Talk:Zoroastrianism

Former good articleZoroastrianism was one of the Philosophy and religion good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 7, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
June 16, 2006Good article nomineeListed
May 6, 2009Good article reassessmentDelisted
August 11, 2009Peer reviewReviewed
January 2, 2020Good article nomineeListed
October 20, 2021Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

GA Reassessment

Zoroastrianism

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted, 24 citation needed tags (t · c) buidhe 00:42, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The prose for this article is not always clear and concise, and large chunks of this article are left uncited. Therefore, I believe delisting this article should be considered. 777burger user talk contribs 03:31, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a section on gods of Zoroastrianism

I will soon be adding the section on gods mentioned in the Zoroastrian holy book. If you would like to provide feedback, you can find the section on my sandbox. Because it is controversial, I will be avoiding use of the word 'pantheon' unless it is directly quotable from the text being cited. As far as I'm aware this is justified, even under the label of 'monotheism', unless there is a source claiming consensus that they do not have a pantheon. I say this as one of the sources claims that a monotheistic god can have a pantheon. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 19:29, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your sandbox copy looks very good. Simonm223 (talk) 19:46, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In Zoroastrianism there is only one god, Ahura Mazda.
Your section will be removed because it is a misrepresentation of the religion. Researcher1988 (talk) 21:58, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
besides, there is already a sub-section dedicated to Yazatas, which includes all 26 important Yazatas.
creating another section which is about the same topic is unnecessary. Researcher1988 (talk) 00:43, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Simonm223 Thank you! :)
@Researcher1988 Then what's with all the Hindu gods in their holy book? And why is it so easy to cite evidence they are there? You NEVER reply to me when I ask this. Will you fight me if I edit the Yazatas section to indicate which ones are considered gods by the Avesta? Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 07:24, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1- Zoroastrianism has only one god, Ahura Mazda.
2-there are no "Hindu" gods in the Avesta.
2-Yazatas are not gods.
3-if you continue your behavior I will report you.
what you are doing is called "subtle vandalism." you are trying to spreading misinformation in this article and you are persistent in your attempts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism#Subtle_vandalism Researcher1988 (talk) 09:12, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No that isn't vandalism. When appropriate reliable sources disagree we cite abd attribute. Tiggy the Terrible is using very reliable sources. They do not constitute vandalism. However it should be integrated into the existing section on the Yazatas, properly attributed. Simonm223 (talk) 10:00, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the yazatas sub-section is complete and has all 26 important yazatas. there remains nothing important to add to that list. if he tries to label "Yazatas" as "gods" and spread misinformation about the religion, I will revert his edits and report him as a vandal. Researcher1988 (talk) 10:07, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Wikaviani
this editor @TiggyTheTerrible is still continuing his attempts to edit the article without a consensus.
what is your thoughts on this issue? Researcher1988 (talk) 10:10, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not tag third parties into discussion threads on talk pages. Also please remember nobody is the owner of this page. Consensus does not mean unanimity and, frankly, I find your response here kind of alarming. I recommend you take a more collegial approach. Simonm223 (talk) 10:54, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
if you read the talk page, you will see that, there is an ongoing discussion for about 4 month. one editor wants to edit the article as to represent it as a non-monotheistic religion. we disagree and presented proof against his claims. we decided to end the problem in the talk page. the problem still continues. Researcher1988 (talk) 11:05, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please point me to the relevant discussion? Simonm223 (talk) 11:21, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
basically the majority of topics in the talk page such as:
"Scholars note..."
"shortening the lead"
"Monotheism, Polytheism..."
"Consensus on monotheism"
"conversation about the vote"
"New section," Researcher1988 (talk) 11:28, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Researcher1988 The reason that the topic has not been dropped is because you have not provided an explanation for the Hindu and Iranian gods in the Avesta, or the sources and commentary that describe them being there. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 10:58, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have been involved in this thread before the ping, this does not constitute "tagging third parties".---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 19:12, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That was, perhaps, inelegantly phrased. I'm not concerned about your involvement in any way. Simonm223 (talk) 19:18, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
again, I must say, that all the information you want to add is already present in the "Yazata" sub-section. literally all the "gods" you want to add are present in that section. so, what is the point? Researcher1988 (talk) 11:08, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Researcher1988 The Avesta itself calls them gods, and so does the commentary. Hindu gods are mentioned by name. Including Surya, whose name literally means 'sun god'. As well as Mithra, who is well known as a Hindu god and one of the 33 Adityas. I can list far more, but you never try to refute me. Only to contradict me. And that isn't good enough. The consensus of even people who say Zor is monotheistic is that these they were considered gods before Zoroaster came along. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 11:15, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
wrong. Avesta does not call them gods. I've read Avesta several times. there is only one god in Zoroastrianism: Ahura Mazda. Avesta calls them Yazatas. Yazata means "Worthy of worship," not "God." In Zoroastrianism every good and useful creation is called "Yazata" and thus, worthy of worship. it has nothing to do with "Polytheism"
a "God" is an omnipotent, omnipresent, independent deity, while "Yazatas" are created by Ahura Mazda. they are neither Omnipotent nor omnipresent, nor independent. they obey the will of creator and are considered his agents.
I've tried to refute you time after time. but you continue your claims. Researcher1988 (talk) 11:22, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ok folks please remember we go with what reliable secondary sources say. Nobody should be interpreting scripture to determine page content. Simonm223 (talk) 11:29, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dr. Erhard Gerstenberger:
"In Zoroastrianism Ahura Mazda, the ‘Lord of Wisdom’ is considered a superior, all-encompassing deity, the only existing one, who may be venerated in all other god-manifestations. This certainly is a monotheistic concept."
https://www.academia.edu/27409859/Zoroastrianism_and_the_Bible_Monotheism_by_Coincidence Researcher1988 (talk) 11:36, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Simonm223I was going on the commentary, which is secondary.
@Researcher1988 What do you think of the mentions of Hindu gods like Ahura Mitra/Mithra? Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 11:36, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, @Researcher1988, do you view the Yazatas as divine beings? Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 11:39, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Researcher1988's personal beliefs shpuld be entirely irrelevant. The source they linked appears to be reliable. When reliable sources conflict we commununicate and describe the conflict with reliable sourcing and attribution. Simonm223 (talk) 11:42, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From Dr. Shernaz Cama:
"For Zoroastrians, Ahura Mazda is the only one God. All good is comprehended within Him. Division and evil only appeared because of the hostile Spirit Ahriman. Evil is the disruption of the fundamental unity of Asha and because it negates, it destroys. Evil is the antithesis of good but the conflict between the two will end with the triumph of Asha, when evil shall ultimately perish."
https://www.academia.edu/100018445/The_Dawn_of_History_Zoroastrianism_Ideas_and_Impact Researcher1988 (talk) 12:03, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yazatas are divinities. they are holy beings. Researcher1988 (talk) 11:42, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1- Commentary? what do you mean? you mean Zand? if you mean Zand, I must say In Zand too they are called Yazatas, Not Gods.
2- Mithra is a Zoroastrian Yazata. it was an old Indo-Iranian god. but Zoroaster turned it into a "Yazata," an angel created by and subordinate to god Ahura Mazda.
anyway, Zoroastrianism does not have any "Hindu" God. Researcher1988 (talk) 11:41, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, @Researcher1988. And do the Zoroastrians offer sacrifice to the Yazatas? "Mithra is a Zoroastrian Yazata. it was an old Indo-Iranian god. but Zoroaster turned it into a "Yazata," an angel created by and subordinate to god Ahura Mazda." Surely this is you agreeing with me in spirit? Should we not, then, have a section on Hindu gods who became Yazata? And they certainly are Hindu gods, because they are on the wiki page for Hindu gods. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 12:17, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again I repeat:
There are no Hindu god in Zoroastrianism religion. According to what source you are calling them Hindu gods? Researcher1988 (talk) 12:28, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Researcher1988 Wikipedia, for one. Several of them are listed on the Hindu gods page. Including Ahura Mithra, who is a god of multiple religions. I have also cited multiple other sources, and I refer you back to them. Including: I will also mention this. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 11:10, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
again, there are no Hindu gods in Zoroastrianism.
Mithra is an old Indo-Iranian god, and a Zoroastrian Yazata Researcher1988 (talk) 11:17, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Researcher1988 He is on the [Hindu Gods] page. But okay. He's an Iranian god who is in the Avesta. 12:40, 13 April 2024 (UTC) Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 12:40, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"He is on hindu gods page" !
You don't even know the difference between Ancient Indo-Iranian pantheon and Hinduism. Researcher1988 (talk) 12:46, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Researcher1988 Again: He is on the Hindu Gods page, and has his own page as a god. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 08:19, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RFC time?

If this edit conflict is so long-standing and entrenched as it apparently is I wonder if we should, perhaps, get the sources on the table and create an RfC. Simonm223 (talk) 11:46, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think such a measure is needed. One side of the conflict is that certain user, and the other side is me and the user I tagged. anyway, the discussion is not something complicated. what that user want to prove is that Zoroastrianism is not Monotheistic. while according to Britannica:
"Zoroastrianism is one of the world’s oldest monotheistic religions, having originated in ancient Persia. It contains both monotheistic and dualistic elements, and many scholars believe Zoroastrianism influenced the belief systems of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam."
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Zoroastrianism
Ancient Zoroastrians considered themselves "Monotheistic", modern Zoroastrians Consider themselves "Monotheistic", the scholars generally believe that Zoroastrianism is monotheistic.
Wikipedia is not a place to prove something right or wrong. but it must represent the general consensus about a topic. representing Zoroastrianism (who consider themselves monotheistic) other than that, on the Zoroastrianism page, is a misrepresentation of the religion. Researcher1988 (talk) 12:15, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A 2:1 conflict among three people is not a stable consensus. This could lead to... well... the problem we see here. This already escalated to the noticeboards; hence my presence. I think a broader sounding would be good here. Simonm223 (talk) 12:16, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think we can mention the many gods of Zoroastrianism by name without saying anything about monotheism or lack thereof. Certainly we can mention that the Yaz evolved from Hindu and Iranian gods. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 12:20, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming you have reliable sources to support the assertion. Simonm223 (talk) 12:22, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is Zoroastrianism has not "Many Gods"
Dr. Shernaz Cama (A Zoroastrian herself):
""For Zoroastrians, Ahura Mazda is the only one God. All good is comprehended within Him. Division and evil only appeared because of the hostile Spirit Ahriman. Evil is the disruption of the fundamental unity of Asha and because it negates, it destroys. Evil is the antithesis of good but the conflict between the two will end with the triumph of Asha, when evil shall ultimately perish."
https://www.academia.edu/100018445/The_Dawn_of_History_Zoroastrianism_Ideas_and_Impact Researcher1988 (talk) 12:26, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We do not provide special weight to members of a faith within our discussions of their structures. Ideally we should be looking at their credentials as theologians, anthropologists or historians as the key factor. I am relatively generous with cross-disciplinary work such as Ferrero, who is an economist, but the faith of the experts is something we should not be worrying about. Simonm223 (talk) 12:31, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In fact you'll find if you look at some of the other noticeboards right now that there's quite a lot of controversy over articles about Mormonism over-using sources from Brigham Young University because of the ties of that institution to Mormonism. Simonm223 (talk) 12:32, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
from Dorothea Luddeckens
"Zoroastrianism is a global religious tradition whose boundaries and ritual practices are challenged by changes in modern societies. As a religious tradition, Zoroastrianism traces itself back to the ancient Iranian Prophet Zarathushtra and identifies him as the origin of the authoritative Zoroastrian scriptures, liturgies, rituals, beliefs, and ethics. Zoroastrians call their religion Zarathushti Din or Mazdayasna Daena referring to Ahura Mazda (“Wise Lord”) as the creator of the world and their only God. While several kinds of positive spiritual beings, known as Yazatas, “[beings] worthy of worship,” support humanity…”
https://www.academia.edu/42395885/Zoroastrianism Researcher1988 (talk) 12:43, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest we wait a bit longer. the user we are dealing with (I don't want to be offensive) lacks some necessary knowledge about the subject of discussion (lack of knowledge about Historical topics such as Indo-European and Indo-Iranian religions, or Zoroastrianism in general) as is evident from some of his answers in the comments. I suggest if we represent more sources, maybe the problem gets solved. Researcher1988 (talk) 12:23, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK Tiggy the Terrible could you please provide the references you want to use that call the Yazatas gods? This might be a good place to start. Let's forget about article copy for a moment and look at the citations. I have been critical of Researcher1988's tendency to cherry-pick from sources in the past but they have made a compelling argument via the Gernstenberger and Cama citations above. I am a neutral party here. I'm interested in theology and well versed in the humanities but have no strong opinions on Zoroastrianism in particular. So, please, show me what you have. Simonm223 (talk) 12:27, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure thing, @Simonm223. I've linked to several on my Sandbox. Some others include:
  • "The Deity Mihryazd in Manichaeism and His Relations with God Mithra in Zoroastrianism"
  • "O Wise One and You Other Ahuras": The Flawed Application of Monotheism Towards Zoroastrianism
  • Rashn described as a deity in Zoroastrian religion
  • "In the Rig Veda, asura denotes the “older gods,” such as the “Father Asura” (10.124.3), Varuṇa, and Mitra (Mithras), who originally ruled over the primeval undifferentiated Chaos. The emergence of the dualistic cosmos was a process of polarization in which some of the asuras, such as Agni (Fire), Soma, Varuṇa, and Mitra, went over to the “younger gods,” the devas. The other asuras were driven away from the earth and remained as exiles in the nether world.""
  • This book refers to the Yazata being gods.
Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 11:27, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1- the first source does not prove that Yazatas are "Gods"
2-the second source is an essay and not a reliable source.
3-the third source again, does not prove that Yazatas are gods.
4-the fourth source is irrelevant. it has nothing to do with Zoroastrianism
5-the fifth source again does not describe that Yazatas are gods.\
some writers may call Yazatas, "Gods." that doesn't mean that Yazatas are gods in essence. these are all translation problems.
you should provide sources that prove Yazatas are "Gods" in essence and function. Researcher1988 (talk) 11:46, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Prove" is not necessary. I would concur the third source is not reliable. I believe the second source meets reliable source standards but will double-check. Simonm223 (talk) 12:16, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
actually got them backwards. 3rd source reliable, second not reliable. Simonm223 (talk) 12:20, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The fourth source literally starts with AHURA, designation of a type of deity inherited by Zoroastrianism from the prehistoric Indo-Iranian religion so I question how it could be unrelated to Zoroastrianism. Simonm223 (talk) 12:22, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would caution Researcher1988 that individual editors critiquing the translation of individual texts absent third party published critiques constitutes WP:OR. Simonm223 (talk) 12:24, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And, of course, the first source is obviously and evidently reliable. Remember, when there is a dispute among reliable sources we describe the dispute and attribute the views. We should include the views both that Zoroastrianism contains multiple deities and that it contains subordinate non-deific divinities, attributing these views. Simonm223 (talk) 12:28, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
anyway, those sources reliable or not, simply refer to "Yazata" as gods which is not the case here. we are discussing the nature of "Yazatas" here, not their naming. Researcher1988 (talk) 12:57, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Researcher1988 I think this is very silly. The sources outright say that several of the "Yazatas" are gods. The sources make explicit reference to several Zoroastrian "divinities" and call them gods. The article on the Ahuras is about Zoroastrianism. @Simonm223 I think your approach is sensible. Especially in light of the wiki page featuring multiple sources that refer to the "Yazatas" as gods. And to the polytheistic past of Zoroastrianism. Though it neglects the Islamic and Christian influence. Particularly in translating their holy book. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 17:27, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yazatas are not gods and the sources does not say that at all.
also you are using offensive language now. Researcher1988 (talk) 17:30, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Researcher1988 Offensive how? My sources label them as gods. You've called them "angels", but nobody worships or offers sacrifices to angels the way Zoroastrians do to the Yazata. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 12:42, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
your argument is irrelavant. Researcher1988 (talk) 12:44, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Researcher1988 Please explain why? Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 08:23, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus on Monotheism (2)

