is disputing Cyrus' tolerance (though I'd like to have evidence for him being a adherent to Zor.). It was his tolerance and also his policy of "kindness towards local peoples and their customs", which he implemented in regard to the Babylonians (Marduk) and in regard to the Jews.
• But what about his son Cambyses in regard to Babylonians and Egyptians. Was he a Zor. according in your book or not?
• Also Smerdis the Magus - was he a Zor.? He was one according to the study in question, but he still destroyed the Persian nobility's sanctuaries.
• Xerxes - was he Zor.? He destroyed temples in Greece and removed the idol of Marduk from Babylon.
• What about Bahram I of Persia and Shapur II of Persia.

Str1977 15:36, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Though I agree with the content of Ta bu's last edit, I have removed the passage alltogether, since this issue is covered in the history section (where it belongs). This section is about principal beliefs and unless it can be shown how tolerance or intolerance are a principal belief of Z. or directly flow from a principal belief, the issue of tolerance has no place, this way or that way, in this section. Str1977 22:50, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Hmmmm... I don't know about that! If the religion was tolerant, then we should note this. The fact is, it wasn't as it was devotionally monotheistic (I love that phrase!). I won't put it back, however, as I'm not sure the significance of what the tolerance issue is. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:27, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

I have no objection against it being included, if it can be shown to be a "principal belief". Str1977 00:59, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Reverts by -Ril-

I have done some editing and -Ril- has reverted them, so let me explain:

For the tolerance passage see the preceeding section.

There is a wide range of possible dates for Zoroaster and one study I have read (though unfortunately I don't have it at hand, but I'll try to post it later) calculated his death at ca. 522. Hence, to call him "pre-historical" does fit only some of his possible dates.

-Ril- referred to Cyrus as having "carved zoroastrian symbols into huge rock carvings". What carvings are these? Are you referring to Behistun? If so, these were made by Darius?

Is there actual proof that Cyrus was a Zoroastrian? I know Darius is usually considered one, but the study in question doubted this, despite his constant reference to Ahura Mazda, and rather connected his opponents the Magi with Zoroastrianism. Later on at least Magi and Zoroastrianism are connected.

Can someone provide a basis for this: "the pre-Zoroastrian priests rule with an iron fist through theocracy."

In the following passage, I consider the words in brackets as unnecessary and already interpreting additions. Shouldn't we stick to the actual text?

Which savior will free us from the old (conservative understanding of) scripture, Who with the wisdom, simplicity (of teaching), who with the enlightenment?

IMHO the header "Struggle to establish his ideas" is superfluous, since what follows is part of Z.'s preaching activity.

How is the next sentence "It becomes clear that Zoroaster had accomplished the complete devotion to Ahura Mazda" connected to the preceding and following text. And how does it become clear? And what does the sentence actually mean?

As a zoroastrian, i can tell you we are very tolerant!

Please consider these issues. Str1977 21:14, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

ahuras/daevas

I am Hindu and I was struck by the phonetic similarity of the words ahuras/daevas to the hindu words. In Hinduism, "asuras" are the bad guys and "devas" are the good guys. any info on the origin of these words, in parsi/iranian? or am I just way off?

See Proto-Indo-European language, Indo-Iranian languages, Vedic religion, and Proto-Indo-European religion ~~~~ 21:36, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Persian vs. Iranian

I moved the discussion from my talk page:

Sorry that I have to keep on reverting your edit on Zoroastrianism. Could you please elaborate on why you think it should be Persian. I don't understand why "anywhere it talks about origination or history it must be Persian" - that's valid only if it actually talks about Persians in the narrower sense.

I think Iranian is better since it encompasses not just the Persian people but other peoples of the Iranian culture as well, e.g. Medes and others. As far as I know, Zoroaster was not "working" in Persia but in Bactria. Also your versions links to Persian Empire that starts in 550 and to the article on it starting with 648. Though personally I'd place Z. in the early 6th century most disagree, placing him much earlier, way before the Persians.

Please consider this before reverting again. Str1977 00:51, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Because there was no Iran. Referring to Iran during Persian times is like referring to Turkey in the time of the Ottoman Empire and Persian times, it is an anachronism. We don't use the word Iraq when we are referring to Babylonian. As for the timeframe, the page works, but I am not certain I linked correctly to the right chapter for the correct timeframe. --Noitall 02:11, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Yes there was. Turkey is only PART of the Ottoman Empire, which also included Egypt, Bulgaria, and Greece, and Iraq does not correspond with babylon, as it is artificially created along non-natural borders which do not match those of Babylon, and its state has no continuity with Babylon. But Iran IS Persia, has the same borders, and is a continuous state. In fact the opening sentence of Iran is "Iran / Persia is a Middle Eastern country" ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 10:09, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

To clarify this: what today is the Turkish Republic was only a part of the Ottoman Empire. Back in the Ottoman days the whole Empire could be called Turkey, as it was the realm of a Turkish dynasty. E.g. there are places in Hungary where the name "Turkey" persisted even after the reconquest. Because Swabians were settled there, this region came to be known as "Swabian Turkey". Str1977 11:59, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Dear Noitall, your parallels are not completely working. We might refer to Turkey in regard to the Ottoman Empire as far back as the 17th century. We don't refer to Iraq before the Islamic conquest but the word "Iraq" is an Arabic version of the name Uruk.

