Talk:Zoroastrianism/Archive 5

Role of Women in Zoroastrianism

There is not a single article or paragraph that talks about the role of women in the religion. I think there should at least be a paragraph on this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.156.180.134 (talk) 10:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Priesthood

Could we have an account of the Zoroastrian priesthood? According to what I read long ago in my student years, there are three grades, dastur which seemed comparable to a Christian bishop, mobed which seemed comparable to a priest, and herbad or ervad which seemed comparable to a deacon. J S Ayer (talk) 02:10, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

apparent solecisms

The remark "Zoroastrianism rejects all forms of monasticism" does not seem to make sense. Does it mean that solitary life is disapproved of? If so, (i) it needs to be made clearer and (ii) the term is not "monasticism" ("eremiticism"?). Could it please be explained or omitted? 81.151.221.255 (talk) 07:54, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

• Hello! I think I agree generally with this above sentiment... many religions reject "monasticism", but monasticism should be defined properly. I can only humbly suggest here that "monasticism" implies the establishment of monasteries and monks to inhabit them. Zoroastrianism certainly does not have monks. But in a way, they are all a certain type of "monk". This shows how the semantics are important I think. I disagree that the sentence itself is senseless; most readers understand the basic meaning.

• RevAntonio (talk) 15:08, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

The remark "This calendar is still used today, a fact that is attributed to the Achaemenid period" is clearly wrong (what happened in the Achaemenid period cannot be directly responsible for the fact that something has continued in use for 2500 years). Deipnosophista (talk) 08:25, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Citation / plagiarism

The opening text comes directly from http://www.mywebastrologer.com/Zoroastrianism.asp —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.162.122.222 (talk) 02:31, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Bored of "e-jihad"

Can still be considered a "good" article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.14.141.113 (talk) 11:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I've removed your tags. This sentence is not anything like an adequate justification, and what is "e-jihad"? Some moron vandal just wrote some gibberish. Unfortunately another editor then decided to correct the "grammer" of the new, shiningly NPOV, sentence "Zoroastrianism is uniquely the worst religion in the history of religion". Just check the edit history and revert to the last good version when you read obvious nonsense, don't add tags. It just confuses matters even more by hiding the vandalism in history. Paul B (talk) 12:05, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

The worst religion in the history of religion? What the hell? Worse than the Aztecs who ritually sacrificed on the order of millions? I haven't the time to read the footnote, but that statement is so loaded it can't possibly be right. Can someone verify that?

It's just some idiot writing what idiots write. It's gone. Forget it. Paul B (talk) 14:37, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Saoshyant/frasho-kereti should be added to 'side quide main/sub topic'?

The scripted bordered main guide(the thing at the top right hand side with the symbol at top with all the main points) for Zoroastrianism might possibly need Saoshyant and frasho-kereti added as it/they are a major tenement of the religion? Text mdnp (talk) 03:31, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Mazda cars

Jujiro Masuda 松田重次郎, who foundered Mazda did so in honor of Zoroastrianism. Worth mentioning that bit of trivia?$--[[Special:Contributions/86.168.176.170|86.168.176.170]]([[Usertalk:86.168.176.170|talk]])16:26,20April2009(UTC)$--Water Stirs (talk) 16:27, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I doubt it. Cars are named after all sorts. It's not worth mentioning the Citroen Picasso in the article on Pablo the painter. 16:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

By the way, Masuda is pronounced as "Mazda" in Japanese. I don't see the connection to Zoroastrianism (Mazda). -- megA (talk) 18:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Find a source for this please. Warrior4321^talkContribs 08:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Distinguishing characteristics

A bit of a mouthful, why not simply "beliefs"; also the section doesn't present clearly the Amesha Spentas, each one has a specific quality, and represents an aspect of creation, I propose adding each individually, with a brief introduction. which is essential if we are to present the Philosophy of the faith.--Water Stirs (talk) 20:51, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

• I AGREE!!
• RevAntonio (talk) 19:59, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Zoroastrianism/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

This article no longer meets the GA criteria. The article could do with a copyedit, but this is not a matter than concerns me much. The main problem is that the article is for the most part unreferenced (failing criterion 2). Sections such as 'basic beliefs' and 'history' have few, if any, in-line references. There is also a confusing mix of footnote and Harvard-style inline citations. Online references are incorrectly formatted. The article also fails criterion 1a with a very short lead that does not summarize the article. Finally I have minor concerns regarding criterion 3a, since the article leaves out the establishment of the religion almost entiely, and simply "askes" the reader to refer to the article on Zoroaster.

I will leave this reassessment open for a week. If not major work to start referencing and reworking the lead is initiated, I will delist the article. Note that the criteria have changed since the article was listed in 2006, and it is much harder (particularly regarding referencing) to get an article to GA status today. Arsenikk ^(talk) 14:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

• Question: what is the matter with Harvard, or its "style"? Wikipedia is not worth people's trouble, don't you see why Zoroastrianism has gone down this road? No Zoroastrian would have anything to do with it. I hope your suggestions and actions help with it. What a sad day this is.
• RevAntonio (talk) 04:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

None of the matters have been seen to in the week, so I have delisted the article. If the article later meets the GA criteria, feel free to nominate it at WP:GAN. Arsenikk ^(talk) 11:32, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Dates in opening

While it is most likely obvious to individuals with a basic recognition of Zorastrianism, history, and/or religion, it may be worthwhile to clearly state in the opening what timeframe is being discussed. The Sassanid Period reference could use clarification, and perhaps the "7th Century" mention afterwards. I do not clarify it myself due to a) being new to Wiki editing and 2) yielidng to someone else who knows more about Wikipiedia's policy on BC/BCE/AD/CE. Haqui11a (talk) 20:27, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Corrections - amendments

I am honored with your entry about me copied below

Noted Oracle Business Intelligence Developer, Ratan Vakil, is a devoted Zoroastrian.

I am a rare Zoroastrian not from India, Pakistan or Iran - so you may have to have another category

Rest of the World and put me there and feel free to indicate that I am a practicing Zoroastrian Priest.

Suggested entry maybe?