@venusfeuerfalle

Ok. lets present our sources in order to reach a consensus: I claim Zoroastrianism is Monotheistic, religious Dualism is another form of Monotheism and the religion should be labeled as "Monotheistic."

these are my sources:

1-George Foot Moore:

"The religion whose adherents call themselves "Worshippers of Mazda," the Wise God, and which we commonly name after its founder Zoroastrianism, is in many ways of peculiar interest. is the only monotheistic religion of Indo-European origin, Judaism is the one independent Semitic monotheism."

"By the side of these nature powers, the Immortal Ones become personal deities and receive divine worship... Ahura Mazda is the father and creator of them all; he brought them that they might be his ministers, and what he does is mainly done through their instrumentality. Each of them presides over a province of nature: Vohu Mano over animals, Asha Vahishta over fire, Khshatra Vairya metals, Spenta Armaiti is the goddess of earth; Ameretat are the genii of waters and plants respectively. the ecclesiastical calendar of later times each of these Amshaspands is regent of a certain month of the year and of a certain day of the month. All these divinities (Yazatas, modern Persian Izeds) are subordinate to Ahura Mazda; the theology is so far forth consistently monotheistic."

https://www.jstor.org/stable/1507426?seq=1

2-Shernaz Cama:

"For Zoroastrians, Ahura Mazda is the only one God. All good is comprehended within Him. Division and evil only appeared because of the hostile Spirit Ahriman. Evil is the disruption of the fundamental unity of Asha and because it negates, it destroys. Evil is the antithesis of good but the conflict between the two will end with the triumph of Asha, when evil shall ultimately perish."

https://www.academia.edu/100018445/The_Dawn_of_History_Zoroastrianism_Ideas_and_Impact

3-Dorothea Ludekens:

"Zoroastrianism is a global religious tradition whose boundaries and ritual practices are challenged by changes in modern societies. As a religious tradition, Zoroastrianism traces itself back to the ancient Iranian Prophet Zarathushtra and identifies him as the origin of the authoritative Zoroastrian scriptures, liturgies, rituals, beliefs, and ethics. Zoroastrians call their religion Zarathushti Din or Mazdayasna Daena referring to Ahura Mazda (“Wise Lord”) as the creator of the world and their only God. While several kinds of positive spiritual beings, known as Yazatas, “[beings] worthy of worship,” support humanity…”

https://www.academia.edu/42395885/Zoroastrianism

4-Erhard Gerstenberger:

"In Zoroastrianism Ahura Mazda, the ‘Lord of Wisdom’ is considered a superior, all-encompassing deity, the only existing one, who may be venerated in all other god-manifestations. This certainly is a monotheistic concept."

https://www.academia.edu/27409859/Zoroastrianism_and_the_Bible_Monotheism_by_Coincidence

5-Mario Ferrero:

"Dualism is one way for a religion to address the problem of evil which is inherent in monotheism—how can a God who is thought to be all-powerful, all-knowing, and wholly good tolerate evil? Zoroaster’s answer is a radical, unbridgeable separation between the two principles: God did not create evil, nor does he tolerate it; rather, evil has always existed from before time, uncreated and personified as the Hostile Spirit, but will meet its end at Frasho-kereti someday; and it is God’s purpose and unceasing work to fight it to its extinction with the help of all the divine and worldly creatures. So one could say that while God is not quite the One and Only so long as the present time of Mixture lasts, he will indeed “become” such at the End, as the final victory of the good over evil is not to be doubted; and with the disappearance of Angra Mainyu and his cohorts, dualism will leave the field to unqualified monotheism. Other monotheistic religions which, like Judaism, Christianity and Islam, posit that God is the creator of everything, including evil, were driven to explain evil by resort to fallen angels (like Satan) or inferior supernatural beings who vie with God for man’s soul, thus replacing a philosophical conundrum with another (Boyce, 1982, 195; Cohn, 2001, 182 ff.; Pagels, 1996)."

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s41412-021-00113-4

6-James Boyd:

"In brief, the interpretation we favor is that Zoroastrianism combines cosmogonic dualism and eschatological monotheism in a manner unique to itself among the major religions of the world. This combination results in a religious outlook which cannot be categorized as either straightforward dualism or straightforward monotheism, meaning that the question in the title of this paper poses a false dichotomy. The dichotomy arises, we contend, from a failure to take seriously enough the central role played by time in Zoroastrian theology. Zoroastrianism proclaims a movement through time from dualism toward monotheism, i.e., a dualism which is being made false by the dynamics of time, and a monotheism which is being made true by those same dynamics of time. The meaning of the eschaton in Zoroastrianism is thus the triumph of monotheism, the good God Ahura Mazdä having at last won his way through to complete and final ascendancy. But in the meantime there is vital truth to dualism, the neglect of which can only lead to a distortion of the religion's essential teachings. We develop this interpretation in the last part of our paper and argue for its satisfaction of the four criteria."