Granted, the state of Iran bears that name only since the 1930s, but that was a concious reverence to past history (see: Reza Pahlavi, just like if France insisted on being called Gaul or if Deutschland (German for Germany) insited on being called Germanien (unfortunately this works only in German). Other countries have made this move, e.g. Spain and Britain. The name Iran goes back a long time - the Sassanid rulers were called rulers of Iran and non-Iran.

However, this was not about the noun Iran but about the adjective Iranian.

We speak of Turks and Turkish this-and-that way before 1908.

Granted, there was not "the Iranian people" in antiquity, but we can refer to this group of peoples - Persians, Medes, Bactrians - as Iranian. It's about Iranian culture that we are speaking.

We also speak of Germanic or Italic or Hellene culture, even though there were not states called Germany, Italy or Hellas in antiquity.

Str1977 09:51, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

• It is very simple, you can only refer to a name, culture, geographic location that was in use at that time and is used by scholars to refer to those people or area at that time. If you want to specify a geographic region within Persia because that is more specific or appropriate to that discussion, fine, but 50% of what you say is entirely correct while the other 50% is way off base. For instance:

Granted, there was not "the Iranian people" in antiquity -->ok

but we can refer to this group of peoples - Persians, Medes, Bactrians - as Iranian -->WRONG, you must refer to them as Persians, Medes, and Bactrians

Please, this isn't difficult. --Noitall 14:15, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

• One additional extremely important comment. The word "Persian" is the commonly accepted term for this era and location. Thus all such analsis as to whether a version of some term was created in some other language is irrelevant -- Wiki does not permit original research, which means own analysis or using terms not generally used. Persia and Persian are the names used. --Noitall 14:29, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

This isn't difficult, but not as you think:

Zoroaster wasn't preaching among "Persians", but among Bactrians. The choice is to post Persian-Median-Bactrian or to post Iranian.

Iranian is a term used by scholars to talk about this whole cultural region.

According to your reasoning, I'm not allowed to refer to the French, the Germans and the Italians as Europeans?

Str1977 16:05, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

• It is not my reasoning, it is Wiki reasoning. There is not much more to add. If referring to English history in 1400 AD, do so. If referring to English history in 500 BC, refer to Celts (The use of the word 'Celtic' as a valid umbrella term for the pre-Roman peoples of Britain). And it is ok to be specific as to "Persian-Median-Bactrian", but in most cases this is unnecessary and the term Persian is commonly used and sufficient. --Noitall 16:16, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it is "Wiki reasoning". There are numerous articles here which use the term Iranians in just the way that Str1977 suggests. See Iranian, Iranian peoples, Indo-Iranians, Aryan, Iranian languages, Indo-Iranian languages. I don't particularly object to Persians, but Iranians is more accurate. Paul B 23:21, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi Paul B. Anachronisms such as Iranian are inaccurate if referring to ancient history and shouldn't be used. That does not mean that they do not proliferate on Wiki. The standard should be, considering the discussion here is history, socialogy and religion, what do the scholars refer to it by. In this case, if speaking generally, it would be Persians. --Noitall 04:48, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

You seem to be under the misapprehension that "Iran" is a modern term, and that the country has always been called "Persia" before its name was changed. Not so. "Iran" is the native term, being a form of the word "Arya(n)". I quote from the current edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica: "The term Persia was used for centuries and originated from a region of southern Iran formerly known as Persis, alternatively as Pars or Parsa, modern Fars. The use of the name was gradually extended by the ancient Greeks and other peoples to apply to the whole Iranian plateau. The people of that region have traditionally called their country Iran, 'Land of the Aryans'."

The terms "Iranian" and "Indo-Iranian" are nowadays used for those ancient languages and peoples of the area united by common cultural and linguistic features. It's not anachronistic. But even if it were, (like, say, Tocharian) that'd be irrelevant. We go with the established term. Paul B 09:33, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid scholars and historians do not support your views on this at all. Persians were and are only one out of many Iranian peoples. SouthernComfort 06:03, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Not true at all. See [4], [5], [6],[7][8] and I don't have time for more. I think you are confused. An article about Iran would of course go into everything you mention. My edits are solely about the origination of a religion, which can be fairly attributed to Persia. --Noitall 06:40, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Hi Str. Thank you for inviting comment. That said, I'm going to have to agree with Noitall. Referring to Persian culture as "Iranian" is historically inaccurate. (In fact, to students of history, it sounds outright bizarre.) Persian culture reaches far beyond what is today Iran--a political entity that is not continuous with the former Persian Empire. While that empire was certainly limited in scope (especially considering its greatest extent) for centuries preceding the adoption of the name "Iran", "Persian" refers to a wider cultural area than simply the nation-state that is today "Iran". The comparison to Iran vs. Persia / Turkey vs. Ottoman Empire is actually quite valid, the only difference is a few centuries and very different politics--in fact, the core Ottoman culture has been much less pervasive outside Turkey than Persian culture has been outside Iran...despite the fact that the Persian Empire has been moribund for centuries, while the Ottoman Empire has been so for only 85 years or so. Tomer ^TALK 07:34, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