Rest of the World

Noted Oracle Business Intelligence Developer, Ratan Vakil, is a devoted Zoroastrian and a practicing Priest in his community.

```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.6.247.204 (talk) 20:36, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Needs editing

The pronunciation should be removed. It's patronizing the reader to give an IPA transcription of any pronunciation that is entirely regular. Besides, if a reader is unable to pronounce "Zoroastrianism", they're unlikely to be able to make much sense of the IPA transcription.

Also, the statement that Zoroastrianism is the first monotheistic religion overlooks Ankhenaten's experiment in Egypt. Ankhenaten reigned 1353 BC – 1336 BC[2] or 1351– 1334 BC, per Wikipedia article "Ankhenaten".

Further, the Wikipedia article "Judaism" says that Judaism is the oldest surviving monotheistic religion. Perhaps the author of the article under discussion is too personally involved, hence hasn't taken a suitably dispassionate view?

With all respect, I have to say that this part of the article "Zoroastrianism" seems too "pro" instead of neutral. It's almost as if the author thinks he (or she) is involved in a dick war "my monotheistic religion is older than your monotheistic religion." That kind of attitude is out of place on Wikipedia. Or so it seems to me.

Floozybackloves (talk) 19:16, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

It is hard to tell which is the older religion. Although some sources make it seem that we know exactly when and where Zoroaster was born, in reality we aren't sure. There is a good 1000 year range of when he could have been born. Recent work on Ankhenaten may push back his dates further, thus we aren't really sure when he was born, either. In either case, we can't say exactly who was the first monotheist. It is the stuff of good debate but it will be a while before anyone can honestly say. 75.48.19.159 (talk) 07:41, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Many indigenous religions fe are also monotheistic, insofar as they know the concept of a single creator (or nonpersonal creating force) of the Universe. Imho there does not really exist a clear line of distinction between monotheism and polytheism.

The real distinction may be only a question of who is in charge. ;) 62.178.137.216 (talk) 13:44, 12 December 2009 (UTC) Greetings to others,

First of all I'm not an expert but know some think about it through my Father(66),who had studied it when there still was peace in Ariana/Khawaran/Afghanistan at school as National history.

There was sad that Ariana came to existence a round 6000(-6500)years ago and that (they/[we])the

Arians where Zoroastrians which was our First National belief back then.    

A part from this my father had also learned that Zoroaster lived a round the same time when Ariana came to existence and was separated from the Aryan Kingdom.

("This is as fare as I know from my father who is still a live, which was Always an Top A-Student  back in Afghanistan an also when he studied in 4diffrent Universities an has 2 Bachelor and 2 Masters of Ingenuity and was more than 20 years the Opposition Leader of Afghanistan which was Left") By Sayhoun Ostowar The Arian who lives in The Netherlands.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.171.121.87 (talk) 00:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC) 

Blind Scholarship

The article is devoid of insight and is hopelessly one-sided. There is only one mention of Buddhism where it is stated that "However, many scholars[who?] assert the influence of Zoroastrianism (as well as later Manicheism) on elements of Buddhism, especially in terms of light symbolism." This is far from the truth. In fact the tacit assumtion of 99% of the scholars that Zoroastrianism is the oldest religion is untenable. If one rects the Nepalese frauds, it becomes clear that Zoroastrianism and Buddhism belong to the same milieu and were sister religions. The fact that there were many Buddhas before Gotama is not known to Frye, Boyce, Briant and other scholars. In his work 'Fihrist' al-Nadim also makes no mention of the Zoroastrians and states that the Shamaniya who regarded Buddha as their Prophet formed the majority of the people before Islam. A similar view is expressed by Al-beruni who was a greater scholar than Diodorus. The recently discovered Bactrian Buddhist texts mention six pre-Gotama Buddhas. Mary Boyce wrote much but had a very shallow perspective. Why does the Persepolis tablets make no mention of Zoroaster? The reason may be, as Ranajit Pal maintains in his book "Non-Jonesian Indology and Alexander", p. 190. that Zoroaster was known by the name Devadatta among the Elamite scribes. Pal suggests that Damidada of the tablets may be Zoroaster. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mejda (talk • contribs) 07:36, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Freddy Mercury

His parents were from India, but he was born on Zanzibar. Also, it's not very clear whether he truely believed in the religion. Nevertheless, I placed him in the "from India" section. Chrisrus (talk) 14:33, 16 October 2009 (UTC) His funeral was Zoroastrian, although his burial might not have been. Chrisrus (talk) 03:24, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

That's all good and dandy, but the final fact remains that he was a Zoroastrian for his entire life, and the fact that he was not a strong believer remains unknown. Many times, it feels as if Mercury had attempted to hide his faith and his heritage to mix in with British. However, I don't understand the point of concern here. Freddie Mercury was a Zoroastrian, born in Zanibar, who spent a great deal of his life in India, got a British passport and considered himself of British identity, and died in England. Therefore, he was Zoroastrian and can remain on this article, if that's what you are asking about. warrior4321 05:18, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I suppose I was just wondering why no one had added him to the article before me. Maybe he wasn't Indian enough for you all, or not Zoroastrian enough. I'm glad you seem to approve ofhis addition. Chrisrus (talk) 12:26, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Please help!

Can you hide the box that says that the page needs help on the days of November 6 - November 10? This would really help!

Danhomer (talk) 01:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC)danhomer

removed weasel words

The statement that most religions are based on this one was removed. It has no academic sources and was written in weasel words style ... "In fact..." whose facts? Where did the facts come from? If it is fact it is easy to cite the facts the statement is derived from. Just because the article is being rewritten doesn't allow that kind of unsubstantiated statement to be allowed to stay. 97.85.185.160 (talk) 23:15, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Useful source

For those who extensively work on this article this source might be helpful http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/zoroastrian . Gulmammad | <sup>talk</sup> 01:15, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

In Kurdistan?

I understood that some of the Kurds were Zoroastrians. Does anybody know anything about this please?  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 09:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

" Of what I know is that the majority of the Kurds that reside in current Irak and Iran were of Zoroastrian faith, this is probably the case as well concerning the Kurds of current Turkey. I am not a Kurd myself and don't have the right sources with my currently to add, but through my experience with Kurds, I know that the majority of secular Kurds from Irak very much identify themselves with their Zoroastrian roots, but I doubt that there are any Kurdish Zoroastrians left. The Kurds of Iran that are part of Iranian society see themselves as part of the Iranian plateau without any pan-Kurdish tendencies and the secular ones amongst those identify with Zoroastrianism as all other secular minded Iranians who do so. " —Preceding unsigned comment added by خرمدین۸۹ (talk • contribs) 20:37, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Imanence of Mazda

If the Amesha Spentas are manifestations/aspects of Mazda. Then it is possibly not correct to state that Mazda is not immanent. Isnt that right?

No, manifestations would actualy be a means to be immanent (present in the world) while still remaining transcendant (apart from the world). Also, please sign your posts with four tidles (~~~~). Ian.thomson (talk) 19:55, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

The concept of the Amesha Spentas are complex, I like to think of it as Emanationism. Zoroastrian texts have refered to the creation of the Amesha Spentas as to like how one torch lighting others. These Amesha spentas are not only seperate entities but at the same time Ahura Mazda. In other words, Ahura mazda is the other six Amesha Spentas, but his emanations such as Hauveretat (the creator of water) is not the other emanation of Ahura Mazda Ameretat (the creator of the primal plant). Hence in a way the six other Amesha Spentas are aspects of Ahura Mazda. --212.112.98.162 (talk) 09:08, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Removed claim the Zor. was the first proponent of ecology, as nearly every ancient belief system held care of Mother Earth as a high standard. The article uses weasel words: "arguably". Well, if it hasn't been decided, don't present it as fact.

Gnosticism

there is a proposal for the creation of Wikiproject:Gnosticism. It is mentioned here as Gnosticism is a cultural impulse that in some of its forms has combined many religions such as Zoroastrianism. Its scope will include all gnostic faiths and will serve as a nexus for the improvement of Gnosticism related articles on Wikipedia, If any one would like to join or comment it is located here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals/Gnosticism --Zaharous (talk) 01:13, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Relation to other religions and cultures

"It is believed that key concepts of Zoroastrian eschatology and demonology have had influence on the Abrahamic religions."

How so? What follows this is just evidence of Zoroastrian's influence on modern philosophy and Iranian culture.--70.142.44.41 (talk) 23:05, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Reading the archive it looks like something was deleted here.--70.142.44.41 (talk) 23:24, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Relation to Abrahamic religions

From the article: "It is believed that key concepts of Zoroastrian eschatology and demonology have had influence on the Abrahamic religions". This statement is supported with two sources, both from 1987-8. Now, while Zoroastrian eschatology concepts were formed no earlier than the first millennium BCE, the book of Genesis were present before Zoroastrianism even exist and so did Jewish concepts of creation that was initially perfectly good, but was subsequently corrupted by evil (i.e. when Adam and Eve eat from the knowledge tree). I'm not sure the statement I cited from the article itself represent main stream view, I think both sources are given undue weight. --Gilisa (talk) 09:00, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