https://academic.oup.com/jaar/article-abstract/XLVII/4/557/744081 Researcher1988 (talk) 16:10, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Objection On the basis of the numerous sources showing that Zoroastrianism contains, and has always contained multiple gods. At the very least we need to explain on the page how the old gods became, as you claim, angels.
  • "The Deity Mihryazd in Manichaeism and His Relations with God Mithra in Zoroastrianism"
  • "O Wise One and You Other Ahuras": The Flawed Application of Monotheism Towards Zoroastrianism
  • Rashn described as a deity in Zoroastrian religion
  • "In the Rig Veda, asura denotes the “older gods,” such as the “Father Asura” (10.124.3), Varuṇa, and Mitra (Mithras), who originally ruled over the primeval undifferentiated Chaos. The emergence of the dualistic cosmos was a process of polarization in which some of the asuras, such as Agni (Fire), Soma, Varuṇa, and Mitra, went over to the “younger gods,” the devas. The other asuras were driven away from the earth and remained as exiles in the nether world.""
  • This book refers to the Yazata being gods.
Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 17:23, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TiggyTheTerrible
why you replied to this? I made this topic exclusively for @VenusFeuerFalle to settle the debate. Researcher1988 (talk) 17:33, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone is allowed to participate and comment. Don't delete other's comments. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:44, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seconded - you do not refactor other people's comments in any way. Nor is it an appropriate use of an article talk page to target one specific editor and insist they answer your questions. These aren't how Wikipedia works. Simonm223 (talk) 18:05, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
TBh I'm confused here. They titled it like it was meant to be a vote, like the one they did before. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 10:08, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Worrisome conduct from top to bottom. I think you need to take a step back from the pretence that you are steering the discussion or where consensus lands on it if there is this level of unfamiliarity with Wikipedia's behavioral guidelines. Remsense诉 18:18, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TiggyTheTerrible: Here we go, again, let's see who your "sources" are ...
  • Jaan Lahe : a historian of religions specialized in the religions of the Roman Empire, irrelevant here, as the Roman Empire was not Zoroastrian as far as I know, can this source challenge Bomati or Kellens, who are both expert sources about Zoroastrianism ? No.
  • Pablo Vasquez ? a student ...
  • zohre zarshenas : professor of Iranian laguages, nothing to do with Zoroastrianism ...
  • Maryam Rashno : who is she ? a strategic studies expert (seriously ??)
  • Iranica : a reliable source, but does not support explicitly that Zoroastrianism is polytheistic or even dualistic ...
  • Jenny Rose : an expert source (at last ...) but does not support the claim either ...
Let's now see who are Bomati and Kellens, two of the sources I added to the article and who explicitly support that this religion is Monotheistic.
Yves Bomati : Historian of religions specialized in the history of Iran.
Jean Kellens : an Iranologist who specialises in Avestan studies.
Both sound quite relevant here ...
Letting Iranica and Jenny Rose out (they do not support the claim) none of the other sources can challenge the ones I just cited in the article, I invite everybody to check this.
I already told you months ago that you had to find expert sources supporting explicitly the polytheistic claim, in order to avoid WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, you failed to do so, this is quite deterring and time sinking to be forced to repeat again and again the same things to an editor who clearly fails to get the point.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 19:54, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Wikaviani I was told the economist source would be perfectly valid, so why not?
  • A historian of religions is perfectly fine. This is likely more qualified than what we cite when we cite Britannica, the BBC, and other such sources.
  • Pablo Vasquez is graduate from SOAS University of London, which makes him qualified.
  • Isn't a professor of languages writing a paper on linguistic derivation a great source when talking about translating languages?
  • Where are you getting the strategic studies from?
  • Iranica is cited on the page. I'm not using the source to claim that it's polytheistic, but to show it has multiple gods. Which the page does. But if you like Iranica then we should perhaps include this quote: "It is important to stress here that the notions of “monotheism,” “dualism,” and “polytheism” belong to pre-modern Europe (with evident precursors in Jewish, Christian, and Muslim texts, which differ sharply among themselves) and do not correspond in any meaningful way to self-identifications of Zoroastrianism before the Islamic period. It has been possible, as a consequence, to present “standard” Zoroastrianism with each of these labels simultaneously, which is a sure indication that the labels do not fit. Much ink has been spilled on sorting out if the myth of Zurvan was a “reworking” (or even “betrayal”) of classical Zoroastrianism in the face of a growing “monotheism” in the Near East in Late Antiquity, but since there is nothing to indicate that this was even noticed by any Zoroastrian of the period, most of this debate has been pointless."
  • I seem to recall she says it on page 150, with the phrase "gods, presumably Zoroastrian yazatas"? Granted, I may be remembering wrong. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 10:32, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to further note to @Researcher1988 that George Foot Moore says things like:
  • "the names of Aryan gods, Mitra and Varuna, Indra and Nasatya, have been found in Mitannian documents dating from the beginning of the 14th century" These are gods in the Avesta
  • "When Mazdaism prevailed, it took back much which in its first zeal it had discarded - Iranian gods, forms of worship, and superstitions. It is necessary, therefore, to premise somewhat about the race and its old religion".
Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 10:46, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A graduate student of SOAS University of London cannot challenge top level experts of Iranian and Avestan studies.
  • "A historian of religions is perfectly fine" : No, not when said historian of religions challenges the views of several historians specialized in Zoroastrianism, which the case here.
  • "Where are you getting the strategic studies from?" Just Googling her name will provide you an answer ...
  • Show me where Iranica explicitly says that this religion is polytheistic or not monotheistic.
  • "Isn't a professor of languages writing a paper on linguistic derivation a great source when talking about translating languages?" Irrelevant here, it's about a religion, not languages.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 12:17, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • He doesn't seem to be challenging anything. HE's just calling them gods as if this were accepted.
    • I think the issue here is not the credentials, but that they object. I've seen you two cite students.
    • I couldn't find her, sorry.
    • This is the 'exact words' fallacy. If it says Mithra and Mazda are both gods, that is pertinent information that should be cited in the wiki.
    • The question is one of languages describing religions. What about the economics source? Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 12:58, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • We should not be narrowly excluding people from different fields in social sciences and the humanities when the research is apropos and published in reliable journals. Academia is not as siloed and narrow as that.
      • This means both the source from the linguist and from the economist are apropos and reliable. Excluding one but not the other would be a violation of WP:NPOV. Excluding both would be silly, plain and simple.
      • Nobody should be citing student work. Doctoral theses are on shaky ground. Masters theses are right out. Anything less shouldn't be considered in the first place.
      Simonm223 (talk) 13:03, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      With all due respect, your above claims are a direct breach of what our guidelines. When our best sources say something, we should not include bias and undue weight from weaker and/or unreliable sources. I quote, from WP:BESTSOURCES : "When writing about a topic, basing content on the best respected and most authoritative reliable sources helps to prevent bias, undue weight, and other NPOV disagreements."---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 16:16, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Our dispute is over what constitutes best sources. I say that best sources are academic publications in the humanities and social sciences relatively broadly construed. This argument is on the basis that humanities and social sciences have a tradition of inter-disciplinary work. I mean Graeber is an anthropologist who wrote about economies. You seem to contend that best sources are specifically theological. I dispute that as being too narrow in this context. Simonm223 (talk) 16:19, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      So you are claiming that an academic publications in the humanities and social sciences can challenge historians specialized in Iranian history and Avestan studies for this specific topic ??---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 16:26, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      For what Zoroastrianism, as a social phenomenon, currently is? Certainly! Simonm223 (talk) 16:30, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      This is about a religion, not a social phenomenon.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 16:35, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Religions are social phenomena and not just historical objects or bodies of theological work. Simonm223 (talk) 16:41, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Based on this, then any random source could be reliable for any topic. Religions are firstly religions, not a social phenomenon. Labelling Zoroastrianism as monotheistic or polytheistic is a religious matter above all.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 16:48, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      No it is simply not, it is matter of Religious Studies intervened with Social Studies. Theology has no place in such discussions at all. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 00:42, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @VenusFeuerFalle What about word usage? Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 11:29, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I have put forth diverse guidlines and the Reseacher User ignored them. Maybe you go first to check if the User who invited you was not lying to you (except you two are one and the same, this would explain your sudden bias however). VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 00:43, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • I already said several times that Ferreiro is not reliable for this topic, why do you always mention that guy ??
      • "I couldn't find her, sorry." : Not a good sign for someone supposed to be a relable source, isn't it ...?
      • "I think the issue here is not the credentials, but that they object. I've seen you two cite students." Bomati and Kellens are all but students. Also random sources objecting what expert ones say does not make said random sources reliable.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 16:21, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        @Wikaviani If we must rely on our best and most reliable sources, how about Harvard's commentary on the Avesta? Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 12:46, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No consensus that Zoroastrianism should be labeled as unambiguously monotheistic. The situation is at least a complicated one, and I do not think there is an academic consensus. Repeated calls for a particular consensus, nor cites from one side of an academic debate change that. Also some of the meta aspects of the recent discussion here on this topic are cause for concern. - GretLomborg (talk) 21:21, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is an academic consensus, since the majority of sources says so, and Zoroastrians considered and still consider their religion to be Monotheistic. however, there are some sources who believe Zoroastrianism has its own form of Monotheism, or combines elements of dualism with monotheism. but there are very few scholars who believe Zoroastrianism is not monotheistic at all. Monotheism has a broad sense and should not be restricted to beliefs and practices of a particular religion. Researcher1988 (talk) 22:35, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @GretLomborg: If you have time (because that's a very long issue with many long sections), please check by yourself if you find a single expert source here that explicitly says Zoroastrianism is not monotheistic or polytheistic (none of the sources that say something even close to that can challenge Yves Bomati of Jean Kellens views about Zoroastrianism ...), yet I provided 3 expert sources that explicitly say Zoroastrianism is Monotheistic. Best.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 00:07, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Are we going to split off this debate into endless fractal threads? @Researcher1988 @Wikaviani? I thought the point of a vote was to hold the vote, rather than start another debate. In any case, please see my other rebuttals regarding this. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 10:34, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    NO, we won't, if you endorse what our best sources say instead of trying to challenge them with weaker ones.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 16:33, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Then go ahead and please read the sources. @Researcher1988 is not the most reliable person as it has been seen, they have a personal agenda. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 00:41, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The situation is at least a complicated one

    Sorry, but just because one user vehemently presents their case does not mean it is complicated. The point is clear, it has been clarified multiple times, the other user just choose to ignore it and already confessed, they are motivated by religious bias, since they think it is offensive to call it "dualism". There is really no arguement. Dualism is a form of monotheism in which one God is worshipped but a second power is assumed, this is consensus. There is nothing complicated about it. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 18:50, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. It's also very strange to call this monotheism when the Zoroastrians worship and offer sacrifice to the Yazata Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 12:47, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, I will not make a "source contest" with you. If you have a good point to make, one would be enough. However, you even failed to object to any of the points I made, so I am not gonna read another awfully long list of point-missing "arguements". VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 18:48, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus Updates

Because people keep starting debates with the voters, I am going to summarise the votes without the explanations in the hope that this will make things readable Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 10:38, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Objection to calling Zoroastrianism monotheistic. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 17:23, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Zoroastrian is monotheistic whether you agree with it or not:
    "Zoroastrianism is a global religious tradition whose boundaries and ritual practices are challenged by changes in modern societies. As a religious tradition, Zoroastrianism traces itself back to the ancient Iranian Prophet Zarathushtra and identifies him as the origin of the authoritative Zoroastrian scriptures, liturgies, rituals, beliefs, and ethics. Zoroastrians call their religion Zarathushti Din or Mazdayasna Daena referring to Ahura Mazda (“Wise Lord”) as the creator of the world and their only God. While several kinds of positive spiritual beings, known as Yazatas, “[beings] worthy of worship,” support humanity…”
    https://www.academia.edu/42395885/Zoroastrianism Researcher1988 (talk) 11:09, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please stop trying to turn votes into fresh debates by repeating debunked points @Researcher1988. 12:49, 13 April 2024 (UTC) Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 12:49, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No consensus that Zoroastrianism should be labeled as unambiguously monotheistic. GretLomborg (talk) 21:21, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No consensus that Zoroastrianism is monotheistic - the academic literature variously describes it as monotheistic, dualistic or a hybrid of polytheistic and monotheistic elements. It would seem reasonable to describe it as monolatrous in wiki voice. Other statements should be attributed. Simonm223 (talk) 11:45, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Monotheistic view As per the compelling sources I provided before. I would like to remind everybody that "votes" should be argumented with legit rationale and sources in this kind of situation, since the burden is on you to achieve consensus for inclusion.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 12:21, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My response is based on the reliable sources shared by other editors on this page. Simonm223 (talk) 12:46, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    All the problem here is that none of you guy provided a single expert source that explicitly supports Zoroastrianism to be polytheistic, not a single one, while we have several of the best sources available for this topic saying that this religion is monotheistic. You are on shaky ground, for the least.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 16:31, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Noone said it is poltheistic lol VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 19:03, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You will note that I did not, once, suggest that Zoroastrianism is explicitly polytheistic. Rather I said the academic literature variously describes it as monotheistic, dualistic or a hybrid of polytheistic and monotheistic elements. Furthermore your argument that expert sources don't exist to support this depends on a particularly narrow view of expert sources that treat the religion solely in historical terms. Simonm223 (talk) 19:58, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you would actually read the source, you would know they do not support the claim. It is strange that you want to support someone without even going into that matter. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 00:41, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Monotheistic view As sources which I have provided and provide enough compelling evidence to support this claim. Zoroastrians view themselves as Monotheistic, An the Academic Consensus is that they are Monotheistic:

"The prophet Zoroaster is credited with the founding of the first monotheistic religion in history sometime around the middle of the second millennium BCE..."

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s41412-021-00113-4 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Researcher1988 (talk • contribs) 01:38, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Objection to call it monotheistic: As showed above multiple times, the general consensus is that Zorastrianism is dualistic, which is a sub-type of monotheism. All sources saying that Zorastrianism is "monotheistic" are also covered by the sources saying that Zorastrianism is "dualistic". Also, the definition of Cosmological Dualism applies to Zorastrianism while the term "Monotheism" does not (see the definitions in the source provided, those who say Zorastrianism is monotheistic never offered a definition of the term but cherry picked what they liked).
VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 19:02, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dualism as showed above is just another form of Monotheism. Being Dualistic does not contrast with bein Monotheistic at the same time. totally disagree. you should provide sources that it is Not Monotheistic and instead, Dualistic. but you have not provided any source for that. you are just insisting on your personal opinions. Researcher1988 (talk) 01:19, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The balance of the sources seem to support Dualism. I might reconsider this position if there is a scriptural source that states that Ahura Mazda created Angra Mainyu. But it appears that most of the scriptural sources for the creation of the world says the two created it together. If there are sources that say that it became more monotheistic over time, then those views should be balanced against sources with other opinions. A source that summarizes the various polarized opinions seems to be what is needed here. That avoids the cherry-picking of one opinion vs another. Skyerise (talk) 10:01, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Researcher1988: Summarizing this, we have 1 2 editors supporting monotheistic, 2 editors objecting to calling it monotheistic, 2 editors noting there is no consensus to call it monotheistic, and 1 editor (myself), supporting dualistic. That's 1 2 for monotheism against 5 saying no or not now, so any edits changing it to monotheistic are against consensus and disruptive editing. Continuing to make disruptive edits against consensus will earn escalating warnings followed by a block. Skyerise (talk) 01:28, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Skyerise
I support It being Monotheistic too, and @Wikaviani
There are 2 Researcher1988 (talk) 01:31, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nonetheless, the clear consensus is against calling it monotheistic at this time. I've indicated what could be done to change this. If you want to convince me to change my mind, you will write a section including such facts as: what was the first academic work considered to have started the field of Zoraastrian studies? What position did that writer take? Did his contemporaries agree? Was there a majority consensus? During the next century, did different opinions arise? Was there a change in consensus? In the 21st century, what is the current consensus - because the latter is what we will use on the article: not the 19th century opinion, not the 20th century opinion. Without the history of Zoroastrian Studies laid out clearly, I don't have the data necessary to change my mind, and neither do the other editors. Skyerise (talk) 01:37, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I will write that. but Dualism doesn't have enough support, so why should we call it Dualistic now? Researcher1988 (talk) 01:40, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see no opposition to dualism. As you yourself have indicated, there is such a thing as dualistic monotheism, so a !vote for monotheism can't be read as an oppostion to dualism. Skyerise (talk) 01:43, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ok, But according to Britannica, Religious dualism itself is considered another form of Monotheism, so a vote for Dualism can be read as confirmation of Monotheism too:
"Some religions are in the main dualistic: they view the universe as comprising two basic and usually opposed principles, such as good and evil or spirit and matter. Insofar as the conception of a god and an antigod rather than that of two gods is encountered, this kind of religion can be considered another variation of monotheism..."
https://www.britannica.com/topic/monotheism/Monotheism-in-world-religions Researcher1988 (talk) 02:15, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And this is exactly why we need to know the history of Zoroastrian studies and the evolution of opinions on the matter. You are again engaging in original research: not all dualism is considered monotheistic, and using synthesis of sources isn't permitted either. The only relevant sources are those directly discussing Zorostrianism. Skyerise (talk) 02:31, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Skyerise Agreed. Part of the problem is that a large chunk of the sources on the page admit that the religion was polytheistic in a historical sense. However, certain editors here are keen to keep its evolution out of the article. Especially in the top part that people might read. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 08:27, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
not a single source admits that. stop with this misinformation. Researcher1988 (talk) 08:41, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Skyerise: A 3 vs 2 is now a consensus ?? the more I interact with you, the more I'm baffled by what you say and your behaviour ...---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 18:00, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Wikaviani: but it is not 3 vs 2, it is 5 vs 2. The "no consensus for monotheism" also count as against votes. Skyerise (talk) 19:47, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Skyerise: I don't see a 5 vs 2 but still, even 5 vs 2 is not a consensus, thus the stable version of the article before dispute should stand, especially when the 2 have provided several high quality sources for their claim while the 5 have not been capable to provide a single one (or at least a single expert source to challenge the others). Anyway, as I said I'm out, go ahead and label this religion as you want (that's already what you did before ...).
And for your information, "no consensus" is not a valid "vote", as the Burden is on you guys to achieve consensus for inclusion, not on me and Researcher1988. I'm tired of discussing this matter for 4 months with some editors who don't know what they're talking about and refuse to ackowledge our guidelines to focibly impose their prefered version against what our best sources say. So far we have one who gives his own interpretation of Avesta, another who says that 'humanities sources" are ok for this topic no matter if they are contradicted by stronger expert sources, you who reverts back to a non-consensual version of the article, and so on ... enough with this. You guys want to own this article ? granted.20:08, 15 April 2024 (UTC)---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) ---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 20:08, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the consensus is broadly for neutrality on the issue, since there is no agreement. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 17:07, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Summary

The reasons for these edits are too vast to be summarized in the edit summary, since sources seem to be misrepresented (as adressed in recent discussions on this talkpage anyways). So, I want to use the talkpage for transparency reasons.