It may sound "outright bizarre" to students of modern history, but I can assure that that is certainly not the case for students of ancient history — rather the opposite. See my reply to the misnamed "No-it-all" dated 09:33 today. Even students of the Bible may remember that Babylon was overthrown by "the Medes and the Persians". The author of that passage clearly had the notion that "Medes" and "Persians" were distinct. The term "Iranian" is used to encompass both of them. It is most widely used to refer to the ethnicity of the ancient peoples who eventually became the Persian empire. In that respect the difference between the terms is analagous to that between Italic peoples and Romans. Since we don't know exactly when Zoroaster was alive, and since he seems to have operated in the North East of Iran, possibly Bactria, Iranian is all the more appropriate than Persian. Yes, when we speak of the influence of his ideas under the glittering power of the post-Cyrus empire, the use of the term "Persian" may become appropriate in some cases, but for the most part Iranian should prevail, as it does in all the other articles about the pre-imperial peoples of this area. Paul B 09:55, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

With all respect, please review the context in which this little firestorm erupted, and you'll agree, I think, that the use of "Persia/n" is far more fitting than "Iran/ian" there. Tomer ^TALK 10:00, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

With all respect, what makes you think I haven't? I have looked at Noitall's, Southern Comfort's and Str1977's edits. It's apparent that the latter editors have a clearer understanding of the distinctions between these terms than does Noitall. Yes, Persian is more appropriate in some instances. In others it should be Iranian, in others Indo-Iranian. Noitall's edits do not indicate that s/he grasps the distinctions between these terms. Paul B 10:26, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not here to argue the merits of one editor's contributions vs. anothers, I'm here only to maintain or improve the project. My agreement w/ Noitall in this case, as in any other, is coincidental. I feel no loyalty toward him nor toward any other editor, only to the project as a whole. In that light, the SPECIFIC EDIT which spawned this whole discussion (look at when the discussion started and the mini editwar at the same time), clearly, in my mind at least, was incorrect in insisting that "Iranian" was the correct term. Tomer ^TALK 10:37, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

No, it's not about a specific edit, but about an issue. If you think it is about a specific edit, then that in itself "personalises" the issue, since specific edits are made by individual contributers. I assume you are referring to Noitall's revision as of 20:17, 5 August 2005. In it, s/he made a number of changes supported by the edit summary "ancient refer to Persia; modern refer to Iran." That statement is inaccurate. The phrase Aryan/Indo-Iranian was mistakenly altered to "Aryan and Persian Empire". That's wrong, since Zoroaster quite probably predated the Persian empire. In the sentence "This opposition may have emerged from the Indo-Iranian distinction between two forms of spiritual beings, ahuras and daevas" the phrase "Indo-Iranian" was changed to "Persian". This wholly inaccurate, since the sentence refers to the whole of Indo-Iranian culture, including the Vedic peoples who are never referred to as "Persians". The general principle that for "ancient [culture we should] refer to Persia; modern [we should] refer to Iran." is false, simply and demonstrably. Please don't muddy the issues by talking about "loyalty" to editors. I have no "loyalty" to any of these editors, but I agree with them in this case, just as you have said you agree with Noitall. I named the editors to clarify the fact that I had looked at the specific edits. Paul B 11:42, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

I didn't intend to "muddy" anything, thanks for that. I interpreted this entire squabble as a disagreement about the particular edit you cited, not based on the edit summary, but on the preference for "persian" vs "iranian" in that particular edit itself. (I really hope I don't have to dig up the diff.) Tomer ^TALK 12:08, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "dig up the diff". I have given some specific examples of the problems with the edit in question. We should be as accurate as possible. However, I do think that the specific meaning of technical terms like "Indo-Iranian" may be rather obscure to many readers. But that's the charm of the "[[ ]]" links. Anyone who is confused by why the text switches between the terms "Iranians", "Persians" or "Indo-Iranians" can look them up instantly. However, ideally we should be as clear as possible within the text itself, without meandering off into unnecessary explanatory tangents.Paul B 12:36, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

The issue that started this was that I changed some (not all) Iranians to Persians, and it was reverted. There is nothing wrong with adding more detail, but it seems that the appropriate place is the article on Iran, not on Zorocaster, which does not need an entire summary on the origination of the Iranian peoples. People who come to this article expect a label which is accurate and not confusing, and I think Persian is that. --Noitall 15:24, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Who's this Zorocaster bloke then? "Persian" is certainly inaccurate. Yes, the term Indo-Iranians is probably confusing for some people. But this is an encyclopedia. You read it to learn stuff. Paul B 19:50, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

• This question is for Tomer (I have no POV here, only accuracy). Now, it seems the term "Indo-Iranian" was inserted to replace most of the Persian terms. I don't find any sources that use "Indo-Iranian" (note the link on Wiki only speaks to current languages, entirely inappropriate for this point) and it still seems to be an anachonism. This seems to be another instance where people are using this article to draw linkages and lineages that should not be drawn (or at least in this article). Your opinion? --Noitall 16:58, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