There are books besides Genesis in the Jewish Bible. Much of the later writings were influenced by the Persians. Satan goes from being the prosecuting attourney in the heavenly court in the Book of Job to the cosmic-evil dude in much of the New Testament and the inter Testamental apocrypha. Ashmedai in the Book of Tobit is named for Aeshma Daeva, the Zoroastrian devil. The concepts of a Messiah don't appear in the Jewish Bible until you get to texts that were written after contact with the Zoroastrians. Also, the idea that Genesis is older than the 1st millenium BCE is a traditional date (which assumes Moses not only wrote it, but lived around that time as well), for which there is little to no evidence. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:36, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, you represent one view only. The idea Judaism was influenced by Zoroastrian eschatology is very shaky when considering that the date where Zoroastrian eschatology started is not in agreement between scholars and there are notable scholars who offer that it post dated Judaism in many centuries. Your views about the absorption of Persian ideas into the Jewish faith and Hebrew bible are certainly more POV, not necessarily in the wikipedian essence, than an objective view. In the wikipedian essence your ideas are undue as they are represented here in the article. My ideas Judaism wasn't influenced by Zoroastrianism are not fringe views or such that are not supported by significant part of scholars. As for your argument about Messiah in Judaism, I do not accept the concepts of the Hebrew Bible criticism-and there are many good reasons to assume the counter arguments suffering under representation. However, the apocalyptic views being attributed to Zoroastrian origin are considered as ones who lack prove by many scholars and first were raised by Martin Rist in 1962, there is still not one solid evidence that show Judaism indeed was influenced by Z, especially not to the far reaching extent you suggest. To sum, your ideas about Zoroastrian eschatology pre dates most Hebrew concepts are undue and speculative even in research itself.--Gilisa (talk) 10:34, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Ian.thomson is correct. I'm not using myself as a source, but my ancestry is Zoroastrian, and I have read books (as a practicing Catholic) by Christian scholars that discuss the influence of Zoroastrianism on Judaism, especially the monotheistic aspect, the concept of the Messiah, and the hierarchy of angels. My priest was the one who educated me on the fact that Zoroaster is considered the first prophet, at least in our faith (Catholicism). I'm sure I can find more sources to back up Ian.thomson's claims. These claims do not somehow negate Judaism's own contributions. Nor does it mean that the religion itself false. Actually, it only supports (since faith can't be proven 100%) the fact that Judaism, and later Christianity, have a common foundation. Of course, in my opinion, God revealed himself (or herself, doesn't matter) through nature (earth-based religions), before over time, teaching his children through Zoroastrianism, Judaism, and Christianity. That statement, though many agree with it, is opinion. However, there is a lot of scholarly evidence for Ian.thomson's claims, and the counterarguments are held by a minority. And Zoroastrianism is indeed older than Judaism. Have you forgotten that the Jewish people lived under the Persian Empire? Where do you think Purim comes from? It coincides with the Persian New Year (Spring equinox celebrations - Persians, like their Celtic cousins, celebrate the different equinoxes), which has been celebrated for thousands of years. Zoroastrianism is actually the first Monotheistic religion. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 15:25, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

That's very romantic, like the idea Persians and Celts are cousins (speaking Indo-European languages doesn't make them cousins) but lack any hard evidence-as for Zoroastrianism being the first monotheistic-it's wishful thinking, not a fact.--Gilisa (talk) 09:06, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Another thing, Jewish people originated according to extensive genetic research about 4000 years ago more or less and some Arab people (Lebanese, Syrians and Tunisians) share the same paternal heritage with them (you know Ishmael was Isac's brother from the father side right?), Jewish Cohen(s) are dated to one father about 3000-3500 years ago, about the time exodus was told to happen -so what keep the Jews together so long if not their believe and the Cohens as a distinct class within the Jewish people if not their faith which predated the Z in 1000 years at least? Also, the remains of the first temple (not much left after the Muslims ruined the area during the 2000s) told it's at least 3000 old, much before Z even exist.--Gilisa (talk) 09:06, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not the one that put the statement in there (I didn't write the article), it's not "my" view, it's what the sources (more modern than 1962) state. To date, the only sources I've seen that deny influence from Zoroastrianism are either outdated or had a religious bias, mostly fundamentalist evangelical protestants trying to present the Israelite religion as identical their practices. The books of the Jewish Bible do not mention any developed idea of a Messiah or the end of the world until texts which were written after contact with Persia (supposed elements in texts before then easily could have been reinterpreted, as the ideas are not as fully developed and work within other historical contexts at least as well). The Saoshyant (Zoroastrian Messiah-figure) and the final judgement are mentioned in the Gathas, which were written before Persia's contact with the Israelites. That is what is meant by "eschatology," bringing up Genesis was an error, since eschatology concerns the end of the world, not the beginning. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:11, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Religion bias is what standing behind some sources which deny the "obvious" influence of Zoroastriam on Jewish religion? Oh, and there are also more modern than 1962 sources that "prove" that influence on the apocalyptic thought as expressed in Judaism. OK, this idea, lack of substantial or serious evidence btw, came in 1962-what changed from then in terms of religious studies? does 1987 is so much more educated then 1962 about this subject? does archeological findings proved this claim (however many of these, like the altar in mount Ebal and many others, were ignored or contradicted (like the finding of Teffilin from the 1CE) many anti Bible views)? What, the rapid development of computers allowed scholars to build simulator that demonstrated mathematically how Zoroastriam affected Judaism...right! Look, there is not even agreement what so ever that Zoroastriam was even monotheistic religion, actually it is by far more reasonable it wasn't. Second, even if (big if) the concept about apocalypse appeared in Judaism only around 5oo BCE, the time when Jewish exile in Persia started and Zoroastriam became the state religion I can't see how exactly it indicate the direction of influence as you suggested. Well, there are certainly no exact dates or documentations about ancient times, certainly not about 2500 years ago and more, but some serious scholars assume that Zoroastrian didn't form much before 500 BCE. Jews were in exile for their first time, the first temple (what, did the Jews were affected by Zoroastrian believes when they built this one? Oh, or wasn't it exist as some "unbias" non religious scholars tell...) was ruined and apocalyptic book was far more suitable for Judaism than for Z. The concept of after life does appear in the books of Samuel for instance (oh, was it predated too?), although not directly. As for your arguments for bias by religious people, keep in mind that this is not exact science you are dealing with here, not even close and the all field of research is a mix between known facts and mountains of speculations-most are being done by non religious people actually, but I wouldn't be so decisive about it. In any case, where it comes to Bible commentary for instance you can watch many times how one "revolutionary" article is being praised (usually one which deny the bible totally) and how it's debunked then with the research or thought of other scholars (well, they are mostly religious while those who totally deny the bible authenticity are many times fervent atheists -there are schools here..) but for now, always the anti bible view will be kept in high status in academy. It's nothing different than other biases western academy have in many other political issues (US policy, economic and social policy, women rights, Islam and so forth). Your arguments about "your" sources being more objective are not objective for themselves. Frankly, I don't believe it had any effect on Judaism-though the other way around is very likely. --Gilisa (talk) 09:06, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

What you personally believe, or want to believe, is neither here nor there. Find recent scholarship from reliable sources per WP:V and WP:RS. If you can do that, they can be included, as long as they are not given undue weight. Paul B (talk) 07:38, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not the only one who voice personal views here and I didn't say for once there is one accepted view. Please explain what do you mean by recent, articles included here are from 1987-88...Also, that's the whole problem, there is undue weight for one opinion only, true that I maybe the first to raise it and therefore the burden of evidence is on me, but it's also true that I wouldn't expect encyclopedic article to represent one school only when it's reasonable to assume that those who edit the article are aware of other schools...It was not me to first argue that those who argue Judaism wasn't influenced by Z are "religiously biased". I'm very well aware to all of Wikipedia guidelines but thanks for refreshing them for me ;) In any case, I may add some sources here soon, if I have time for it-I don't intend to make them UNDUE but I do expect them to appear in the same line with the counter arguments in this format "while it's...that z...some argue that z...because X and Y".--Gilisa (talk) 09:06, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

There is no rigid rule about what counts as 'recent', though generally the more recent the better. Scholarship on topics like this does not tend to change rapidly unless new evidence is uncovered. The late 80s is fairly recent, but of course if you have relevant literature from the 90s or 21st C then cite it. btw, while Ian is correct to say that "The Saoshyant" appears in the Gathas "which were written before Persia's contact with the Israelites.", it's doubtful that the word is used to refer to a future "Messiah-figure", to use his phrase, in the Gathas themselves. Paul B (talk) 09:15, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Simple error "monolithic"

In this sentence: "It has no major theological divisions (the only significant schism is based on calendar differences), but it is not monolithic."

I think the it's supposed to be "monotheistic" unless I'm reading it wrong.

It's very confusing to report an error here for an old guy like me, so sorry if I posted this incorrectly.