The claim

"Scholars and theologians have long debated how best to characterise Zoroastrianism theism; dualism and monotheism have historically been the most frequently used terms for the religion."

was supported by "Ferrero, Mario (2021)", Boyd, James W. (1979), and Hintze, Almut (2013) in the following only referred by their publishing dates. (2021) mentions that Zorastrianism has been called "dualistic" and "monotheistic" over time, which is only partly true. The source states

"Schwartz, with regard to the oldest texts of the Zoroastrian tradition, the

Gathas, defines the religion as a “monotheistic dualism”4and Gnoli, who considers dualism to be incompatible with polytheism, as a “dualistic monotheism”5while Panaino considers Mazd¯ aism to be synonymous with monotheism because of Ahura Mazd¯ a’s sovereign role in the religious system.6By contrast, Skjærvø admits both dualism and polytheism but excludes

monotheism.7"

omitting polytheism entirely and gives undie weight to a minor opinion. All the others call it (monotheistic) dualism (note that "dualism" in this context is always monotheistic). The author cited who denotes it as monotheism does so only by pointing add Ahura Mazda as the venerated deity, which is not what "monotheism" means. Overall, the source itself seems improper to decide the classification of the belief-system, since it argues from within a theistic framework, not an external perspective, as seen here:

"the difficulties arises from the fact that the notions of monotheism, polytheism

and dualism are defined not on the basis of Zoroastrianism but on that of other religions, in particular the Judeo–Christian tradition. Denoting the worship of ‘false’ gods in contrast to that of the one God of the Jews and Christians, the term ‘polytheism’ has had negative

connotations from its earliest attestations onwards."

For clarification, "polytheism" is by no means viewed in a negative light, but an academic term (you might agree with or not), except it goes against your own personal beliefs (which do not matter here). The source continues to hang on the idea that "non-monotheism" is a degaratory term (which it is not):

In other words, the emic self-perception of the Judeo-Christian tradition

has provided value-laden parameters for the etic scholarly discourse on monotheism and

polytheism.12 In recent decades the suitability of such a monotheism – polytheism dichotom

Until now, the source appears to be a mere essay without historical value. This, however changes later drastically, and the quality of the source improves. I would like to skip the details (everyone can read it freely online), but point at the conclusion. <blockqote>"Each of the monotheistic,

dualistic and polytheistic features, mentioned at the beginning of this article and which Zoroastrianism presents to the observer, thus represents an essential constituent of the whole system. Taken together, their sum makes a self-contained theology with a remarkable degree of coherence and consistency. Notions of monotheism, dualism and polytheism are so closely intertwined in the Zoroastrian religion that it is difficult, if not impossible to separate them

from each other without causing the whole system to collaps" Here it becomes clear, that the source was not even about the question if it is monotheism or dualism, but how the view on Zorastrianism (including potentially polytheism) has changed over time. Now, it also makes sense that the author referred to the implied negative connotation of "polytheism". This is not the author's own interpretation (which would turn the paper into an essay and would very likely not be accepted for publication in the first place), but an overview of the terminology surrounding Zorastrianism. THe conclusion is that all these terms are a product of Western religious study discourse (not theology!) and none of them are appropriate. Since this source is about the usage of such terms and effectively a criticism on religious sciences and not about depicting Zorastrian cosmology, this can hadrly be used as a source to support Zorastian's qualification of being "monotheistic". (1979) defines its aim in the abstract as follows:

"I. DUALISTIC INTERPRETATIONS 1. The View That Angra Mainyu Is Primordial But Lacks Omnipo- tence And Omniscience (Dhalla, Henning) 2. The View That Angra Mainyu Is Primordial But Lacks A Physical Nature (Shaked, Boyce) II. MONOTHEISTIC INTERPRETATIONS 1. The Created Spirits View (Zaehner, Fox, Gershevitch) 2. The Transformationist (Maskhiyya) View 3. The Zurvinite View 4. The View That Good And Evil Are Coeternal Only In A Logical Sense (Moulton, Bode and Nanavutty, Duchesne-G" (...) "In brief, the interpretation we favor is that Zoroastrianism combines cosmogonic dualism and eschatological monotheism in a manner unique to itself among the major religions of the world. This combination results in a religious outlook which cannot be categorized as either straightforward dualism or "

After extensively elaborating why this cosmology is "dualistic" (including Zorastrian scripture), the paper continues with elaborating on the "monotheistic" view. Here, there is finally mentioning of scholars who proprosed "monotheism" in contrast to "dualism" properly forumalted:

"thodox. This historical judgment is made not only by Zaehner, Gershevitch, and Fox, but also by Rustom Masani, Jacques Duchesne-Guillemin, H. S. Nyberg, and others" (Zaehner, 1961:179; Fox:132; Masani:69; Duchesne- Guillemin

These scholars can be accepted as evidence for a monotheistic proposal throughout history. Their main point is supposed to be that there is a high God above Ahura Mazda who is God, and he created the spirit of good and evil:

"32). Gershevitch also interprets Yasna 44:7 as clearly meaning that Ahura Mazda is the sole creator of everything (13), and Zaehner is confident that Zoroaster proclaimed a doctrine of the creation that was in no way dualistic, but instead thoroughly monotheistic"

It has been, however, also pointed out, that they rely heavily on the Gathas:

"Fox admits as much when he says that "to reach any conclusion" about Zoro- aster's "view we must take widely separated utterances into account. In no single coherent statement does the prophet unambiguously proclaim mono- theism" (132). Moreover, the texts admit of other interpretations. The Yasna reference to "twins" is ambiguous, as is shown by the variety of interpreta- tions being discussed in this paper. It need not be taken to imply a common father, but can imply rather a coeval status of the two principles of good and evil"

It is further pointed out that even those who advocate for a "monotheism" label, are critizized in this paper:

"then we have a kind of ontological dualism lurking behind the monotheism of Zaehner, Gershevitch, and Fox, a dualism which strikes more deeply into the nature of things than monotheism. This would bring us back to a position not all that different from the dualistic views discussed"

The source does mention that the author defended the "monotheistic" interpretation the same way Christianity (usually) does by stating "ty? Fox says that it is because the actualization of evil can be made to serve Ahura Mazda's "ultimate purpose: the creation of free but loyal persons" (137). This answer has some philosophical plausibility and provides some religious satisfaction, but Fox cites no texts", thus the author of the paper makes clear, this is the personal opinion, not what we actually find in Zorastrian beliefs. The next passage, which is the second interpretation in favor of monotheism, can be skipped entirely, because it is said to suffer from the same deficits as the previous one. The third one might be indeed monotheistic (and has been accepted as such by many academics), but is its own separate article (Zurvanism) and its mythology is also described as "recounted in various non-Zoroastrian sources, is as follows.". Additionally, it is critizized for not qualifying as a religion at all. The fourth monotheistic hypothesis faces several issues as the previous ones again. In the conclusion, while the author makes clear they do not want to make final claims for the sake of not upsetting anyone, there are pretty strong remarks not to be ignored:

"To see why this is so, we can consider each of the four criteria in turn, as it applies to this interpretation. To take first the criterion of historical continuity, it is evident that this interpretation shares with dualism an ability to uphold the continuity of the Zoroastrian religion through time. For it need not posit a sharp break between an alleged monotheism of the early Avestan period and the undisputed dualistic cosmogony of the later Avestan and Sasanian periods. According to this

The paper continues with pointing out how Zorastrianism never managed to leave dualistic cosmology behind, and can only be interpreted as "Monotheistic" in very specific circumstances and by relying on philosophical arguements outside of what we actually have textual evidence for.

2021 sumamrizes how Persian religion moved from polytheism to Dualism. Here, it is critizized that Zorastrian dualism has been kinda frowned upon. However, the issue is not solved (contrarily to what the author inserted claims), by proposing that Zorastrianism is monotheistic, but rather that other "monotheistic" religions are actually dualsitic as well (it is known as mitigated dualism in Religious Studies btw).

Now I want to add that not only are the sources not in support of the claims, but there are good sources supporting the contrary view. According to "Skjærvø, Prods Oktor (2005)" in their "Introduction to Zorastrianism" states "Zoroastrianism is therefore a dualistic and polytheistic religion, but with one supreme god, 1 who is the father of the ordered cosmos"

Given that a basic work such as a simple introduction denotes it as Dualistic (or even polytheistic) while there is no source stating it is monotheistic (except to critize it or being critizized for doing so), there is no reason to call it "monotheistic" and definately no way to speak of "scholarly conensus". VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 00:34, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to invite @Simonm223 @TiggyTheTerrible, @Remsense to have a view over this and tell me their opinion on the sumamry of what @Wikaviani and @Researcher1988 have to say in defense that the advocated sources do not even support their claims. Maybe there should also be consequences for wasting the time of other editors, deceit to push their own agenda, and additionally the misconduct towards other Users during the related dispute. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 00:40, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@VenusFeuerFalle
You do not have any sources for your claims. your personal Opinions are irrelevant. you have to present sources that Zoroastrianism is dualistic and not Monotheistic. else, stop editing the page. there is no need for these long and meaningless talk page comments. just sources. thanks. Researcher1988 (talk) 01:22, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What personal opinions did they even state? Their entire post was going through your and other sources. Remsense诉 01:54, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not my area of expertise at all and I really want to get it right, so I'm presently going through the sources myself to triple-check and get an idea of what it should say instead, but nonetheless it's clear from what I've checked so far + VFF's survey that the passage in question simply does not reflect the sources it cites.
From what I've read so far, a summary would seem to be, "Only one deity (Ahura Mazda) is worthy of worship. They are the creator deity, and more important than any other entity. However, they are not the cosmological source of evil; Ahriman is."
With this rudimentary working understanding on my part, the scholarly descriptions as dualism make sense to me, and the descriptions as monotheism have to account for this in a different and narrower way than with Christianity or Islam. Further claims of a consensus scholarly characterization being simply "monotheism" would seem to be either bad faith or a competence issue on any given editor's part, I'm afraid. I'll let everyone know if I come across anything that changes my mind on this, but it's hard to ignore the obvious body of opposing material when characterizing the opposing as consensus. Remsense诉 01:53, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He is interpreting the sources to his own satisfaction.
The main issue here is that Dualism does not stand against Monotheism. Religious Dualism is just another form of Monotheism. so that's why Zoroastrianism is Monotheistic or at least has a dualistic Monotheism. this is exactly what the VFF's own sources state too. (James Boyd) Researcher1988 (talk) 02:01, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop referring to VFF as 'he'.
You are leaning on a broad definition that is even more obviously not the case. Since you cited Britannica earlier, I hope you won't mind my doing the same:

In religion, dualism means the belief in two supreme opposed powers or gods, or sets of divine or demonic beings, that caused the world to exist. It may conveniently be contrasted with monism, which sees the world as consisting of one principle such as mind (spirit) or matter; with monotheism; or with various pluralisms and polytheisms, which see a multiplicity of principles or powers at work. As is indicated below, however, the situation is not always clear and simple, a matter of one or two or many, for there are monotheistic, monistic, and polytheistic religions with dualistic aspects.