• Using "Indo-Iranian" is as inaccurate as it is ludicrous. The term was specifically invented in the late 1800s to describe a group of languages spoken from southern Russia, eastern Turkey and Syria, through south central Asia as far as eastern India. There's no way that it's interchangeable with "Persian" which is but one language in the group. To call Zoroaster an "Indo-Iranian" is reinventing history. The oldest Avestas were written in Avestan, so it's probable that Zoroaster (if he wrote them) wasn't a "Parsi", but he certainly wasn't an "Iranian", and definitely wasn't "Indo-Aryan" or "Indo-Iranian". This discussion is becoming increasingly irrelevant here, however, it should be going on over at Talk:Zoroaster. In any case, I would really hate to see this devolved into a fiasco like what happened over at Danzig/Gdańsk... The assertion made above, btw, that the Medes and the Persians are referred to together as some greater collectivity called "Iranian" is one I'm going to have to call into question. Not that it's "proof", but I've never read any authority that lumped the two together, with or without any other groups, and called them all "Iranian". Tomer ^TALK 18:34, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Curiouser and curiouser. Indo-Iranian is the established term in modern academe. Prior to that it was Aryan. That's why the expression "Aryan/Indo-Iranian" was used in the article. Aryan is no longer commonly used in that way, partly because it's been corrupted by the Nazi usage, but mainly because it is insufficiently precise. Indo-Iranian has a distinct and well-defined meaning. However, if you want a term that is nearest to the one that Zoroaster would have recognised it would be "Aryan". Calling established academic usage "ludicrous" is to reject the very function of an encyclopedia. By that logic we shouldn't have articles on the Hellenistic period, or the Middle Ages or Olmecs or Kurgans, or "Celtic" Britons – or any number of any other concepts that would not have been recognised by the people living at that time or in that culture. That truly is ludicrous.

As far as I'm aware, "Indo-Iranian" refers exclusively to a division of the Indo-European language family. Tomer ^TALK 03:00, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

No, it also refers to religio-cultural links that unite proto-Vedic and Iranian traditions, links that are discussed in the article. As for your claim that you have never heard of the term Iranian being used to cover both Medes and Persians, I quote from the Britannica again, from the article on Ancient Iran. This section is titled "The Elamites, Medians, and Achaemenids > The protohistoric period and the kingdom of the Medes > The coming of the Iranians."

Though isolated groups of speakers of Indo-European languages had appeared and disappeared in western Iran in the 2nd millennium BC, it was during the Iron Age that the Indo-European Iranians rose to be the dominant force on the plateau. By the mid 9th century BC two major groups of Iranians appeared in cuneiform sources: the Medes and the Persians.

So there we are. Paul B 11:126, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

And where does anyone claim that Zoroaster was a "Parsi"?? Paul B 20:12, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Nowhere I'm aware of. I was simply pointing out the obvious: that there are problems with calling him "Persian" as well (he probably wasn't from Pars, and regardless, he probably predates the Persian Empire). Tomer ^TALK 03:00, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

• Excellent analysis User:TShilo12. The one thing not yet discussed, however, is the common use and identification of people in this region in this era in time. I believe it to be Persian. Whether that is accurate or not is for the scholars to debate, and it is certainly possible to mention here, but I believe the normal identification is with the Persians. --Noitall 03:41, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Hallo folks, it seems I have stirred quite a debate. Well, that was my intention.

Just as you, Noitall, I don't have a particular POV-iron in this fire and only strive for accuracy.

It is appropriate to use "Persians" when talking about the Persians, "Medes" when talking about the Medes, "Bactrian" when talking about Bactrians etc. However, when discussing a phenomenon relating to them all it is helpful to have a term encompassing them all and fortunately we have one, namely "Iranian" (note: Indo-Iranian is of course out of place in this context, but I didn't suggest that)

AFAIK, Zor. wasn't a Persian and didn't preach (only) to the Persians (and I say that even though I personally locate him in the early 6th century, but I understand that's a minority position)

What I oppose even more than the use of "Persian" was the link behind to Persian Empire - is Zor.'s struggle in the Persian Empire. Even my late chronology would place him mostly before it.

In regard to contemporary identification: I don't know when the term Iranian (or Aryan) was first used. I know it was around under the Sassanids (King of Iran and non-Iran, of the Aryans and non-Aryans). I don't know whether there was a comprehensive term at Zor.'s time (whenever that was), but it is perfectly allright to use scholarly terms. "Iranian" is one.

To use "Persian" is narrowing it down and thus misleading. It refers to this one people (from which Cyrus came from) and to their Empire. However, even that was sometimes called the Median Empire (or the Empire of the Persians and the Medes) and the Persians the Medes. Note, e.g. the Greek term for "national treason" with the Persian Empire. It was called "Medismos".

Thanks for your contributions.

Str1977 09:24, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Str1977, these terms are all applicable in specific contexts. Indo-Iranian is properly used when referring to the connections between Vedic and early Iranian beliefs and languages. Iranian is properly used when referring to the peoples and locations unified by Iranic culture. As for "Aryan" (or more properly "Arya" or "Airya"), that word is first found in Zoroaster's own writings – in the Gathas, and appears elsewhere in the Avesta. "Iranian" is, in any case, simply an English-language extrapolation from Aryan with a more precisely delimited meaning. Paul B 09:48, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Sure, Paul, I meant "Indo-Iranian is of course out of place in this context", since there is nothing here that "crosses the border" between Iran and India.