Joe Kinaydjin (talk) 19:45, 12 September 2010 (UTC) Joe Kinaydjin

You posted it correctly, but it's not an error. Monotheism - belief in one deity. Zoroaster said and Zoroastrianism there was only one deity, Ahura Mazda. Monolithic is an actual word, it means "of a single rock (or substance), uniform." It is not an error, it is an actual word. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:50, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to change it anyway to "uniform," because I've had to put in a hidden comment in the article to other editors explaining that they are not the same word, after months of reverting IP editors switching the words out. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:59, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I weep for the English language. thx1138 (talk) 21:34, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 24.99.250.252, 2 November 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} Please change ( Ahura Mazda) to (Spenta Mainyu) in this passage: "Ahura Mazda will ultimately prevail over the evil Angra Mainyu or Ahriman, at which point the universe will undergo a cosmic renovation and time will end. " Because Spenta Mainyu is clashing with Angra MAinyu, while Ahura Mazda is above this. Therefore it does not make sence to write that Ahura Mazda will prevail when he/she/it is not trying to prevail over anything. Thios is in the second paragraph under Basic Beliefs in the article about Zoroastrianism. 24.99.250.252 (talk) 18:43, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any sources to cite to support this change? Ian.thomson (talk) 21:32, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

BC/AD warrior

This article is currently under attack by a BC/AD bully who had displayed absolutely no previous interest or competence in the subject, Zoroastrianism. I have reverted the version twice. Any adults who don't respond well to bullying may want to repair future monkeying with the long-established convention here. I leave it to them.--Wetman (talk) 06:10, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

The mix of BC and BCE in the article currently looks terrible. I tried to make it more consistent when copyediting, but there is clearly more work that needs to be done on this issue. Personally, I prefer BC and AD to any sort of politically correct rubbish. In this case, however, I can see that a strong case can be made for not using BC and AD in an article about a non-Christian religion. I would probably go with the BCE/CE system. I should note, however, that the "warrior" is pushing for consistency, while you are blindly reverting to a mixture of systems. I don't care which way it goes, but it needs to be one or the other. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:33, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Wetman, you are a pathetic loser and a disgrace to the encyclopaedia. Calling me a "bully" in your wimpy 3rd person style just shows that you're not prepared to man-up to a confrontation that was started by you yourself (for no good reason). I changed three or four CE/BCE terms in order to make it consistent with the rest of the article, which was using BC/AD. You had no justification to change the whole article to CE/BCE and the rules make this very clear. The article has obviously been using AD/BC for a very long time (with the exception of those 3 or 4 inconsistencies that crept in somewhere along the line) and was using BC/AD in 2002, when it was a new article. It's ironic that you try to use my previous lack of interest in the Zoroastrianism article to discredit me (which is a fallacious ad hominem argument anyway) when you went on a petty disruption spree, changing things around in articles about the Epic Cycle; a topic that you probably never heard of until now. The fact is that BC/AD is just the standard way to write dates and has been for centuries; any religious implications are only picked up by obsessive left-wing whingers. By your logic, the days of the week should be renamed to avoid reference to the Norse gods. Normal people don't even think of the religious implications of BC/AD; most of them probably don't even know what those letters stand for. (Huey45 (talk) 06:46, 15 August 2010 (UTC))

Huey45, you need to stop the personal attacks. Please cross them out. warrior4321 13:34, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

User Wetman's change to the article was the replacement of all the occurrences of BC/AD with CE/BCE. This action is completely unjustified and is specifically prohibited by the WP:ERA section of the Manual of Style, something that a long-time editor like him no doubt already knows. He tried to fool everyone by accusing me of breaking the rules, referring to a helpful contribution made by me last week, in which I changed 3 or 4 instances of CE/BCE to BC/AD in order to match the rest of the article.

User:Warrior4321, you are almost as bad as this disgraceful liar, shooting your mouth off before you even know what's going on. The fact is that I did nothing wrong and now this vandal is trying to frame me for his own hijacking of the article. You only had to read the first sentence of this section to see that it was in fact User:Wetman who started the personal attack; calling me a "bully" and a "BC/AD warrior" (presumably implied as a pejorative term), trying to fool morons like you into believing that I somehow started trouble. (Huey45 (talk) 09:44, 16 August 2010 (UTC))

I've restored the article to a consistent (I hope) usage of the BCE/CE date era convention, which as far as I've been able to determine has been the norm for most of the history of this article, for the last few years (that's also, by the way, how the article started out). Let's please not make any further changes to this until we can establish a consensus here on the talk page, thanks. Paul August ☎ 14:02, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Huey45, WP:ERA says "No preference is given to either style," so it's either ignorant or dishonest to say that Wetman's edits are disruptively going against WP:ERA (as you have ben saying in edit summaries). Multiple long established editors in this article favor BCE/CE, it has been using that for years after being mixed (and it looks messy mixed). WP:ERA also says "Do not change from one style to another unless there is substantial reason for the change, and consensus for the change with other editors." YOU, Huey45, are the one who has been disruptively going against WP:ERA. Wetman is completely justified in calling you an edit warrior, the consensus is to use BCE/CE for this article. You cannot reasonably continue this tendentious editing without knowing that it is wrong. I will revert any future disruptive editing of your's I see as vandalism. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:17, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Ian.thomson, you are lying and deliberately misrepresenting the rules. User:Wetman changed the whole article's date format; that is prohibited by the rules. I merely corrected the inconsistencies a few days beforehand. You said yourself that no preference is given by the rules to CE/BCE or BC/AD, therefore I did nothing against the rules by choosing BC/AD. All of you are talking as if I started some kind of dispute; I did nothing of the sort. User:Wetman is the one who changed things around and he did so with neither consensus or a legitimate reason. He did exactly the same thing to the article Epic Cycle.User:Paul_August, you say not to "make any further changes to this until we can establish a consensus here", yet you imposed the same controversial change that started this whole issue. (Huey45 (talk) 07:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC))

You changed all but 1 entry, Wetman reverted it, and made it more consistant to how it was before. "All but one" is much closer to changing the whole article than restoring things to how they were and changing the one inconsistancy. That the article used BCE/CE except in one case (because of an article title) the consensus for the article was clearly BCE/CE. You need to deal with either an agenda or issues with competence. You have four editors favoring BCE/CE, you are the only person here actively supporting BC/AD, CONSENSUS IS AGAINST YOU, YOU ARE BEING DISRUPTIVE, and I will consider any further actions to be vandalism. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:54, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Ian.thomson, it appears that you don't actually know the meaning of the word "consensus"; you use it interchangeably with "majority". Anyway, the issue is unresolved both here and on the administrators' noticeboard, so it's totally inappropriate for you to be ramming changes through in the meantime.

As I said before, I innocently and helpfully fixed a consistency issue; it was User:Wetman who completely changed the article a few days later and had the nerve to accuse me of causing trouble; dragging me into a much unwanted conflict over an obscure article that I'm not interested in anyway.(Huey45 (talk) 12:39, 17 August 2010 (UTC))

Consensus is not voided just because you disagree with it. You are the one who completely changed the article, look at the history, there was only 1 use of BC, beyond that the entire article was BCE/CE. What is wrong with you that you can't get that through your skull? If you don't want this "conflict," you should back down. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:22, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I am new to this discussion. What is the consensus on the use of BCE? Personally, I have always been taught AD and BC in school and have only recently seen the use of BCE when I went back to get another degree at university. I am Persian and have a Zoroastrian heritage (practicing these traditions along with Catholicism), and as far as I know, from Zoroastrian scholars, no one is offended by the use of BC and AD. I agree with the person who said on the BCE discussion page (I think), that being offended by the use of BC and AD is like being offended by Thor when using Thursday. Why is it that using BC and AD is offensive, but many other cultures still use the Gregorian calendar? I am not making a demand for changes, but I would like to know where everyone stands on this issue. I think the use of BCE is distracting. Everyone I know is familiar with BC and AD. But, if enough people think it's more professional to use BCE, then I guess we must follow the consensus. How is the terminology used throughout other Wikipedia articles? I am curious. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 07:43, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

See WP:ERA. Weirdly enough, there seems to be nothing at either WP:PERENNIAL or WP:LAME, which indicates that the discussion is not even funny anymore. AD/BC and CE/BCE refer to the same dating system. The one makes implicit religious claims that are hard to swallow for some religious people. The other makes no such claims, which is hard to swallow for some religious people. Given that the choice is between "I'm forced to proclaim religious beliefs I do not hold" (namely, that Jesus is "The Lord" and "The Christ" ("Christ" is not a name, of course)) vs. " I cannot proclaim my religious beliefs when naming dates", I tend to favor CE/BCE, as does a large part of the modern scholarly community. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:06, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Is this issue still up for debate? Why does the article still contain references to BC and AD? --24.37.217.30 (talk) 16:09, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:48, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Minor edit request: change "Sudra" to Sedreh