Remsense诉 02:10, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From Britannica:
"Some religions are in the main dualistic: they view the universe as comprising two basic and usually opposed principles, such as good and evil or spirit and matter. Insofar as the conception of a god and an antigod rather than that of two gods is encountered, this kind of religion can be considered another variation of monotheism."
"Some gnostic systems (ancient philosophical and religious movements based on esoteric knowledge and the dualism of matter and spirit and deemed heretical by orthodox Christians) came near to this idea: the demiurge who created the world and humanity is considered an evil being and contrasted with the good god. The most important instance of dualism within a religion is the Iranian religion Zoroastrianism, which emerged out of the teachings of the prophet and priest Zarathustra (also known by his Greek name, Zoroaster; died c. 551 BCE), in which Ahura Mazdā (the “Wise Lord,” or the good, supreme god) and Ahriman (Angra Manyu, the destructive spirit) are each other’s opposite and implacable enemy; at the end of time, Ahura Mazdā will defeat Ahriman. Dualism, the existence of two contrary and, as a rule, mutually inimical principles, must not be confused with the notion of polarity, in which both principles are mutually dependent so that the one cannot exist without the other. Within Zoroastrianism, this notion is also found. In Zurvanism, a movement that arose within Zoroastrianism and profoundly influenced its cosmology even though it was considered heretical, Ahura Mazdā and Ahriman both proceed from Zurvān Akarana (Limitless Time) and in the end..."
https://www.britannica.com/topic/monotheism/The-spectrum-of-views-monotheisms-and-quasi-monotheisms Researcher1988 (talk) 02:18, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which sources do no not even support their claim" ?---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 10:48, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1- George foot moore:
""The religion whose adherents call themselves "Worshippers of Mazda," the Wise God, and which we commonly name after its founder Zoroastrianism, is in many ways of peculiar interest. is the only monotheistic religion of Indo-European origin, Judaism is the one independent Semitic monotheism."
""By the side of these nature powers, the Immortal Ones become personal deities and receive divine worship... Ahura Mazda is the father and creator of them all; he brought them that they might be his ministers, and what he does is mainly done through their instrumentality. Each of them presides over a province of nature: Vohu Mano over animals, Asha Vahishta over fire, Khshatra Vairya metals, Spenta Armaiti is the goddess of earth; Ameretat are the genii of waters and plants respectively. the ecclesiastical calendar of later times each of these Amshaspands is regent of a certain month of the year and of a certain day of the month. All these divinities (Yazatas, modern Persian Izeds) are subordinate to Ahura Mazda; the theology is so far forth consistently monotheistic."
https://www.jstor.org/stable/1507426?seq=1
2- Shernaz Cama:
""For Zoroastrians, Ahura Mazda is the only one God. All good is comprehended within Him. Division and evil only appeared because of the hostile Spirit Ahriman. Evil is the disruption of the fundamental unity of Asha and because it negates, it destroys. Evil is the antithesis of good but the conflict between the two will end with the triumph of Asha, when evil shall ultimately perish."
3-Dorothea Ludekens:
""Zoroastrianism is a global religious tradition whose boundaries and ritual practices are challenged by changes in modern societies. As a religious tradition, Zoroastrianism traces itself back to the ancient Iranian Prophet Zarathushtra and identifies him as the origin of the authoritative Zoroastrian scriptures, liturgies, rituals, beliefs, and ethics. Zoroastrians call their religion Zarathushti Din or Mazdayasna Daena referring to Ahura Mazda (“Wise Lord”) as the creator of the world and their only God. While several kinds of positive spiritual beings, known as Yazatas, “[beings] worthy of worship,” support humanity…”
https://www.academia.edu/42395885/Zoroastrianism
4-Erhard Gerstenberger:
""In Zoroastrianism Ahura Mazda, the ‘Lord of Wisdom’ is considered a superior, all-encompassing deity, the only existing one, who may be venerated in all other god-manifestations. This certainly is a monotheistic concept."
https://www.academia.edu/27409859/Zoroastrianism_and_the_Bible_Monotheism_by_Coincidence
5-Mario Ferrero:
"The prophet Zoroaster is credited with the founding of the first monotheistic religion in history sometime around the middle of the second millennium BCE, antedating the Israelites and leaving a lasting imprint on Second Temple Judaism and, through it, on later monotheistic religions."
"Dualism is one way for a religion to address the problem of evil which is inherent in monotheism—how can a God who is thought to be all-powerful, all-knowing, and wholly good tolerate evil? Zoroaster’s answer is a radical, unbridgeable separation between the two principles: God did not create evil, nor does he tolerate it; rather, evil has always existed from before time, uncreated and personified as the Hostile Spirit, but will meet its end at Frasho-kereti someday; and it is God’s purpose and unceasing work to fight it to its extinction with the help of all the divine and worldly creatures. So one could say that while God is not quite the One and Only so long as the present time of Mixture lasts, he will indeed “become” such at the End, as the final victory of the good over evil is not to be doubted; and with the disappearance of Angra Mainyu and his cohorts, dualism will leave the field to unqualified monotheism. Other monotheistic religions which, like Judaism, Christianity and Islam, posit that God is the creator of everything, including evil, were driven to explain evil by resort to fallen angels (like Satan) or inferior supernatural beings who vie with God for man’s soul, thus replacing a philosophical conundrum with another (Boyce, 1982, 195; Cohn, 2001, 182 ff.; Pagels, 1996)."
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s41412-021-00113-4
These sources, among many others, claim Zoroastrianism is monotheistic and should be called monotheistic. Besides whats important to note here is that dualism does not stand in monotheism's way. belief in a separate source of evil is not against Monotheism. Researcher1988 (talk) 02:10, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
George Foot Moore and many of the others there openly contradict you. even in your quotes. Moore says "By the side of these nature powers, the Immortal Ones become personal deities and receive divine worship... Ahura Mazda is the father and creator of them all; he brought them that they might be his ministers, and what he does is mainly done through their instrumentality. Each of them presides over a province of nature: " Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 07:05, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Observations and proposal

@Researcher1988: with all due respect, your long detailed posts are simply an engagement in original research. This isn't really how Wikipedia discussions should operate. We should present, but not argue from, sources. What needs presenting here is an overview source that has reviewed all the sources you present and come to some sort of conclusion about them. It has to be an independent conclusion: then you just provide it, and assuming it's a quality reliable source, there in neither room nor need for argument.

Because Wikipedia prohibits original research, you are never going to get the majority of editors to agree on taking any position in Wikipedia voice if it requires such argumentation to convince them.

As I see it, the underlying problem is that the article does not have a section on the evolution of academic views on Zoroastrianism. It is extremely difficult at the stage of development of the article to tell whether the religion may or may not have evolved to be more or less monotheistic, or whether academic opinions on the matter are what has changed over time.

My suggestion is that that section needs to be written: a history of Zoroastrian Studies. Then that section can be summarized in the lead. In religion, things are rarely only one thing. The old proverb about the blind men and the elephant comes to mind. Skyerise (talk) 10:26, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I restored an old version of the article, before dispute. If I'm not mistaken, that version is the last stable and referenced version, it should remain as long as a consensus if found here, on the talk page.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 10:43, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Wikaviani
there are 2 editors here who hold different opinions:
1- tiggy the terrible, who is insisting on his opinions for 4 months,
2- Venus FF who (according to their own words) believes Zoroastrianism worships one deity, but thinks the religion should be called dualistic, without presenting any source on why It should not be called Monotheistic.
I suggest, first we deal with the second editor VFF and solve this problem, then the first editor Researcher1988 (talk) 11:03, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need to "deal with" any other editor. You just need to provide a source which details the history of the opinions in Zoroastrian studies and provides a summary and conclusion about those opinions. Skyerise (talk) 11:05, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I already provided several, the problem is that you don't care to check all the above threads.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 11:09, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Great. Use them to write the article section I've proposed so I can read a coherent paragraph or three on the topic. Skyerise (talk) 11:11, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Researcher1988 You want to 'deal' with us? Is that a threat? Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 08:32, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
should we provide sources to describe the meaning of English words to some users now? Researcher1988 (talk) 08:38, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Skyerise
I agree with your points. but the other editors (who hold opposite views) are doing the same thing: arguing from their own sources.
My point is that Wikipedia is not a place of discussion about whether this or that religion is Monotheistic, dualistic etc. Wikipedia should reflect the outside consensus.
According to these sources Zoroastrian is considered one of the oldest (if not the oldest) Monotheistic religions in the world:
1-https://www.history.com/topics/religion/zoroastrianism
2-https://www.worldhistory.org/zoroastrianism/
3-https://study.com/academy/lesson/zoroastrianism-definition-beliefs-history.html
4- https://www.britannica.com/topic/Zoroastrianism
there are enough reliable secondary sources to support this claim. why should a Wikipedia article reflect a different view?
thank you. Researcher1988 (talk) 10:48, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those are crap sources and there is no reason we should follow them. Skyerise (talk) 10:57, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Skyerise: Is WP:ONUS still in our guidelines ? you should wait to achieve consensus before editing this article, so far there is no consensus.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 11:05, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is a clear consensus in the section above that there is no consensus to call Zoroastrianism monotheistic. Skyerise (talk) 11:13, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I restored a version before dispute, that version should stand as long as there is no consensus to change it.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 11:15, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, there is a clear consensus against stating that Zoroastrianism is monotheistic at this point. Recent edits implemented that consensus and should remain. Skyerise (talk) 11:19, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Researcher1988 @Wikaviani Why is the ancient aliens website History.com a valid source, but an academic specialist in languages not? Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 12:52, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't say we should follow them. but they reflect the Consensus and there are enough secondary sources to support their claim. Researcher1988 (talk) 11:05, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those are not quality sources. Three are web sources and the fourth is a tertiary source. The only intellectually honest way to proceed is the find sources for and write the section I propose. Don't be lazy, you call yourself a "researcher"! Skyerise (talk) 11:07, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Skyerise: are thes sources from prominent experts of Iranian history and Avestan studies crap too :
[1][2][3]---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 11:12, 13 April 2024 (UTC) ---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 11:12, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, stop arguing from sources. Write a summary section on the topic without changing the rest of the article. Then all editors can read a coherent presentation rather than desparate talk page arguments extended ad naseum. Skyerise (talk) 11:16, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Stop arguing from sources" ? What are you talking about ? we go by what reliable sources say, not our personal opinions. I feel like I'm talking to a newbie while you're not.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 11:18, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Arguing from sources is a form of engaging in original research. If you had a clear unambiguous source, there would be no need to argue. When there are multiple opinions, we summarize them all: we don't choose between them. Therefore this sort of argumentation is a complete waste of other editors time. Write a summary section about all the opinions and how they have changed over time. The fact the someone in 1912 said something is simply a single data point. Where are the rest? Skyerise (talk) 11:20, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Skyerise
with all respect, Sources are not the problem. there are editors here who don't want to accept that they are wrong.
VFF edited theology section and removed texts with reliable sources, without providing any reason. their edits sure are a form of Vandalism.
they edited the lead and deleted sourced material without seeking any consensus or editors' opinion here. Researcher1988 (talk) 12:06, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With all respect, they are not wrong. When there are sources which say X, and other sources which say Y, and yet other sources which say Z, you can't just say "I've got 3 sources that say X. Game over." The game is not over. You have to also include and summarize opinions Y and Z. You are failing to do that, because you want to support only one of the range of opinions. That's not what we do here. Skyerise (talk) 12:51, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. I'm still waiting to find out why "divine beings worthy of worship and sacrifice" are not considered gods. Never mind an explanation as to the well documented presence of Mithra etc in the Aveta, and his title being the same as Mazda. 12:54, 13 April 2024 (UTC) Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 12:54, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and I want to know things like: X was the majority opinion in the 19th century, Y was the majority opinion in the 20th century, but Z is the majority opinion in the 21st century. I don't care which is X, Y, or Z, I want to know the history of the matter. Only then can we really give a summary in the lead that does the subject justice. I don't know why editors should be resistant to writing the necessary summary first so we can gain some clarity on the issue. Skyerise (talk) 13:01, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This would be a very good good idea @Skyerise. It seems increasingly clear that Zoroastrianism has been primarily viewed through a Western lens, and that it has been influenced by both Christian and Islamic ideas. I truly doubt that the English edition of Avesta would contain such a large amount of specifically Christian terminology that does not exist in the original language if this were not the case. For example, calling one of the seven Immortals/virtues (Amesha Spenta) the 'holy spirit'. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 08:37, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those texts contained other opinions as well. VFF is not against it being Monotheistic, they insists that it should be called Dualistic but presents no sources why. even one of their own sources says the religion can't be described as straightforward Dualistic:
https://academic.oup.com/jaar/article-abstract/XLVII/4/557/744081
"In brief, the interpretation we favor is that Zoroastrianism combines cosmogonic dualism and eschatological monotheism in a manner unique to itself among the major religions of the world. This combination results in a religious outlook which cannot be categorized as either straightforward dualism or straightforward monotheism..." Researcher1988 (talk) 13:01, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unambiguous sources have been provided by me with quotes several times here and in the article, please check by yourself.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 18:02, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Totalling Consensus on Monotheism

The stats for the people currently editing this page thus far are against Monotheism as an explanation if Dualism is counted as an objection to it. However; if 'Objection' and 'Support' votes both cancel each other out to become "No consensus" votes, then the true majority vote is to remain neutral on the topic of Monotheism and represent both views equally. I'm sure this will cause another massive debate, but I would prefer it to be down here instead of in the middle of the vote itself. However, I'm hoping the 'Support' side will see this as an olive branch.