Thanks for your explanations about the origins of these words.

Str1977 10:03, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

• Tomer pointed some problems with this terminology and I pointed out others:

1. "Indo-Iranian" is a language, and this deals with an entirely different subject
2. Indo-Iranian" is group of languages spoken from southern Russia, eastern Turkey and Syria, through south central Asia as far as eastern India, so it is even less appropriate
3. "Indo-Iranian" was not even used for anything until the 1800s
4. (contrary to what one said, Indo-Iranian is not the established term) in academe, and even the writer acknowledges that, even if so, it is a "modern" term, and not a single source has been provided
5. Referring to Persian culture as "Iranian" is historically inaccurate and refers to a political entity that is not continuous with the former Persian Empire
6. common use and identification of people in this region in this era in time is Persian

These have not been addressed (and I do not think they can be addressed since the terms are inaccurate). --Noitall

Noitall, you are so wrong I don't know what to say to communicate with you

1. "Indo-Iranian" is a not "a language", (though proto-Indo-Iranian was). It is, among other things, a family of languages. It is also a term for a people and culture. I quote from the article on Indo-Iranians. Try reading it:

The term Indo-Iranian includes all speakers of Indo-Iranian languages, i. e. the Indo-Aryans, the Iranians and the speakers of Nuristani languages. Another term for these cultures is Aryan. The most likely candidates for an archaeological identification of the Proto-Indo-Iranian culture are the Srubna culture] and the Andronovo Archaeological Complexes. The most probable date for Proto-Indo-Iranian unity is roughly around 2500 BC preceding both the Vedic and Iranian cultures.

This culture is important for understanding the background to Zoroastrianiam. That's why the proper term should be used when it is being referred to. It is certainly not "an entirely different subject", as you would know if you made the effort to find out about it.

2. You say, "'Indo-Iranian' is group of languages spoken from southern Russia, eastern Turkey and Syria, through south central Asia as far as eastern India, so it is even less appropriate." It is appropriate when the culture of these people is being referred to. If you don't understand how this is relevant to the context of Zoroaster's life, then I despair.

3. "'Indo-Iranian' was not even used for anything until the 1800s" So what? I have pointed out several times that there care many words we use quite legitimately that would not be recognised by the people we refer to. Do we rename articles on Ancient Egypt because the word "Egypt" would not have been recognied by Ramses, and they wouldn't have called themselves "ancient"?

4. "(contrary to what one said, Indo-Iranian is not the established term) in academe, and even the writer acknowledges that, even if so, it is a "modern" term, and not a single source has been provided." There are a huge number of sources attesting to the usage of this term. I'm sorry I keep using the Britannica, but it's a comprehensive authority, and I have an online subscription, so it's easy for me to cut and paste:

"The religion of Iran before the time of Zoroaster is not directly accessible, for there are no reliable sources more ancient than the prophet himself. It has to be studied indirectly on the basis of later documents and by a comparative approach. The language of Iran is closely akin to that of northern India, and hence the people of the two lands probably had common ancestors – the Indo-Iranians, or Aryans."

5."Referring to Persian culture as "Iranian" is historically inaccurate and refers to a political entity that is not continuous with the former Persian Empire." I wonder whether you have actually read any of the above discussion. "Iran" and "Iranian" do not refer to the modern political entity, anymore than "Britain" or "Germany", for example, do. Hence we can speak of Ancient Britons, or discuss the Roman conflicts with "German peoples". "Persian", like "Roman", is properly used for the imperial entity, or for a sub-group of Iranian peoples.

6."common use and identification of people in this region in this era in time is Persian. These have not been addressed (and I do not think they can be addressed since the terms are inaccurate)." This comment is rather gnomic (what "these" have not been addressed?). Yes, it's quite common to refer to the "Persians" in a loose sense to refer to the ancient peoples of the area, but is a loose usage. We should try to be more accurate. Paul B 01:49 2005 (UTC)

This discussion seems to have petered out, but for what it's worth I should like to say that in my (very much non-expert) past reading I have repeatedly and consistently encountered the term "Iranian peoples" to describe the peoples speaking Indo-Iranian languages and inhabiting what is now the modern Iranian plateau prior to the rise of the Median Empire. As well, I have found many points which clarify that the term "Persian" originates with a specific Iranian group and is therefore inappropriate for a historical discussion of the area prior to the Median Empire.