Currently it reads:

The metaphor of the "path" of Daena is represented in Zoroastrianism by the muslin undershirt Sudra, the 'Good/Holy Path', and the 72-thread Kushti girdle, the "Pathfinder".

There is a Wikipedia article for Sedreh, which seems to be the more common spelling (more common than Sudreh, another transliteration). To further clarify, one could write: "the cotton-muslin undershirt," to help distinguish muslin from muslim for the casual reader. Thanks. Lbtwhd (talk) 11:16, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Zurvan

I totally disagree, this article IS COMPLETELY BIASED TOWARDS A SPECIFIC SECT OF ZOROASTRIANISM, AS A BELIEVER IN ZURVAN, THE GOD OF THE 3 AGES OF TIME, YOUTH, MATURITY AND OLD AGE, a far superior version of zoroastrianism that the one imposed by the impious believers of Aura Mazdha, I will continue fighting the HERETICS of the truth of infinite time —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.106.81.44 (talk) 07:44, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Influence on Judaism and Christianity

Why do I sense a tinge of political correctness on this issue? The Encyclopedia Britannica, which has far more credibility than Wikipedia, states in it's Zoroastrianism article "It is likely that Zoroastrianism influenced the development of Judaism and the birth of Christianity." This article could say at least that much.69.112.90.253 (talk) 21:47, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, we're more credible than the Encyclopedia Brittannica. However, there should indeed be something about that. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:23, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

"probably founded" revision and citation needed

The article states, "It was probably founded some time before the 6th century BCE in Persia (Iran)." It would be better if it gave a reference for the date and place, so readers would know what sources indicated the date and place it was founded.

Jacob81 (talk) 05:18, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

That information (with sources) is covered later in the article. The lede is supposed to be a summary of the article's main points, so it doesn't need as many citations (in fact, a perfect lede would probably have no citations). Ian.thomson (talk) 13:42, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't found in Persia. The size of Persia was much smaller than modern day Iran. And it was located in south West Iran only. If you look at the Median Empire map you will see Persia as a vassal state of the empire. Thats how big it was and there is no proof that it was found there. There is only proof that Zoroastronism was the religion of Ancient Persia though. It is said that Zoroaster spread this religion. Well it doesn't say anything about him being born or living in South West Iran. There is proof though that he was born and lived in either North West or North East Iran and in those places no Persians populated the area and today still no Persians populate the area. I suggest we delete that it was found in Persia and instead we say it was found in the Land of Aryans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.7.106.197 (talk) 18:01, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

New external link with lots of new information

Hi, i want to add the following external link:

http://www.wisdomlib.org/zoroastrianism/book/a-manual-of-khshnoom/index.html

It is a massive guide to Khshnoom, an occult movement of Zoroastrianism, and can help other users of wiki to research and enter new information for this. Ofcourse it is also helpfull to everyone interested in Zoroastrianism.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xoloitzcuintle (talk • contribs) 10:53, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Updated Link

The article "ZOROASTRIANISM i. HISTORICAL REVIEW" by William L. Malandra for Encyclopaedia Iranica now is accessed at: http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/zoroastrianism-i-historical-review

Editorial Staff Encyclopaedia Iranica 160.39.32.153 (talk) 19:36, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

It was not found in Persia

Can someone edit that it wasn't found in Persia? Persia was much smaller and it was in modern South Western Iran which is quite small. And can also add that the Prophet Zoroaster was from Medya or Modern Kurdistan? There is evidence he was born In Medya / Modern Kurdistan. Also can someone add that the oldest and biggest temple is The Fire Temple? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.7.106.197 (talk) 17:45, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

What was not found in Persia? As for the birthplace of Z, that's not known. Can you identify "the fire temple" and explain what you mean by 'oldest and biggest'? Paul B (talk) 18:27, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

As for the birth of Zoroaster, I said the same thing as you but when I did some research about it I did find that he was born in the Kurdish part of Iran. Its a recent discovery that not many know about yet. Also this is the website for the Fire Temple. http://zoroastrians.net/2010/03/05/largest-oldest-zoroasterian-fire-temple-of-kurdistan/ There is many more websites. Just write in google the Biggest Zoroastronism Fire Temple. It will give you a list of websites with the same answers.

I also meant Zoroastronism was not found in Persia. It was found in Modern Iran but definitely not in Persia. During the Median empire Persia was a vassal state and that was what the shape of Ancient Persia was.

I also do not want you to think that I am from Kurdistan. I am actually from the Netherlands and I know a lot about Zoroastronism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.7.106.197 (talk) 09:53, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Zoroaster was either born in North Western Iran or North Eastern Iran. Can someone add that aswell? http://books.google.com/books?id=Uspf6eDDvjAC&pg=PA17&lpg=PA17&dq=Zoroaster+was+born+in+North+west+iran&source=bl&ots=OMynfA4kXb&sig=OSbQlXuGz-Ws1UKbTdkTBBFFejM&hl=en&ei=WHNzTsXhLIyEhQeMqdHTDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CCIQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=Zoroaster%20was%20born%20in%20North%20west%20iran&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.7.106.197 (talk) 16:06, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Fascinating !!! Most scholars, even Western scholars, believe that Zoroaster was born in Afghanistan. This is also the view of the sources in Wikipedia, just see under Zoroaster page for his place of birth. These things cannot be decided based on political allegiance and nationalism. You need proof. The most important thing to consider is the geography covered in Avesta, the holy book of Zoroastrianism. In that book, there are NO MENTION of either Medians nor Persians. All the lands described are in today's Afghanistan or its immediate surroundings. The greatest scholar from Harvard University actually places him in MIDDLE of Afghanistan, where you have the Buddhist statues (just read the page about Zoroaster, this debate was already settelled). His place of death is also known as Balkh, as also mentionned in Ferdowsi's Shanameh.--Kasparov49acer 08:41, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Also, Avestan was an Eastern Aryan language, spoken in Bactria and Eastern Afghanistan, it was not spoken in Media or Persia, which actually didn't even exist at that time. It was centuries after that Zoroastrianism spread to Media and Persia.--Kasparov49acer 08:47, 26 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yamaweiss (talk • contribs)

If you are going to change my edits, please have the curtosy of providing an explanation. I did explain a great deal above, and provided you with enough proof as well.--Kasparov49acer 08:50, 26 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yamaweiss (talk • contribs)

By the late 20th century, some scholars had settled on an origin in Eastern Iran and/or Central Asia (to include present-day Afghanistan): Gnoli proposed Sistan (though in a much wider scope than the present-day province) as the homeland of Zoroastrianism; Frye voted for Bactria and Chorasmia;[15] Khlopin suggests the Tedzen Delta in present-day Turkmenistan.[16] Sarianidi considered the BMAC region as "the native land of the Zoroastrians and, probably, of Zoroaster himself."[17] Boyce includes the steppes of the former Soviet republics.[18] The medieval "from Media" hypothesis is no longer taken seriously, and Zaehner has even suggested that this was a Magi-mediated issue to garner legitimacy, but this has been likewise rejected by Gershevitch and others.--Kasparov49acer 08:53, 26 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yamaweiss (talk • contribs)

How can Zoroaster be born in North East Iran, if there is no mention of Parthians in Avest ??? Also, Parthians were Western Iranians, while Zoroaster spoke Avestan.--Kasparov49acer 08:58, 26 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yamaweiss (talk • contribs)

Please avoid WP:SYNTH (Using Avesta/shahnameh as source by Wikipedian editors is unacceptable per all. Also scholars do not use Avesta as source anymore: Myth). 1. Where(/when/how/if any) Zarathustra was born is unknown, (Read the article: most probable is Chorasmia or Inner Asian steppes of today Kazakhstan) or Sistan in between Iran- and today's Pakistan-Afghanistan. Later sources of Pahlavi era puts him In Media (Western Iran). There is a mention of magi in Zorostrian traditions which make the eastern-Western question more dificult. 2. Beginning of Zorostrianism is not birth date of Zarathustra. The religion (Mazdaism really) was truly founded as an "official" religion by "Achaemenid kings" (probably "people" were not involved here!). Though most up to date sources take Parthian (and Sasanid) as first confessed Zardostis and not "Mazdazadism". Note if we put specific pace/date of Zarathustra/Zorosterianism in the lead we make the article full of contradictory claims. If you have problem with "Iran" in the lead: just change to "Greater Iran" or delete that but do not make edits not suitable for lead per wp:lead. Thanks. Xashaiar (talk) 09:10, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I am fine with Greater Iran. Take care.--Kasparov49acer 09:23, 26 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yamaweiss (talk • contribs)

bad reference

"^ Foltz 2004, pp. 4–16" Nobody named Foltz is listed as an author in the references at the end of the article. Please provide the complete citation here. 4.248.220.248 (talk) 19:16, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

See reference 41. There is a complete citation, it just needs to be rearranged so the full one comes first. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:19, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

unattributed info

This entire article has serious issues with citations. The author needs to do a search on every "is believed", "is thought", and find a source that matches what the article says about whatever subject is under discussions. If "Whether Cyrus II was a Zoroastrian is subject to debate." tell who is debating it. Patrij (talk) 19:58, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