  • Objections:; 2
  • No consensus on monotheism: 2
  • Support Monotheistic view: 2
  • Dualism: 1

Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 10:33, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a WP:POOL, we don't vote, the WP:BURDEN is on those who want to change the article, that makes edits like this one unwarranted.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 17:58, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notwithstanding our difference of opinion about how to accurately reflect the academic consensus surrounding Zoroastrianism I would concur, as I mentioned below, wikipedia parlance uses !vote in place of vote for a reason. Simonm223 (talk) 18:00, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, but I'm considering to step out this mess and let people here label this religion as they want, since this talk page is turning into a battleground and I'm not interested in fighting other Wikipedians. @Researcher1988: I advise you to do the same, this article seems to be owned by some editors who refuse to ackowledge WP:CON, WP:BRD, WP:ONUS and so on, let them label Zoroastrianism as polytheistic if they want, we both did our best to avoid that, but who cares ...---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 18:11, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Wikaviani The user known as Researcher constantly tells us we need 'consensus' on the page, and has launched multiple versions of this vote, so pelase talk to them rather tham me. Page votes are a common tool. I find it very interesting that you warning Researcher about other people engaging in [WP:OWN]. Researcher very much treats the page as if they own it, to the point that I cannot even make superficial grammatical or aesthetic edits. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 07:34, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Wikaviani
I suggest it is time for a RFC.
There are users here who really think they own the article and change it whenever they want and put anything they want in it. Researcher1988 (talk) 20:37, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of Zoroastrian studies

I hope it helps:

Overview of Zoroastrianism:

1-Zoroastrianism believes In one single creator deity who is all-good, omnipotent and omniscient.

2-Zoroastrianism believes that the Evil principle has an origin separate from god; this dualism is cosmological, and thus Zoroastrianism is both Monotheistic and cosmologically dualistic.

3-In Zoroastrianism, material creation is considered holy, and every beneficent and holy creation is Considered “Worthy of worship” or a “Yazata.” thus, while Yazatas are divinities created by God, and should not be considered a “god”, they are considered worthy of worhip or veneration. Even in (Yasna 3) prophet Zoroaster himself is called a Yazata.

Summary of Zoroastrianism studies:

1700

Orientalist Thomas Hyde, concluded that Zoroaster was a strict Monotheist sent by god to repeat the work of Abraham among the ancient Iranians and he supposed that his teachings was misinterpreted by Greeks and other people. This Judeo-Christian interpretation of Zoroastrianism established itself firmly in the academic world for three-quarters of a century.

Mary Boyce – Zoroastrians, Their religious beliefs and practices - Pub: Routledge (december 14, 2000)


1860

Martin Haug, German Philologist suggested that In the Gathas, Zoroaster rejects every divine being other than Ahura Mazda, and the Dualism is merely philosophical and the Amesha Spentas were nothing but Abstract Nouns and Ideas.

Mary Boyce – Zoroastrians, Their religious beliefs and practices - Pub: Routledge; (december 14, 2000)

1912

George Foot Moore, American Historian of Religions, calls Zoroastrianism, the only Monotheistic religion of Indo-European Origin. He believes that in the Gathas, Ahura Mazda has no partner or rival, the Yazatas or Zoroastrian Divinities, are subordinate to Ahura Mazda and believes this is certainly a Monotheistic Doctrine.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/1507426?seq=1

Early 20th

Maneckji Dhalla, a Zoroastrian Theologian and priest, describes Ahura Mazda as, “the Being par excellence. Who sits at the apex among the celestial beings of Heaven. He is not begotten, nor is there one like unto him. Beyond him, apart from him, and without him nothing exists. He is the supreme being through whom everything exists. He knows no elder, he has no equal and There is none to dispute his supremacy and contest his place, Nor is there one to struggle successfully with him for the mastery of the heavens. He is the first and foremost. He is the most perfect being. He is almighty and the absolute sovereign.

Maneckji Nusservanji Dhalla – history of Zoroastrianism


1979

James Boyd, believes that Zoroastrianism combines cosmogonic dualism and eschatological monotheism in a manner unique to itself among the major religions of the world. This combination results in a religious outlook which cannot be categorized as either straightforward dualism or straightforward monotheism. Zoroastrianism proclaims a movement through time from dualism toward monotheism, i.e., a dualism which is being made false by the dynamics of time, and a monotheism which is being made true by those same dynamics of time. The meaning of the eschaton in Zoroastrianism is thus the triumph of monotheism, the good God Ahura Mazdä having at last won his way through to complete and final ascendancy.

https://academic.oup.com/jaar/article-abstract/XLVII/4/557/744081

1995

Prods Oktor skjærvø, claims Zoroastrianism is Dualistic and Polytheistic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Researcher1988 (talk • contribs) 07:57, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2011

Erhard Gersenberger, American Theologist and professor of old testament studies, writes that: “In Zoroastrianism Ahura Mazda, the ‘Lord of Wisdom’ is considered a superior, all-encompassing deity, the only existing one, who may be venerated in all other god-manifestations. This certainly is a monotheistic concept."

https://www.academia.edu/27409859/Zoroastrianism_and_the_Bible_Monotheism_by_Coincidence

2012

Almut Hintze, professor of Zoroastrian studies in university of London, writes that: “The rejection and demonisation of the Daivas and their cult in the Avesta has all the features which characterize a monotheistic movement whereby the elevation of one deity, in our case Ahura Mazdā, is concomitant with the rejection of all other gods.”

https://eprints.soas.ac.uk/16952/1/073%202013%20Change%20%26%20Continuity.pdf

2013

Almut Hintze, in another article investigates the Monotheistic, Dualistic and polytheistic features of Zoroastrianism and comes to conclusion that: Zoroastrianism' is 'Monotheistic, but “Zoroastrianism has its own particular form of Monotheism: Monotheism, the Zoroastrian way.

http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S1356186313000333

2020

Dorothea Luddeckens, from university of Zurich, in “The Sage Encyclopedia of the Sociology of Religion,” states that: “Zoroastrianism is a global religious tradition whose boundaries and ritual practices are challenged by changes in modern societies. As a religious tradition, Zoroastrianism traces itself back to the ancient Iranian Prophet Zarathushtra and identifies him as the origin of the authoritative Zoroastrian scriptures, liturgies, rituals, beliefs, and ethics. Zoroastrians call their religion Zarathushti Din or Mazdayasna Daena referring to Ahura Mazda (“Wise Lord”) as the creator of the world and their only God. While several kinds of positive spiritual beings, known as Yazatas, “[beings] worthy of worship,” support humanity…”

https://www.academia.edu/42395885/Zoroastrianism

2022

Dr. Shernaz Cama, Honorary Director, UNESCO Parzor Project for the preservation and promotion of Parsi Zoroastrian Culture and Heritage, writes that: “For Zoroastrians, Ahura Mazda is the only one God. All good is comprehended within Him. Division and evil only appeared because of the hostile Spirit Ahriman. Evil is the disruption of the fundamental unity of Asha and because it negates, it destroys. Evil is the antithesis of good but the conflict between the two will end with the triumph of Asha, when evil shall ultimately perish.”

https://www.academia.edu/100018445/The_Dawn_of_History_Zoroastrianism_Ideas_and_Impact

2022

Professor Mario Ferrero, Economist and expert on religious subjects, claims that: “The prophet Zoroaster is credited with the founding of the first monotheistic religion in history sometime around the middle of the second millennium BCE...” Ferrero believes that Zoroastrianism’s Religious dualism will be resolved at the end of the world, and interprets the Yazatas as divinities similar to angels and saints in Judeo-Christianity who are subordinate to godhead.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s41412-021-00113-4 Researcher1988 (talk) 11:49, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Researcher1988 Among other problems, Angels are NOT worshiped or offered sacrifice, so the comparison makes no sense. There's also the problem that Mazda himself is a Yazata, and there are two other Ahuras. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 14:14, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Bomati, Yves; Nahavandi, Houchang (2015). Les grandes figures de l’Iran (in French). Éditions Perrin. doi:10.3917/perri.bomat.2015.01. ISBN 978-2-262-06488-4. Zarathustra, the monotheistic reformer
  2. ^ Kellens, Jean (2016). L'Avesta, Zoroastre et les sources des religions indo-iraniennes. Les accusations de dualisme ne sont pas sans fondement mais elles sont sans portée. Le dualisme du fondateur n'est pas de nature religieuse mais philosophique et cette philosophie est imprégnée de morale. Elle fonde une éthique du comportement qui exige le discernement entre le bien et le mal et est soumise à unerétribution posthume.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link)
  3. ^ Moore, George Foot (1912). "Zoroastrianism". The Harvard Theological Review. 5 (2): 180–226. ISSN 0017-8160. The religion whose adherents call themselves "whorshippers of Mazda", the wise God, and which we commonly name after its founder Zoroastrianism, is in many ways of peculiar interest. It is the only Monotheistic religion of Indo-European origin as Judaism is the one independent Semitic Monotheism.
The issue I see here is these sources seem to have been cherry-picked for their opinion. I know there are also sources that reject the view that it is monotheistic. For the section to be NPOV, these positions must be sought out and included. Who comes down in favor of Dualism - they have to be included. Are there more qualified positions, do any sources use "Dualistic monotheism" or "Monotheistic dualism" to describe it? These also must be included. Also, even if it is a minority opinion, sources that suggest polytheism should also be addressed. This list should be developed with an attitude completely without bias for one position or the other so we can write a decent summary. Skyerise (talk) 13:28, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And reading more of this talk page, it seems some sources call it Henotheism or perhaps Monolatry. I don't see those listed here either. Skyerise (talk) 13:39, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
these are some of the most famous sources. Almut hintze did one of the best researches in this field, and also, Dorothea Luddeckens entry in "the sage encyclopedia of sociology of religion" can be considered the current Scholarly consensus. Researcher1988 (talk) 01:56, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also James boyd that I have included is in favor of calling the religion "Monotheistic dualism" or "Dualistic Monotheism." I tried my best to include all sources. inside the articles, for example Almut Hintze article, many of these so called sources are reviewed. Researcher1988 (talk) 02:00, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've added skjærvø to this list. as far as I remember, he is the only person who is against calling the religion Monotheistic. Researcher1988 (talk) 07:58, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Researcher1988 So now we're back onto sociology being okay after it was rubbished earlier? And you are ignoring the parts of those sources that say things like the religion was no one thing over its history? And you ignore me too. How are the Yazata Angels when Angels are NOT worshiped or offered sacrifice, but Yazata ARE? And how can the three Ahuras also be Yazata if the Yazata are just created angels?
@Skyerise I think Researcher just ignores anything that contradicts them. But since we have the results of the vote, we should simply move forward with making the page neutral on the subject of monotheism.Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 07:00, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
no. these are the Majority of sources. The religion is Monotheistic. there is a scholarly Consensus about that. if we can't reach a Consensus here, we should call Admins and other editors for their Opinion. Researcher1988 (talk) 07:06, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Researcher1988 The consensus is neutrality on the issue, and your sources make clear there are other gods in these religions. Mary Boyde, who you cite, says that they were only called angels because they were under Muslim occupation. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 08:22, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TiggyTheTerrible
No. it is not. According to majority of Sources Zoroastrianism is Monotheistic and there are no Gods in Zoroastrianism. Researcher1988 (talk) 08:31, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Researcher1988 Your own sources debunk you.
  • Mary Boyde says: the Zoroastrians had "lesser gods".
  • George Foot Moore says: "By the side of these nature powers, the Immortal Ones become personal deities and receive divine worship..."
  • Professor Mario Ferrero, Economist "Zoroaster carried out a “reform” of Iranian polytheism, asking his followers to change their ways and beliefs but not to throw away all they had. Consequently, lesser divine beings or “gods” and many old rituals remained, to the dismay of modern European Christian scholars who were looking for a “pure” monotheism."
Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 08:47, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. You totally miss the point. Zoroastrianism is Monotheistic. Yazatas are not gods. the old "Gods" became "Yazatas" or angels of the new Religion. Researcher1988 (talk) 08:50, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All those sources call Zoroastrianism Monotheistic. Worship of Yazatas is not against Monotheism. because they are not worshipped as gods equal to Ahura Mazda. It is clear and very simple. Researcher1988 (talk) 08:52, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The issue was debated at length by Almut Hintze. See HINTZE, ALMUT. “Monotheism the Zoroastrian Way.” Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society 24, no. 2 (2014): 225–49. [1], which also contains a summary of the scholarly controversy. I wouldn't say that the point of that article is that Zoroastrianism' is 'Monotheistic, but “Zoroastrianism has its own particular form of Monotheism: Monotheism, the Zoroastrian way. An excerpt might be helpful.