So, I feel that Paul B is quite correct here. Saforrest 21:56, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

After all this bullshit, excuse me for this, I think we should understand some facts:

1) Persian language is an language of the Iranian language family(branch if we speak of IE languages). 2) Persia or Persis is the southern region of today Iran, some parts of the Persis are called Fars 3) A Persian is someone who comes original from the Persis and speak Persian 4) Iranian can mean citizen of Iran or being of ethnical Iranian look at Iranian peoples 5) If we speak in an historical sense, how we must do, because we speak about Zoroastrianism, Iran is a cultural area from Anatolia to the Pamir, Persia is the area in today southern Iran 6) When we speak about culture and refering to Zoroastrianism we must speak about an Iranian culture, not a Persian culture. 1) nor is the Avesta written in the Persian language, and thus being something of a "Persian culture", nor was Zarathustra a Persian, nor is the Zoroastrian faith distinctive to Persians

In other words, every use of the term Persian/Persia in this article could be replaced by Pashtunistan/Kurdistan/... or Pashtun/Kurd... All these peoples "Iranian peoples" are a part of this Zoroastrian faith and still they are celebrate Zoroastrian festivals.

So guys what should we do? When you will lay Zoroastrianism in this Persocentric position, I will add everywhere the words Kurd/Pashtun. Or we generalize it into the rightfull term Iranian look at Iranian peoples.

Zarathustra was not Persian, the Avesta is not written in Persian, it is written in an Iranian language and Zarathustra saw hisself as an Iranian, thus it would be better to use the term Iranian. --ShapurAriani 14:43, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I had a glance on the whole article and here are the parts which I disagree:

Zoroastrianism (Kurdish: Zerdeştî, Persian: زرتشتی‌گری) was once the state religion of Sassanid (Sassanian) Persia, and played an important role in the Achaemenid as well as Parthian empires in Persia. The religion is also known as Mazdaism by some followers and Zarathustrianism by others.

Sassanid Persia? There are no historical sources to speak of the Sassanid empire as a Persian empire, although their rulers were a Persian kingfamily, they called theirself as Iranians and their land as Iran(look on historical sources).

Achaemenid as well as Parthian empires in Persia? It not only played a role in the Persis but in the whole cultural area of Iranian peoples.

Zoroaster came to reform ancient Indo-Iranian religious practices (some of which were parallel to the Vedic religion of ancient India).

He reforms the Iranian religious practies, because these were already distinctive from the Indo-Aryan religious practices.

Zoroastrianism may also be known as Mazdayasna ("Worship of Wisdom") by some of its followers after the Zoroastrian name of God, Ahura Mazda ("Divine Wisdom"). A modern Persian form is Behdin ("Good Religion/Law," see below for the role of daena Law). Zoroastrians may refer to themselves as Zartoshti ("Zoroastrians"), Mazdayasni ("Wisdom-Worshippers") and Behdini ("Followers of the Good Religion"), and Zarathustrian.

The word Behdin is not only Persian but universal Iranian.

Zoroastrianism was the favored religion of the two great dynasties of ancient Persia, the Achaemenids and Sassanids. However, because we have few contemporary Persian sources, it is difficult to describe ancient Zoroastrianism in detail

How I said Persia is the Persis and this religion was important of the Iranian part of the Achaemenid/Sassanid empire. This is why Shapur said I am the king of Iran and non-Iran! Iran is the area where Iranian peoples lived in these times.

Persian sources? How I know we have a lot sources in different Iranian languages.

Herodotus's description of Persian religion includes recognizably Zoroastrian features,

Herodot wasn't even able to differ Medes and Persians. In one of his writtings he write the Medes came in the other the Persians. This is typical of Greek writings to be unable to differ Iranian peoples.

When the Sassanid dynasty came into power in Persia in 228 Not only in the Persis but in a great part of the Iranian world(Iran Zamin).

thus, those Persian Christians loyal to t Not only Persian Christians but general Christians under Sassanid rule

This community came to be known as Parsis, or Parsees. It is not known exactly where these refugees originated from in ancient Persia, although popular lore attributes them to the Persian province of Pars—supposedly the origin of their name.

The word Paars is not a garant of Persian origin. Pars come from the old Iranian word Purushtu which mean battleaxe warrior. The words Pashtun, Parthian, Persian come all from this word, maybe also Baloch and Purush. The Parsis of India speak a northwestern Iranian language, which is Dari, not confuse with the Dari of Afghanistan. This would support more a Median/Parthian origin of these refugees.

Zoroaster's writings suggest a metaphysical dualism, but devotional monotheism, requiring adherence to Ahura Mazda. Some modern scholars believe that Zoroastrianism had a large influence on Judaism, Manichaeism, and Christianity because of Persia's connections to the Roman Empire and because of its earlier control over Israel under rulers such as Cyrus II the Great, Darius the Great and Xerxes I. Mithraism also developed from Zoroastrianism.

Whic Persian connections? Connections of the empires or of the peoples?

However, according to other scholars, the Persians may have gotten some of their ideas from the Jews, perhaps from a theology similar to Ezekiel. There are general ideas they have in common, but in terms of borrowing, no definitive evidence exists one way or the other, and a determination depends on the interpretations and datings of Zoroastrian texts. According to Edwin Yamauchi, Zoroastrian scholars offer no consensus on the subject; he cites one Zoroastrian scholar who believes that the Jews borrowed, another that says there is no way to tell who borrowed, and yet another who says that the borrowing was the other way.[4] R.C. Zaehner states "we cannot say with any certainty whether the Jews borrowed from Zoroastrianism or the Zoroastrians from the Jews or whether either in fact borrowed from each other"[5] and The Oxford History of the Biblical World states "There is little if any effect of Zoroastrian elements on Judaism in the Persian period."[6]

Only the Persians or all Iranians?