images from greatestbattles.iblogger.org

iblogger.org is on the blacklist[1] so images from it should not be used. See also the whitelist discussion|[2]

Graeme374 (talk) 04:08, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

What about images from the David Collection museum in Denmark? Ian.thomson (talk) 15:20, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

"The first surviving reference..."

"The first surviving reference to Zoroaster in Western scholarship is attributed to Thomas Browne (1605–1682)"

That's wrong. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoroaster#Western_perceptions

As far back as Ancient Roman literature, we have references to him. Someone please correct this.

216.54.22.188 (talk) 17:23, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Branches

It should be made clear in the intro or historical develppment that Zoroastrianism they are talking about is synonmous with Mazdeans. Mention should be give to Zurvanism and other extinct branches. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.4.158.160 (talk) 15:12, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

this should be on one line not two?

Zoroastrianism at the Open Directory Project

(includes a list of Zoroastrian organizations)

99.19.43.221 (talk) 02:17, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

proselytizing

Please link proselytizing to Proselytism under chapter Other characteristics? That bit doesn't have many wikilinks and I feel that word falls under techinical term / jargon. -195.148.29.73 (talk) 08:28, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Adherents Section

In the Demographics sub-section the estimated figure of 25,000 in North American is not cited. "25,000" specifically conflicts with the number estimated in the linked article List of countries by Zoroastrian population, which is 17,000 if you add the U.S. and Canada figures. The latter figure is cited with a New York Times article. The contradiction needs to be fixed with either a new citation and updated numbers, or corrected numbers and the appropriately listed citation.

Additionally, the Adherents section in general needs more citations to be convincing. Trifelin (talk) 19:20, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Another biased wiki article

"he religion first dwindled when the Achaemenid Empire was invaded by Alexander III of Macedon, after which it collapsed and disintegrated[2] and it was further gradually marginalized by Islam from the 7th century onwards with the decline of the Sassanid Empire.[3]"

The statement above is simply a lie. Zoaroastranism was erracated by the arabs and Islam by the use of sword. Persians were forced to become Muslim, even though the article of course says they were not.

Won't bother changing the article, even though many sources back up this clear statement i just did. Why won't i? cause it wouldn't do any good, wikipedia is biased because of a corrupt leadership and will remain so.

81.170.132.28 (talk) 01:18, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

If you have reliable sources, as per our guidelines, they will be accepted. Try assuming good faith or you'll just come off as a troll that doesn't want to help.

However, I have to say that "eradicated" is a bit off as there are still Zoroastrians. Not some sort of Neo-Zoroastrians, but descended from the old ones and continuing their religion throughout the centuries.

Also, this article is more about the history of the religion, which existed outside of Iran. We do have a Muslim conquest of Persia article, which discusses the various scholarly views.

Again, try assuming good faith and it'll be more apparent that you want to help instead of complain. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:44, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

For those of you for who life had NOT been too short to learn German, I cite from the German wikipedia;

"Als bevorzugte Religion löste sich der Zoroastrismus in Folge der islamischen Eroberung des sassanidischen Reiches in den Jahren nach 636 langsam auf. Der Islam nahm als Religion beständig an Bedeutung zu, aber erst seit zirka 900 stellten die Moslems die Mehrheit im Iran. Viele iranische Feste bergen aber „insgeheim“ das zarathustrische Erbe in sich und werden noch heute im schiitischen Iran, teilweise in synkretischer Form, gefeiert. Das bedeutendste dieser Feste ist das „Frühlingsfest“ Nouruz, dessen Wurzeln noch weiter zurückreichen dürften.

Mit der Ausbreitung des Islams im Iran wurde der Zoroastrismus zunehmend unterdrückt und eine Zoroastrierverfolgung setzte ein, weshalb viele Zarathustrier vor ca. 1000 Jahren ins Ausland emigrierten, vor allem nach Indien und Pakistan, wo man ihnen den Namen Parsen (d. h.: Perser) gab. Es gibt heute weltweit etwa 120.000 Mitglieder der Religion des Zoroastrismus (auch Mazdaismus oder Parsismus genannt), die meisten in Indien. Eine nicht unbedeutende Anzahl von Zoroastriern lebt jedoch auch in Tadschikistan. Zurzeit gibt es eine Bewegung in der Kommune, alle dem zarathustrischen Glauben Zugehörigen unter dem Begriff „Zarathustrier“ zu vereinen, um wieder geschlossener auftreten zu können."

That is clear enough, I would say

Lignomontanus (talk) 06:33, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Since this is an English encyclopedia your point is probably not clear enough. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:42, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Rituals and Ceremonies

• Nirang-din Ceremony - Conducted at a fire-temple where the Holy Nirang is created from a white bull's urine. The Holy Nirang is then used in other sacred rituals and believed to increase the power of good and decrease the power of evil in addition it is believed to possess disinfecting properties.
• Coming of Age Ceremony -
• Yasna Ceremony -
• Burial Rites -
• Purification Ritual -

Real cherry pie (talk) 20:29, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

References in Western culture?

I was wondering if there should be a section to references in popular Western culture. I'm thinking along the lines of Nietzsche's Also sprach Zarathustra, Strauss's work of the same name, it's use in 2001: A Space Odyssey, and the reference in Heinlein's Tunnel in the Sky (Rod Walker's family are Zoroastrian). It might also include the use of Ahura Mazda's name for a car company and a brand of electric light bulbs.

Why only Western Culture? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.91.225.250 (talk) 16:12, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Origin

Details about Zoroaster family, his belief and his reforms updated--Rahulkris999 (talk) 17:00, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 12 June 2012

spelling error: change 'inequities' to 'iniquities'

 Done Complete Vettrock (talk) 10:45, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

121.254.85.166 (talk) 17:48, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

The 'Akkadianpractices' at the end of 'Principal beliefs' needs a space. Just a typo.79.50.247.208 (talk) 19:46, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

 Done Thanks. And could you put your request in a new section in the future? Thanks in advance. Runehelmet (talk) 13:57, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

magianism

I believe the term Magianism is only used to refer to the form of Zoroastrianism found in Iraq before Islam. It is not a term for all of Zoroastrianism. Iraqi Zoroastrianism had many differences the most well known was its overwhelming emphasis on astrology, something not nearly as important for Persian Zoroastrianism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.85.57.51 (talk) 11:53, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

That's liguistically problematic. The root would be Magh which refers to the priests of Zoroastrianism aka Magu/Maghi. Not really the religion it's self. Magic = of the Mage or Magus. Magian = of the Magi. Magianism = beliefs of the Magi. So Magianism would be a very indirect reference to Zoroastrianism. It tends to reveal more information about the speaker than what they are speaking of. The use of Magianism indicated that the speaker is more familiar with the Magi than their Zoroastrian beliefs. Otherwise they would use Zoroastrianism instead of Magianism. It's the equivalent of identifying Christianty as Preistianism or Judaism as Rabbianism. The only other useage of magian would be the ancient tribe the Magi came from. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MagusAmathion (talk • contribs) 21:17, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

The IDing Christianity as Priestianism would be more accurate, as Christianity is not the only religion with priests, and Zoroastrianism is arguably not the only religion with magi (and likewise, not all Christian sects have priests, not all Zoroastrian sects had magi). Zurvanism (which was developed by Zoroastrian clergy) could be seen as a different religion instead of a variation of Zoroastrianism, and Mazdakism (which was rather anti-clerical) was considered by it's followers to be purely Zoroastrian. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:33, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm unaware of any other religion in antiquity that has used Magi to refer to their priests. More modernly the Golden Dawn and even Church of Satan has adopted the title Magus. But not Magi. But to the very best of my knowledge Magi refers exclusive to Zoroastrian Priests. What confuses some people is the varying titles in the heirarchcy of the priest. Aethrapati (Av)/ervad (Guj)which is the first stage of initiation into the priesthood. Magus, Mobed, Dastur and Magupaiti. All of which are Magi. You may find this link to be helpful. GLOSSARY and Standardized spelling of Zoroastrian terms

In Zoroastrianism the Temples of an area unite under a Parsis. They enjoy some autonomy. There was not the rigid structure that you find in more modern religions. It was more like the earlier Catholic Church who at one time had about 7 Popes. But all of the Parsis held the Persian Parsis to be the supreme authority. There were differing sects such and the Zurvanites and even Manicheans that arose out of that autonomy. Even though they were considered to be heretical Zoroastrians by the traditional Zoroastrians. They were still Zoroastrians because of the presence if Ahuramazda in the religion. They are also considered sects of Mazdaism. I've done a lot research on Zurvan (Timespace.) I find it interesting that the ancient Zurvanites knew Time and Space to be one. Modern Physics proves this to be truth.

MagusAmathion (talk) 23:55, 23 October 2012 (UTC)Magus Amathion

Edit request on 17 September 2012

The number of adherents at the end of the first paragraph is way off the mark. Replace "apporx. 2.6 million" with "between 124,000 and 190,000" using http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/06/us/06faith.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2 that nytimes article as the source. GothPigeon (talk) 13:35, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I made that change. Unfortunately, the previous reference Major Religions of the World Ranked by Number of Adherents does not offer sources to verify their estimate. Jojalozzo 14:38, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 5 November 2012