Excerpt from Hintze 2014

[...] The religion thus seems to involve monotheistic, polytheistic and dualistic features simultaneously.

In the ongoing scholarly debate on the classification of Zoroastrianism according to the terms just mentioned views differ according to which of these features is given most prominence, and usually the labels attached to Zoroastrianism combine two features out of a possible three (or four).Footnote 2 For instance, Boyd and Crosby's answer to the question posed in the title of their article “Is Zoroastrianism Dualistic or Monotheistic?, is that the religion starts from a cosmogonic dualism, but over time moves towards an eschatological monotheism.Footnote 3 Schwartz, with regard to the oldest texts of the Zoroastrian tradition, the Gathas, defines the religion as a “monotheistic dualism”Footnote 4 and Gnoli, who considers dualism to be incompatible with polytheism, as a “dualistic monotheism”Footnote 5 while Panaino considers Mazdāism to be synonymous with monotheism because of Ahura Mazdā's sovereign role in the religious system.Footnote 6 By contrast, Skjærvø admits both dualism and polytheism but excludes monotheism.Footnote 7 As far as the Gathas are concerned, Kellens accepts cosmic dualism for the opposition between a a- ‘order’ and druj- ‘deceit’, but not for that between the two mainyus or ‘spirits’ which in his view denote right and wrong human mental forces.Footnote 8 Regarding the terms polytheism and monotheism, Kellens, while emphasizing the pre-eminent role of Ahura Mazdā, comments that the two alternatives are “just as absurd as that of the half-full or half-empty bottle”, and rightly notes the inadequacy of any of these terms on its own.Footnote 9

One of the difficulties arises from the fact that the notions of monotheism, polytheism and dualism are defined not on the basis of Zoroastrianism but on that of other religions, in particular the Judeo–Christian tradition. [...] Having been defined from the scholarly perspective of the Judeo-Christian tradition since the period of the Enlightenment, the two terms came to constitute a dichotomy of mutually exclusive opposites. Consequently “monotheism” was claimed as the label of the Judeo-Christian tradition and endowed with greater prestige than the “polytheism” attributed to some non-Judeo-Christian religions and perceived as both challenging to and in opposition to monotheism.

[...] An adequate characterization of Zoroastrianism is obviously not possible by imposing terms the contents of which have been defined on the basis of other religions. Rather than asking whether Zoroastrianism is monotheistic or polytheistic – a question the legitimacy of which has rightly been doubted – in what follows I hope to throw light on and suggest an explanation for the mixture of seemingly monotheistic, polytheistic and dualistic features mentioned above, which Zoroastrianism presents to the observer.

[...] Each of the monotheistic, dualistic and polytheistic features, mentioned at the beginning of this article and which Zoroastrianism presents to the observer, thus represents an essential constituent of the whole system. Taken together, their sum makes a self-contained theology with a remarkable degree of coherence and consistency. Notions of monotheism, dualism and polytheism are so closely intertwined in the Zoroastrian religion that it is difficult, if not impossible to separate them from each other without causing the whole system to collapse.

Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:12, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"She adds that Zoroastrianism has its own form of Monotheism: the Zoroastrian way." as you said this can be very helpful. Researcher1988 (talk) 05:12, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was quoting your summary of Hintze's article, which I don't believe is entirely accurate. Here's my summary:
Zoroastrianism can be described (and has been described by reliable sources) as monotheistic, dualistic, and also polytheistic. According to Hintze, each of these terms provides an incomplete and potentially misleading characterisation of Zoroastrianism, whose main feature is the way these elements are combined into a coherent doctrine. Hintze argues that debating whether Zoroastrianism qualifies as strictly monotheistic (or dualistic, etc.) is pointless, since the question is meaningful only in the perspective of our Judeo-Christian notion of deity, which emphasizes the idea of "one true God."
As WP editors committed to neutrality, we must "describe disputes, but not engage in them" (WP:VOICE), "fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources" (WP:UNDUE) and "describ[e] the opposing views clearly, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint" (WP:BALANCE). Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:19, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gitz6666 I think that's essentially my view on the subject too. The question of what it is does really seem to depend, also, on the era you are talking about. I'm pretty sure they went more towards Monolatry after the Islamic & Christian missionary period and up into the modern day. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 19:26, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vote on Edit Conflicts

Mary Boyde is a source accepted by @Researcher1988, but when I try to add a specific quote from her to the page stating that the word "'angel' is commonly substituted for Yazad" in order to "counter Muslim accusations of polytheism" he reverts it, demanding consensus. Therefore I would like to call a vote. Should we be allowed to cherry-pick and quote-mine sources, or must the whole source be used? Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 08:55, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We should wait till we reach a consensus. besides You totally changed the lead in a way it wasn't supported by the sources. Researcher1988 (talk) 09:00, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Researcher1988 Stop using votes as forums. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 09:05, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to that, those material belong to theology section, not the lead. Researcher1988 (talk) 09:05, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Editors should be allowed to edit outside the area of discussion. That said, we must try to avoid using the word "claim": it implies doubt and thus is not WP:NPOV.
I'd also like to suggest that it would be helpful to slow down on the reverts - wait an hour or two so other editors might have a chance to see the change and perhaps improve it. Skyerise (talk) 10:22, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
but he tried to change the lead in a manner that was related to the area of discussion. Researcher1988 (talk) 10:57, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anything wrong with the changes besides the use of the word "claim"... I've restored part of it. Skyerise (talk) 11:31, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've put it back into the lede pending discussion on article talk about the appropriate place to put it. Simonm223 (talk) 12:05, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've put it into theology section again. this text in unrelated to lead and should be part of Theology section. Researcher1988 (talk) 12:11, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Researcher1988 Thank you for not removing it, but I find it interesting that every citation conflicting your beliefs about Zoroastrianism ends up buried as far down the article as possible. 18:20, 17 April 2024 (UTC) Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 18:20, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "votes" and !votes

Wikipedia does not operate via up or down vote - instead we build consensus by discussion on talk page of sources and of associated Wikipedia policy. This is why the general nomenclature is !vote - which implies a non-vote. I think everybody on this talk page would be wise to remember this. Simonm223 (talk) 12:05, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Simonm223
I Provided a summary of Zoroastrianism studies, is it helpful in reaching consensus? Researcher1988 (talk) 12:17, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not particularly. It was very long and seemed like a lot of WP:SYNTH - I would strongly recommend you step away from this article for a week or two and get some distance. Simonm223 (talk) 12:26, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Simonm223
It was a summary of Zoroastrianism studies, as far as I had access to. Researcher1988 (talk) 12:41, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but as I've repeatedly said, what we need is a overview source that summarizes the opinions; you summarizing the opinions is simply not the way it is done, because you have an agenda and that makes your summary potentially unreliable because you leave out sources. Even if that wasn't the case, we can't count sources to derive the majority opinon (that's original research). You must find a source that clearly states: the majority opinion is X. Again, for Wikipedia editors to draw a conclusion by counting sources is not admissable, it's original research. So please stop wasting our time doing it and just find a source that makes the statement. Skyerise (talk) 19:52, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Skyerise
Is this enough?
Almut Hintze (2013):
“There is general agreement among scholars that there is one supreme god in Zoroastrianism, Ahura Mazda. From the oldest sources, the Gathas and Yasna Haptanghaiti, to present day religious practice, all worship, both ritual and devotional, is focused on him…” Researcher1988 (talk) 02:56, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, please read this Article by Almut Hintze to get a better understanding of the Zoroastrian theology. this study sums up the Opinions of Theologians regarding Zoroastrianism.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/271934655_Monotheism_the_Zoroastrian_Way Researcher1988 (talk) 03:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This source looks valuable and provides the kind of "overview" Skyerise is looking for. Please read this excerpt. We could use it to expand/rewrite the Zoroastrianism#Theism subsection, or at least add to it the following text:

Zoroastrianism combines elements of monotheism, dualism and polytheism. According to Almut Hintze, each of these terms provides an incomplete and potentially misleading characterisation of Zoroastrianism, whose main feature is the way these elements are combined into a coherent doctrine

Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:42, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Thank you. All three views have to be acknowledged. In classical times, the general consensus was dualism. I thnik I was misunderstood that I wanted a history on the talk page. A history of academic studies and views needs to be added to the article. Only then will we be able to include the appropriate balance in summaries in the lead. Skyerise (talk) 10:12, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I added an overview under theology. Seems since it is complicated it would be best to introduce the views first. Some of the theism subsection might need to be integrated there, and these above statements should also be added. We can discuss the ultimate placement of the materials if there is disgreements about where I put it. Skyerise (talk) 10:40, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Almut hintze Calls the religion Monotheistic, but a Monotheism unique to Zoroastrianism which combines dualistic and polytheistic elements. Is it not enough for editors here to label the religion as monotheistic? Researcher1988 (talk) 13:13, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think its better to move that overview, to theism subsection and mix it with the already existing texts. Researcher1988 (talk) 13:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That really doesn't sound like monotheism to me. That sounds like Monolatry. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 19:28, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jenny Rose says there is no widespread consensus on Zoroastrian Monotheism

I've been trying to contact researchers who deal with Zoroastrianism directly, and Jenny just got back to me. While I'm still waiting for a hard source I can share, her view is there is no consensus on Zoroastrian monotheism at all. Her exact words being: > "In this regard, there is no consensus among scholars as to how to define the Z religion, particularly as to whether it is ‘monotheistic,’ ‘dualistic,’ ‘henotheistic’ or ‘pantheistic.’ " I think this is very good news, and actually reflects our vote here on the topic. I'm hoping that once she gets back to me, we can finally put this to bed and make the page a lot more neutral. This should help a lot in terms of accuracy of the page, because the sources typically seem to reflect the idea that Zoroastrianism has changed wildly over the centuries. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 11:01, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

where is the direct text and source? there are others who say exactly the contrary Researcher1988 (talk) 13:10, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This was over email, but I'm working on it. But if I can produce it, will you accept it? Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 15:43, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. I wont accept it. because there should be a reliable source for this claim. not an email Researcher1988 (talk) 16:21, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Researcher1988 I think I made it clear that I was not referring to the email. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 16:31, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Only reliable sources. Researcher1988 (talk) 16:36, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you find this source Jenny sent me reliable? Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 18:51, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This looks like a reliable source based on a surface read but I haven't had time to review in depth. Simonm223 (talk) 19:06, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @Simonm223. Let me know if you think it would be enough to push for full neutrality on the monotheism/polytheism issue and explore both topics evenly. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 19:23, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Boyce says Zoroastrianism was influenced by Islam

According to Mary Boyce, one of the people on Reasearcher1988's list of sources, the Islamic Califate is the reason that the Yazad are sometimes called "angels". She has an entire chapter on this in one of her books. However, the specific page is 157. Wherein she says that: "Thus the religious vocabulary of both shows an admixture of Arabic words, witness to the pervasive influence of Arabic on spoken Persian after two and a half centuries of domination. In both communities, the word 'fereshte' or 'angel' is commonly substituted for 'yazad', the result no doubt of trying to counter Muslim accusations of polytheism." I think this makes it very clear that either 1) this author must be stricken from the page, or 2) we must add this information. Otherwise we are engaging in WP:CHERRYPICKING. 16:30, 16 April 2024 (UTC) Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 16:30, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