--ShapurAriani 14:58, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

-Ril- discussion

• -Ril-, this is about the 40th page that you stalked me on. Today, Mel Etis charged you with stalking. And you have two 3RRs going as we speak. Quit your stalking and personal attacks. --Noitall 22:34, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I came here via the link at Talk:Christianity and world religions#Persian vs. Iranian, as I was checking out how the poll was going, and noticed something new - a link to here had been added. I have no 3RRs. Neither of them are valid. The one you listed covers several days not the 24 hours that WP:3RR applies to - please read policy fully before you try to use it against editors. And where are the personal attacks? Please don't make baseless accusations, they are just a waste of time. Oh, please also remember that an article talk page is to comment about the article not about other editors. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 23:26, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

• Note: ~~~~ blocked for 72 hours, see User talk:-Ril-. --Noitall 04:41, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

As you will note, only 1 admin (the blocker) supported the block. 9 said that it was probably inappropriate. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 15:50, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Settle down, both of you. This discussion is not even remotely related to the article. Tomer ^TALK 07:36, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

I won't add any more noting Tomer 's statement, except -Ril-'s above (inaccurate) response was made 3 days later. --Noitall 16:10, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

My statement is accurate. Check it. I was unblocked - [9]. And to re-iterate Tshilo12,

This discussion is not even remotely related to the article

~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 16:18, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

To reiterate an apparently more-relevant part of what I said, "Settle down, both of you."  :-) If you can't kiss and make up, at least shake and make nice. It will make being here much more pleasant not only for both of you, but for the rest of us as well.  :-) Tomer ^TALK 22:02, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

• I would like to Tomer, but just today, the day after getting off his ban, he has reverted me about 10 times on at least 3 pages he trolled (maybe more, but it is hard to keep up with him). What do you do? --Noitall 23:09, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
• To see what you're up against, I suggest you view User talk:-Ril-#Source. Sadly, I agree with him on many things about this article, but he has now proved himself to be completely unreliable. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:06, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

• Noitall and -Ril-, I came back to this talk page fully intending to request that both of you cease editing this section. It's inappropriate and utterly unrelated to this article. I don't want to get into an argument with either of you; I'm just trying to squelch what could easily become an utterly unproductive free-for-all, replete with recriminations, accusations, insults, aspersions, and what have you. I think if you look back, you'll find both of you have been involved in conflicts with other editors before, and both of you know that there are ways to resolve such disputes without engaging in "he did it first" tit-for-tat exchanges on article talk pages. If either of you edit this section again, I think it would behoove you, both, to limit your edits to a pledge to attempt to reduce the friction between you, and here at least, to limit your discussion to the content of this article. To answer your question, Noitall, to wit, "what do you do?", I'm an unemployed college student. What do you do about this situation? If you feel it's necessary, methods of dispute resolution are available to you. I realize this might sound a bit harsh, and that I'm not an admin, but seriously—consider what you're doing. Neither of you are acting like adults. I'm not going to say "grow up", not only because I think it's insulting to tell someone that, but also because I think "growing up" is far too often used as a byword for "lose all your ability to have playful fun in your life", but you both need to realize, comparing wikipedia to a playground, there are a limited number of swings. Take turns swinging and pushing, and if absolutely necessary, agree upon a set number of swings and pushes. In other words, if you can't be happy playing with each other by mutual respect, come to some kind of agreement between the two of you, whereby you limit your actions or interactions as a "self-control" mechanism in order to force yourselves to reduce conflict. Your actions end up dragging other people into your interpersonal conflict, which ends up wasting other peoples' time, and ultimately ends up degenerating into a ridiculous popularity contest, which ultimately resolves nothing whatsoever. So both of you. Please. Shake and make nice, and let's move on. Not just here, but whereëver else you might be involved in conflict with eachother. Can you guys at least try to start anew? Tomer ^TALK 07:28, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

I will move my comments elsewhere. --Noitall 13:55, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Date style truce

A truce in the revert war over BC/BCE date styles had been holding, remarkably, wikiwide. In this article, an anon changed the date style, and that prompted two reverts from other editors. I put it back to the way it was just before the anon's edit. Please, please, do not let another revert battle start. I think most editors are quite tired of that. Let the truce hold. Jonathunder 15:52, 2005 August 14 (UTC)

Most editors are indeed tired of it. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:46, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

It appears someone is up to it again; can you please clarify what the result of the truce was, or provide a reference? Perhaps this will discourage people from changing it. Peyna 16:55:00, 2005-08-16 (UTC)

I am just dismayed that the revert war has continued. I will not revert this page over date styles, but if it continues, I will ask for help in opening a request for comment. Please stop. Jonathunder 15:02, 2005 August 21 (UTC)

To clarify: the official policy is that date format should remain in the style of the original entry. The original entry in this case was BCE/CE. So please don't change it to BC/AD. --Spudtater 14:16, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Practices

Can someone add a section about contemporary Zoroastrian/Parsi religious practices? One example would be the Navjote initiation ceremony, and other ceremonies or rituals. I have friends who are Parsi, and attended the Navjote for one of them when we were children. I have the impression that this ceremony is rather important to the community. TMS63112 19:59, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Request for Input