I would like to note - in the section on Zoroastrianism in the middle ages and the first paragraph - that it was in fact a necessity for the muslims of Umayyad to sustain a relatively large proportion of the population as infidels(kafir), due to Islam's economic systems and funding of the theocracy. F.ex the Ottoman Empire's economic system was too built on the enormous tax burden the infidels had to bear. Odiru (talk) 09:30, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Begoon <sup>talk</sup> 10:57, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Basic beliefs

"He is said to be the one uncreated Creator to whom all worship is ultimately directed."

There are several problems with this entry.

1)The link to the source leads to an Encylopedia Iranica article titled "ZOROASTRIANISM i. HISTORICAL REVIEW." Not "Zoroastrianism: Holy text, beliefs and practices."

2)This is presented as a quote and nowhere in the sourced article does that sentence appear. The word "uncreated" is only used once in the entire article. This is the sentence it appears in. "It was opposed to the dualistic theology that held Ohrmazd and Ahriman to be primordial, uncreated spirits."

3)If you read the entire paragraph it atributes the concept of Ohrmazd and Ahriman being primordial, uncreated spirits to Manicheism and Zurvanism. Both are derivative of Zoroastrianism. But niether are Zoroastrianism even though they both could be included in Mazdaism with Zoroastrianism. They are both seperate and distinct works outside of Zoroastrianism.

4)Ahura Mazda is more properly described as always existing. Always existing and uncreated can be viewed as being synonymous. But there is a very subtle difference that is very important to understanding the differences between Ahura Mazda, Spenta Mainyu and Angra Mainyu. Ahura Mazda is the always existing creator. He created the primorial spirit Spenta Mainyu to which a twin arose in opposition to the creation. That twin is the uncreated primodial spirit Angra Mainyu. This is evidenced in part in the AHUNAVAITI GATHA 30, 3 & 4 with the twin primorial spirits creation of "life and not life." That opposition carries all the way through the creation begining with Spenta Mainyu(created)and Angra Mainyu (uncreated). So to portray Ahura Mazda as being uncreated only sets the stage for confusion in trying to understand the nonexistential nature of Angra Mainyu. That confusion always leads to the misunderstaning that Zoroastrianism is dualistic. Ahura Mazda exists above and beyond both good and evil as their Wise Lord. So it is therefore truly monotheistic. The supreme being is niether good nor evil as in other religions. In Zoroastrianism the supreme being is Wisdom.

I wanted to let you know there is a problem with this part. I am now begining a search for a link to support Ahura Mazda being always existing to correct that problem.

MagusAmathion (talk) 17:36, 22 February 2013 (UTC) Magus Amathion

I have been able to find this to support Ahura Mazda always existing.

Moral Extracts From Zoroastrian Books For The Use Of Teachers In Schools by Jivanji Jamsehdji Modi B.A., PhD

At the bottom of page 25 of 122. The third sentence in "(A PRAYER TO THE DEITY)" says, "may there be praise for the name of Ahura Mazda, who has always existed, exists, and will always exist."

On pages 28 - 29 of 122 there is a list of Ahura Mazda's names, powers and attributes. "1. Self existing."

MagusAmathion (talk) 22:03, 23 February 2013 (UTC)Magus Amathion

Removed line from intro

I just took out this line again from the intro: Before the Bronze Age people worshipped many deities within a confusing, sometimes conflicting complex of mythologies.. First off, the article on the Bronze Age is very general, and not Iran (or Persia, if you will) specific. Worshiping many deities still existed a long time after the arrival of Zoroaster: Christianity became the Roman Empire's state religion in 380 - well into the Iron Age. Second, besides the fact that "many deities" are still worshiped today (i.e., Hinduism, Shinto), the word "confusing" is an obvious biased word against polytheistic religions. --Soetermans. T / C 17:19, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

a date is wrong

Zoroastrianism originated in the 16th century BC, not 6th century. I can cite, if need be (Fisher, Mary P. Living Religions. 8th Ed. blahblahblah. p. 235. Print.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.11.70.13 (talk) 00:42, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm a reader and copy editor, not an expert on this topic but I take the following from the article: "Zoroastrianism emerged out of a common prehistoric Indo-Iranian religious system dating back to the early 2nd millennium BCE." (that would be later than the1500s BCE though) and then a line later (new subsection) "Although older, Zoroastrianism only enters recorded history in the mid-5th century BCE." Neither of these sentences if at odds with a 6th century BCE origin in the lead nor with your 16th century BCE, depending on terminology. Can you provide the actual text from Fisher's book? I think that would help clear this up but I can't find a copy easily. Thanks. Jojalozzo 02:03, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

sure thing: "...the prophet Zarasthustra... may have lived some time between 1900 and 1500 BCE in Central Asia. The Greeks in the time of Plato mentioned him as an ancient prophet." not a certainty, but still far more accurate than 6th century. Also, quick googling led to a BBC page in which the dates given are "1200-1500". Let me know if you need more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.11.70.13 (talk) 03:15, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

1900-1500 is a wide range. Maybe we should just clarify the 6th century date to refer to recorded history. What do you think? Jojalozzo 04:06, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I think it's infuriating when you're trying to explain the ways in which Zoroastrianism may have influenced Judaism and they point to wikipedia, saying that Zoroastrianism didn't exist until the 6th century BCE. That's what prompted my coming here; that, and a lot of websites quote wikipedia as saying it was created in the 6th century. Clarification is probably best. Shame that Alexander destroyed most of their texts and we can't find something more concrete.::: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.11.70.13 (talk) 04:28, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

The article gives two different dates for the beginning of Zoroastrianism (6th Century B.C. and 1200-1500 B.C.). It can't be both. Regardless, The article also says that it influenced Judaism, but it couldn't, because Judaism predates the earliest date given by centuries.72.74.136.49 (talk) 22:27, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Ahura Mazda & Angra Mainyu

From the article: "In Zoroastrianism, the creator Ahura Mazda is all good, and no evil originates from him."

According to the Avestic Creation, Ormuzd first created the Kingdom of Light. The translation of the second verse is as follows: "I cast my shadow, Angra Mainyu, who is all death." Angra Mainyu is Ormuzds creation, and evil therefore originates from him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.246.2.81 (talk) 23:12, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Influence on Hinduism and Buddhism?

from the article: "Zoroastrian ideas led to a formal religion bearing his name by about the 6th century BCE and have influenced other later religions including Judaism, Gnosticism, Christianity and Islam"

Isn't there also evidence (alluded to in the article by the linguistic comparisons with Hindu texts) that Zorastrianism has influenced Hinduism (and therefore Buddhism because Buddhism was influenced by Hinduism). — Preceding unsigned comment added by RobinReborn (talk • contribs) 12:49, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 19 March 2013

Currently 2nd sentence of the "Terminology" sub-heading reads as follows "The first surviving reference to Zoroaster in Engish", spelling mistake in word "Engish", should be "English". I hope this helps. 121.99.48.167 (talk) 20:15, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done Thank you for pointing it out. Marek.69 <sup>talk</sup> 20:27, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 2 March 2013

Please remove the following with blank as they are at odds with current theories and established facts: "Whether Cyrus II was a Zoroastrian is subject to debate. It did, however, influence him to the extent that it became the non-imposing religion of his empire, and its beliefs later allowed Cyrus to free the Jews and allow them to return to Judea when the emperor took Babylon in 539 BCE."

I will begin with established facts and briefly include that no Zoroastrian belief includes Judea or the Jews. It is quite a bizarre comment given that it is widely-held among scholars and historians (and even the wikipedia page for "Zoroastrianism") that Zoroastrianism pre-dates Judaism.

Furthermore, it is widely believed and reported in outlets such as BBC's "Engineering an Empire: Persia", that Cyrus the Great freed the Jews so that they could act as a buffer state between Persia and Egypt. Darius's Canal (present-day Suez Canal) was also constructed by the Persian Empire for the very same purpose.

The page once again makes a false claim stating: "Almost nothing is known of the status of Zoroastrianism under the Seleucids and Parthians, who ruled over Persia following Alexander the Great's invasion in 330 BCE. " No citation is provided and from my own previous research & knowledge on the subject, I knew that to be incorrect as Magistanes (high-ranking Parthian officials/ Zoroastrian Priests) during the Parthian Empire were and are of great significance due to the rivalry between the Parthian Empire and the Roman Empire and the major role religion had between them. Steven Collins, in the book "The Missing Years of the Life of Christ" argues that Jesus Christ actually played a role in the great power politics which occurred between the empires of Parthia and Rome.

I also shouldn't leave out that there are extensive information regarding Zoroastrianism in the Parthian Empire and that the "Wise Men" who selected Jesus upon his birth and presented him with 3 gifts were Zoroastrian and one of their burial sites is believed to be in Orumieh, Iran where an Assyrian Church now lies (Fox News has a report on it that is accessible on youtube.) Quite contrary to the claim that "almost nothing is known of the status of Zoroastrianism under the Seleucids and Parthians."

The claims sound ridiculous and the overall Wikipedia page regarding "Zoroastrianism" is extremely murky.

The next claim: "It was also during the later Achaemenid era that many of the divinities and divine concepts of proto-Indo-Iranian religion(s) were incorporated in Zoroastrianism, in particular those to whom the days of the month of the Zoroastrian calendar are dedicated." is also in dire need of citation.

Thank You.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by KBadie (talk • contribs) 2 March 2013

The article isn't locked, so you are free to edit however you see fit (Wikipedia's WP:BOLD policy). I do urge you however to first read the guidelines, they contain vital information on editing. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me. Thanks, and happy editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soetermans (talk • contribs) 2 March 2013

It looks like a few things went wrong with this request, but I have done ahead and Done this as a good-faith challenge to uncited text. Sorry it took so long. —KuyaBriBri<sup>Talk</sup> 16:19, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 22 March 2013

I think the following statement is incorrect. "In the eastern part of ancient Persia over a thousand years BCE a religious philosopher called Zoroaster simplified the pantheon of early Iranian gods[1] into two opposing forces: Ahura Mazda (Illuminating Wisdom) and Angra Mainyu (Destructive Spirit) which were in conflict." I request that it should read as follows. In the eastern part of ancient Persia over a thousand years BCE a religious philosopher called Zoroaster simplified the pantheon of early Iranian gods[1] into two opposing forces: spenta mainyu (Holy spirit) and Angre Mainyu (Destructive Spirit) which were in conflict."

references below are from the "gathas" or divine songs of Zarathushtra. = Ha 30 para 3 para 4 para 5 There are two opposing forces = their names are "spenta mainyu" and "angre mainyu" para 10 says "understand law of happiness and misery which ahura mazda has ordained" "age-long pain for the wicked sinful persons and advantages for the righteous person which lead to happiness" Ha 29 para 4 "ahura mazda himself is the judge (of good and evil) So let happen unto us as He himself desires." the gathas (divine songs of zarathustra) clearly state that there is one god = ahura mazda = ha 31 para 8 Ever since I have held thee (O Ahura Mazda) in ( my) eye I have always regarded Thee O Ahura Mazda as the first of all, as worthy of worship with pure thought as the father of Vohu61 Mana (good mind) as the real origin of truth (and) as the lord over (all) actions of this world."

there are two spirits in this world = spenta mainyu and angre mainyu In christianity there is holy spirit and the devil (or satan)(or shaitaan). Spenta mainyu or holy spirit guides a person Angre mainyu or (evil spirit) (sound is like "angry spirit") deceives you. Ahura mazda is judge of good and evil. Man has a choice. If he listens to spenta mainyu he will have good thoughts, speak good words and do good deeds and he will be happy and prosperous in this life and at the end of life he will go to garothman heaven (abode of songs). If he listens to angre mainyu he will be the opposite and he will suffer. The references are clear in the "gathas". Sarosh mehta (talk) 12:16, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I can't understand a word of that. Could you just clarify your reasoning?--Launchballer 16:52, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Not done: Reasoning is not clear - I am not confident on what grounds this needs to be changed. Mdann52 (talk) 10:07, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Influence on Judaism, Gnosticism, Christianity, and Islam

How did it influence them? I've heard that claimed, but never heard of how exactly that took place. Also I second the previous question about Hinduism, and possibly Buddhism. (It may have influenced Hinduism after Buddhism came along, I don't know.) It definitely has influenced Hinduism some at least; there is a fire temple revered by both Hindus and Zoroastrians in Azerbaijan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.62.247.226 (talk) 23:11, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Demographics

I have seen several articles one by the New York Times claiming that there are Zoroastrians in Afghanistan. However no information about this Zoroastrian population seems to be available, just statistics which often vary. Does anyone have any more specific and detailed information about the Zoroastrians in Afghanistan. Ten thousand is a considerable number of Zoroastrians if there are any in Afghanistan but due to the fact I have only seen one or two statistics saying that there were Zoroastrians in the country I am skeptical that there actually are any in Afghanistan. Please clarify as to whether this skepticism is justified or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.238.26.136 (talk) 01:54, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 11 June 2013

It notes that Zoratorism (Spelling?) influenced later religions including Judaism. If I am not incorrect, Gods chosen people, the Jews (Judaism) was the first known organized belief system. They were the direct descendants of Adam and Eve. So how can a religion that developed thousands of years after Gods chosen people, the Jews, have influenced what is called 'later religions'? Just a question, I'm not a Jew, I'm a believer in God and that's all it takes IMHO. But was wondering. Stephen 76.183.177.89 (talk) 00:09, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

No, Judaism is not the oldest religion. The name "Judaism" comes from "Judah," which was one tribe of the Israelites, who were named after one of Abraham's sons. Even the Jews will tell you their religion goes back to Abraham, which means it's not the oldest religion in the world by either secular or Biblical count.

Even then, there's some distinction between the Israelite religion, and Judaism, which is considered to be the surviving branch of the Israelite religion.

Also, look up the Book of Daniel, chapters 5 and 6, where Persia conquers Babylon (which happened to be holding the Israelites captive). The Bible has a overall positive view of Persia. What was Persia's religion? Zoroastrianism.

So, proper chronology: long time ago, there's the Israelite religion and Zoroastrianism, Zoroastrianism influences the Israelite religion, and by the time the Israelite religion has evolved into Judaism it has plenty of Zoroastrian influence. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:21, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Middle Ages section - the cited source says something else

The current section claims: "there was little serious pressure" exerted on newly subjected people to adopt Islam. The claimed support is Boyce (1979).

Here is the PDF version of Boyce book: Zoroastrians by Mary Boyce

If you read chapter 14, starting page 145, it predominantly describes violence, torture and forced conversion of Zoroastrian people to Islam. Boyce's chapter states the conquest of Zoroastrian people was inspired by Surah 9.29 of Quran, 'Fight those who believe not in God and the Last Day and do not forbid what Allah and his Messenger have forbidden - such men as practise not the religion of truth, being people of the book - until they pay tribute out of hand and have been humbled.'

On page 150, it mentions a short period when the pressure to adopt Islam was not serious - but there too, in the same paragraph, it mentions "a commissioner who super­vised the destruction of fire temples throughout Iran, regardless of treaty obligations." Most of the chapter describes serious pressure used to convert, nevertheless.

Request: This section should be revised to properly summarize Chapter 14 of Boyce. The current version heavily distorts what Boyce is saying in that chapter. At the very least, the sentence should revised to: The conquest began with slaughter, enslavement, looting and destruction of Zoroastrians, thereafter the state treated the conquered Zoroastrians as dhimmis under the Umayyad Caliphate. There were periods when little serious pressure was subjected on Zoroastrians to adopt Islam, along with other periods where violent pressure was exerted.

Thank you, Prof.akbar (talk) 21:11, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

For a second source, please see Encyclopedia Britannica article on Zoroastrianism. It reads - "Islam, in principle, tolerated the ancient religion, but conversions by persuasion or force were massive in many provinces. ...(skip)... Zoroastrians, called Gabars by the Muslims, survived in Iran as a persecuted minority in small enclaves at Yazd and Kerman." Thank you, Prof.akbar (talk) 22:52, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Merging sections into Beliefs&Rituals

Zoroastrian beliefs are scattered in three sections: Philosophy, Basic Beliefs, and Principal beliefs. I suggest merging their contents into one section "Beliefs&Practices" and dividing them into subsections as follows:

• Monotheism
• Dualism
• Creation
• Last Judgement
• End Time Saviour
• Moral values
• Rituals

Kiatdd (talk) 18:58, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protection

If it's strictly necessary to keep this page semi-protected on a long-term basis, can someone at least add the appropriate template? (If not, then some sort of timescale for lifting that should be considered.) 84.203.32.169 (talk) 07:30, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Done. Additional template added. If you'd like an administrator to consider unprotecting the page, please make a request at the proper venue. Rivertorch (talk) 05:21, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 26 August 2013

It says in the article that:

"The Zarathushtri also practice traditional head covering ritual similar to that of Judaism (probably predating it)."

There is no source quoted that it "most likely" predates it, thus the words in brackets should either be deleted or a source must be quoted. Nonetheless, the words "most likely" should be taken out.

Thank you Gdawgb1 (talk) 22:56, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Done. Removed. Rivertorch (talk) 05:24, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Influenced by Babylonians?

It is true that some aspects of Zoroastrian iconography have clear sumerian influences, but the doctrines and gods are vastly different. It would be interesting to this article or preferably other to detail what were those influences.

Also,apart from some periods of persian history (such as during the seleucid dinasty,were there was partial syncretism and reduction of zoroastrian identity) the relation of zoroastrian and babylonian religion are much more regarding art and iconography than any other thing, hence it is wrong to say itwas "strongly" influenced by the babylonians.

Some minor groups could be considered as more influenced though, such as mazdakism.201.9.179.230 (talk) 13:26, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 31 July 2013

In the second paragraph of the introduction, it currently reads: "In the eastern part of ancient Persia more than thousand years BCE, a religious philosopher called Zoroaster simplified the pantheon of early Iranian gods[2] into two opposing forces: Ahura Mazda (Illuminating Wisdom) and Angra Mainyu (Destructive Spirit) which were in conflict."

This should be changed to: In the eastern part of ancient Persia more than a thousand years BCE, a religious philosopher called Zoroaster simplified the pantheon of early Iranian gods[2] into two opposing forces: Ahura Mazda (Illuminating Wisdom) and Angra Mainyu (Destructive Spirit) which were in conflict."

Just adding an "a" between the words "than" and "thousand".

Thanks JSimar (talk) 00:12, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Question: Is there any reason not to phrase it "before 1000 BCE"? Rivertorch (talk) 05:32, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Already done Thanks, Celestra (talk) 04:33, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Worship

Could we have a description of Zoroastrian worship? J S Ayer (talk) 22:37, 27 September 2013 (UTC)