I discovered the article Soushiant while zipping through some random articles. I don't know enough about Zoroastrianism to judge its validity or potential for expansion, but I noticed that that particular name didn't seem to be mentioned in this article. I'd be good if someone with the appropriate background could take a look and figure out if it's a valid stub or an AfD candidate. --Clay Collier 09:11, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

It should be merged with Saoshyant. Paul B 09:58, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

New portal on religion

Brisvegas and I have been creating portals for various significant religions, with your religion being one of the portals. The portals still need work, but most of the groundwork has been done. We need to find people who would like to take responsibility for their faith's portal. Brisvega looks after the Christianity portal, and I look after the Islam portal. You can find your religion's portal by looking at the Religion & Spirituality section on the portal template at Template:Portals. I've been notified that your faith's portal can possibly be deleted if no one looks after the portal. --JuanMuslim ^1m 17:55, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Holidays

Forgive me if I missed something, but the only mention I saw of holidays was this: "new year on the first day of spring, the water festival in summer, the autumn festival at the end of the season, and the mid-winter fire festival." Could someone add information (possibly in the form of a subpage)? I know there are names for these holidays but I'm having trouble locating info.--Hraefen 06:18, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Yyrt?

Does the name or term "Yyrt" have any meaning to this religion? I ask because an article was created fairly recently, and it claimed to be part of a "Zorastrian" religion (a typo for this religion I suspect). The article was AfD'd, but if it had some meaning or value, someone may want to work at getting it undeleted to see what, if anything, of value can be merged into this article. The AfD nomination is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yyrt (note: it is closed; article was deleted). The article was Yyrt. You can view the deleted history at Special:Undelete/Yyrt. —Locke Cole 01:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it means anything - I've never heard of it. Whatever it is, it certainly doesn't merit an article, the Google test proved that. If we ever find out what it is and think it's relevant, we could add a section here. Izehar (talk) 01:44, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, I just wanted to make sure. =) I'm not sure how obscure this religion is, so I was worried that maybe Google wasn't the right source to try. (Afterall, just because it's never been discussed on the internet doesn't mean it's never existed, heh). Anyhow thanks for chiming in. —Locke Cole 04:21, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Monotheistic religion?

I would have to disagree about Mithra, Anahita, etc. being merely the equivalent of "angels." They were certainly considered gods, being objects of worship themselves (many temples of the two deities I mentioned throughout Armenia and other places), rather than simply agents of the supreme god Ahura Mazda. Ahura Mazda has a significantly greater emphasis, yes, but the existance of these other deities makes this an hierarchical polytheism, not a monotheism as the article states.

• With the same reasoning you could say that Catholics worship the Virgian Mary as a goddess, but adccording to 'official' theology this isn't the case. I know some Zororastrians and they claim to have one god. As far as being the equivalet of angels etc. ... I can't really comment.--Hraefen 07:57, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• I admit, I was only thinking historically. I'm not too familiar with the modern incarnation. I would imagine that its modern form would have evolved more toward monotheism. If so, maybe there should be a something in the article comparing its ancient and modern forms.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vohu Mana

This discussion has closed with a consensus to merge (the minimal) content from that stub into Zoroastrianism. The text to be merged can be found here. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 08:09, Dec. 27, 2005

Why is this article so Persocentric?

Why is this article so Persocentric?

Persia here and there. 1) Zarathustra was an Iranian and defently not a Persia 2) All Iranian peoples followed Zoroastrianism more or less 3) The Parthians were Zoroastrians as Achaemenids/Sassanids 4) We should also see Zoroastrianism from the Kurdish or Pashtun view and not only from the Persian view, this is to Persocentric

This is why I suggest to check the whole article of Persocentric claims and sentences. Wikipedia is a place where we collect information of the mankind, and this means we must accept different aspects, not only the Persocentric! --ShapurAriani 20:32, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

1. Yes, he was an Iranian. Where does the article deny this?

2. What evidence do you have that 'all Iranians' followed Zoroastrianism? What historical period(s) do you refer to?

3. The article does not deny that the Parthians were Zoroastrians. It says it played an important role in their empire. We don't know just how important, however.

4. It's fine to see it from these points of view, but how would the account differ? Paul B 21:16, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

p.s. It may be worth perusing the discussion Persian_vs._Iranian above. As you can see some people seem to think that the term Iranian is modern, or that its use here somehow implies ideologically motivated desire to promote the modern nation of Iran. These daft ideas have led to some sloppy uses of the term "Persia". Feel free to correct and improve the text. Paul B 21:27, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Din and Daena

Does anyone know if arabic diin ("faith", "religion") is a loan from Persian daena? Lucius Domitius 14:38, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, It is. As you see in this Avestan English dictionary. Diyako Talk + 14:47, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Religion?

Is this a real religion? It's beyond belief!

Shorter Intro

The intro to this article seems unecessarily long. It seems like it covers topics such as word origin and geographic dispersement. Would anyone mind if I tried to break it down? I don't know much about the topic, but i might be able to help in this way. -Schwael 21:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)