this means not that Zoroastrianism was influenced by Islam at all. Mary Boyce believes that Yazatas should be left untranslated and just be called Yazatas (Not angels, or gods).
and I have no problem with adding Mary Boyce to the article. Researcher1988 (talk) 16:35, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Researcher1988 Do you have an issue with me adding sections involving the quote I have put in bold above? Incidentally, one of your sources for the Zoroastrians influencing Christianity only talks about the art. It doesn't mention angels, heaven, hell, free will, judgement, or most of the others - bar demons. It's written by an artist and Islamic Theologian - not an expert on Zoroastrianism. Never mind a famous one. The other source here is an economics journal. I feel both should be stricken out. Though I am quite interested to see that the first source calls the Zoroastrian Mithras a god. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 16:53, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the text in bold is already present in theology section. Researcher1988 (talk) 17:24, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sara kuehn is a researcher and expert on religious and cultural studies:
"www.sarakuehn.com I am a researcher, writer, and lecturer, presently teaching at the Department of Islamic Theology, University of Vienna, working at the interdisciplinary juncture of (art) history, anthropology, theology, religious and cultural studies." Researcher1988 (talk) 17:34, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Researcher1988 Yes. Art history. Theology. Cultural studies. Doesn't that fall rather short of your strict demands for specific experts in Zoroastrianism that you say preclude me from including a linguist who is an expert in the local languages? And, again, the other is an economist who we have not seen to have specific expertise here? Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 18:45, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
no Researcher1988 (talk) 21:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FunFact, some researchers believe that the Zorastrian religion is alrgely lost, since Persians only started to be interested in their religion again, after the embraced Islam and then, most of their ancient language was lost. Works such as the Shanameh, often celebrated as resistance against Islamization, are actually relying heavenly on Islam. Can't give a source, since it was in a discussion with an expert on research of Persian history who introduced me to the Middle Persian language. (but since this turned into kindof an exchange and this talkpage is a mess anyways, maybe this is an interesting note) VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 01:19, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@VenusFeuerFalle If you could track something down about that, it would be very illuminating. I believe the Islamic period is critical to understanding the claims of monotheism.
@Researcher1988 A one word answer implies you cannot actually oppose what I said. If you cannot, then I will be adding the word 'art' to that section or removing the source. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 16:57, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
She is a highly trusted academic.
"Dr. Sara Kuehn is a researcher writer and lecturer, presently teaching at department of Islamic theology, university of Vienna, working at the interdisciplinary juncture of art history, anthropology, theology, religious and cultural studies." Researcher1988 (talk) 09:08, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I meet something along the line, I will surely add this. I did not finish my seminar due to the whole situation around COVID a few years ago, and have no contact to the teacher anymore. If I stumble upon something along the line, I surely want to add this. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 14:21, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@VenusFeuerFalle
Funfact: Zoroastrianism is one of the world oldest continuing practiced religions. nobody believes that nonsense.
Iranisns were forced to accept Islam. they didn't embraced Islam. you need to read more about subjects you don't know anything about. you don't know anything about Zoroastrianism. your personal opinions are irrelevant.
Michael Stausberg:
"Zoroastrianism is one of the oldest living religions in the world. It has a very rich history and was the dominant religious tradition of pre-Islamic Iran. Zoroastrians lived in close neighbourhood to adherents of various other religions such as Jews, Christians, Manicheans, Buddhists, and others. It is generally held that Zoroastrianism made an impact on several of these religions — as well as on Islam in its formative period."
https://www.academia.edu/1792246/On_the_study_of_Zoroastrianism
This is pure hatred against Zoroastrians. you should be reported for your racism. Researcher1988 (talk) 08:56, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strike this entire reply, it's nothing but tendentious bile. You've very quickly shed any appearance of editing in good faith in your last few days of remarks. Remsense诉 09:18, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why you think like this? these users hate Zoroastrianism, they are attacking the Religion and me who want to defend it. you know this very well. Researcher1988 (talk) 10:05, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is an impudence this user is still allowed to reply. It is a gree-card for the most obnoxious behavior. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 14:19, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As said, I am gonna ignore you until you apologize for your misconduct. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 14:17, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Researcher1988 So you are admitting that your concern is in protecting an ideological position, rather than about factuality or following Wikipedia's guidelines? And you do so by pushing for a section that you cannot source which Muslims, Jews, and so on would be upset by? Do you think that Muslims or Jews might find that racist at all? Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 15:58, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

proposed text for theology section

@Skyerise

I provided a text, based on your new added overview and have integrated some paragraphs from the theism subsection in this text too. this text should be added to "Theism" subsection:

Zoroastrianism is often regarded as one of the oldest monotheistic religions in the world. Although Ahura Mazda is the supreme god, and Zoroastrians regard him as the creator of the world and their only God, Zoroastrianism believes in lesser divinities known as Yazatas, who are several kinds of positive spiritual beings that support humanity.” (ref: Ferrero and dorothea ludekens). These yazatas ("good agents") include Anahita, Sraosha, Mithra, Rashnu, and Tishtrya. Richard Foltz has put forth evidence that Iranians of Pre-Islamic era worshipped all these figures, especially Mithra and Anahita. (foltz ref)

In addition to this, Zoroastrianism believes in an evil principle whose origin is separate from God and acts in opposition to Ahura Mazda and his creation. This antagonist who is called “Angra Mainyu” or “the evil spirit” in the Avesta, is the embodiment of evil and his only desire is to bring disorder and destruction to Ahura Mazda’s Perfect world. (ref hintze)

The unique features of Zoroastrianism has caused Scholars and theologians to debate how best to classify Zoroastrianism theism, and according to Almut Hintze, “usually the labels attached to Zoroastrianism combine two features out of a possible three (or four). (ref hintze)

During 18th century, the Orientalist Thomas Hyde, concluded that Zoroaster was a strict Monotheist sent by god to repeat the work of Abraham among the ancient Iranians and he supposed that his teachings was misinterpreted by Greeks and other people. This Judeo-Christian interpretation of Zoroastrianism established itself firmly in the academic world nearly for 75 years. (ref boyce)

During 1860s, Martin Haug, German Philologist suggested that In the Gathas, Zoroaster rejects every divine being other than Ahura Mazda, and the Dualism is merely philosophical and the Amesha Spentas were nothing but Abstract Nouns and Ideas. (ref mary boyce)

The arrival of the German orientalist and philologist Martin Haug led to a rallied defense of the faith through Haug's reinterpretation of the Avesta through Christianized and European orientalist lens. Haug postulated that Zoroastrianism was solely monotheistic with all other divinities reduced to the status of angels while Ahura Mazda became both omnipotent and the source of evil as well as good. Haug's thinking was subsequently disseminated as a Parsi interpretation, thus corroborating Haug's theory, and the idea became so popular that it is now almost universally accepted as doctrine (though being reevaluated in modern Zoroastrianism and academia). (ref)

In 1912, George Foot Moore, American Historian of Religion, calls Zoroastrianism, the only Monotheistic religion of Indo-European Origin. Further, He believes that in the Gathas, Ahura Mazda has no partner or rival, the Yazatas or Zoroastrian Divinities are subordinate to Ahura Mazda and believes this is certainly a Monotheistic Doctrine. (ref foot moore)

Later, Boyd and Crosby suggest: “that Zoroastrianism combines cosmogonic dualism and eschatological monotheism in a manner unique to itself among the major religions of the world. This combination results in a religious outlook which cannot be categorized as either straightforward dualism or straightforward monotheism. Zoroastrianism proclaims a movement through time from dualism toward monotheism, i.e., a dualism which is being made false by the dynamics of time, and a monotheism which is being made true by those same dynamics of time. The meaning of the eschaton in Zoroastrianism is thus the triumph of monotheism, the good God Ahura Mazdä having at last won his way through to complete and final ascendancy.” (ref boyd)

According to the oldest texts of the Zoroastrian tradition, the Gathas, Schwartz defines Zoroastrianism as a Monotheistic Dualism, while Gnoli calls it a dualistic Monotheism; and Panaino, because of Ahura Mazda’s sovereign role in the religious system, considers Mazdaism to be Monotheistic. But Kellens accepts cosmic dualism for the opposition between Asha and Druj, but not for that between the two spirits. (ref Hintze)

Prods Oktor Skjærvø states Zoroastrianism is henotheistic, and "a dualistic and polytheistic religion, but with one supreme god, who is the father of the ordered cosmos". Other scholars state that this is unclear, because historic texts present a conflicting picture, ranging from Zoroastrianism's belief in "one god, two gods, or a best god henotheism.” (ref sk)

Dr Almut Hintze believes that Zoroastrianism has its "own form of monotheism" which combines elements of dualism and polytheism, and calls it Monotheism, the Zoroastrian way. (ref hintze) It has otherwise been opined that Zoroastrianism is totally monotheistic with only dualistic elements. (ref)

Shernaz Cama suggests that the definition of dualism lends credence to the monotheism of the Zoroastrian faith. A basic definition of dualism is “a doctrine that the universe is under the dominion of two opposing principles one of which is good and the other evil.” But Cama contends Zoroastrians believe in the supremacy of Ahura Mazda, for Zoroastrians, Ahura Mazda is the only God.

According to Ferrero, Zoroastrianism’s dualism is an attempt to describe the nature of evil as the product of a separate entity from Ahura Mazda: an entity which will be destroyed at the end of the world, resolving the dualism. In addition to this, He interprets Yazatas as being roughly analogous to angels in Judaism or to the saints within Christianity, pointing out that these holy beings are subordinate to godhead. (insert ref) Researcher1988 (talk) 16:31, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a misapplication of Ferrero - the source is useful for describing the socio/political factors that led to transitions and transformations within Zoroastrianism; it is not an ideal source for describing an interpretation of Yazatas except in as far as he uses that description as a basis for exploration of the political and economic social factors at play. In other words use Ferrero in the context of what he was writing about rather than cherry-picking a description. Simonm223 (talk) 17:43, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should swap "good agents" for "divinities worthy of worship and sacrifice" as that is one of the most accepted definitions. We should also mention something about there being three Ahuras. We should also shy away from using an economist as a source, honestly. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 18:47, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Jenny has sent me a nice source that seems to indicate that there is fierce argument amongst experts as to if Zoroastrianism is monotheistic. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 18:51, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned this scholar in my sources too. however a great number of scholars have different opinions. Researcher1988 (talk) 21:05, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ferrero is an expert on religious matters. he has several articles on religious subjects. Researcher1988 (talk) 20:31, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Researcher1988 His bio makes it seem he's just an economist. Please present evidence if he has more expertise elsewhere. 16:54, 17 April 2024 (UTC) Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 16:54, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Look at Ferrero's bibliography - he is principally interested in the political economics of religions mostly originating in a geographic range between Greece and India. The issue is not whether Ferrero is used but rather what he should be used for. The paper in question is being mis-applied. I know. I read it. Simonm223 (talk) 16:18, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My objection on that front is mostly because Researcher1988 demands that only truly focused scholars of Zor be included on the page, and I was trying to hold them to that. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 19:29, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree, Ferarro is not an expert on Zoroastrianism and we should certainly defer to the opinions of academics who study and teach Zoroastrianism, not an economist. I also agree that the paper does not support what Researcher1988 is attempting to use it to support. Skyerise (talk) 19:39, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sub-section merge?

Isn't the "classification" (formerly "theism") subsection just 80% repeating the same debate mentioned in "Abrahamic religion"? Apart from that the term "Abrahamic religion" also has become subject to sever criticism in academical discourse, though popular in political discourse, this is the same debate on whether or not Zorastrianism is a form of proto-monotheism or not. Is it just me, or should the upper section be integrated into the lower one? An entire section about the debate also seems to be unbalanced given that there is hardly a contest about it being dualistic in real academic discourse. VenusFeuerFalle ([[User talk:VenusFeuerFalle}}|talk]]) 20:06, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

why are you editing the page before we reach a consensus? you behave as if you own the page? Researcher1988 (talk) 20:44, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Researcher1988: VenusFeuerFalle is an experienced editor in the area of religion. Their neutrality is not in doubt. Skyerise (talk) 20:51, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Skyerise
Experienced or not experienced, doesn't make any difference. we haven't reached a consensus yet, but he is editing materials related to debate. without presenting any sources to support his claim that Zoroastrianism is not Monotheistic. Religious dualism is just another form of Monotheism. Removing Monotheism from the lead is unacceptable.
I think we need a RFC. we need more editors give their opinion regarding this matter. Researcher1988 (talk) 21:02, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it matters. They are editing to the consensus not to call Z monotheistic, which you keep pretending isn't already decided. Skyerise (talk) 21:07, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
but how you can decide when there are (for now 2) users against it? can it be called a consensus? Researcher1988 (talk) 21:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
consensus is not equivalent to unanimity. Stop. Simonm223 (talk) 21:19, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because there are 5 editors opposed. That's more than twice as many against calling it monotheism. As Simonm223 states, consensus is simply a clear majority, it doesn't require unanimity. Skyerise (talk) 21:21, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1- we need more time to reach the consensus.
2- the opinions of the users involved in this consensus is not supported by the majority of sources. so we should take the case to administrators and ask more editors give their opinion here. Researcher1988 (talk) 21:41, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I were you, I'd pay more attention to WP:ANI. There is a proposal with several for votes that you be banned from the topic. It would be in your own interests to take your defeat in this consensus more gracefully. Of all the editors involved, your behavior has been judged the worst and the most disruptive. It's pretty clear to me that the issue will be better resolved and the article more quickly improved without you being involved in the process. Keep this up and I will also add my for vote. Skyerise (talk) 21:45, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With that behavior, the user should be blocked entirely. I have seen Users been deleted for less. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 00:27, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since you intentionally misgendered me for the third time, I refuse to talk to you until you give a proper apology. In some countries you might even be brought to court for that by the way. But do not get your hopes up, your edits will nonetheless be reverted if they break the guidlines, and if you keep up with that I will get your account (including your potential sockpuppets) get banned. Usually, I do not waste my time with things but you really have a check list to be impudent. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 00:26, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The things I edited was just routine stuff. Debating them is pointless since the outcome is clear. In that case, someone (I don't want to name anyone) had misinterpreted the source (totally accidentally), so I corrected the mistake for them (as nice as I am). When something is potentially subject to dispute, I bring it to the talkpage first. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 00:24, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@VenusFeuerFalle: Good work. Yes, they should be merged. I think right under the Theology heading, rather than as a later subsection. It seems inevitable that there will be some duplication with discussion about the relation with Abrahamic religions. Skyerise (talk) 20:49, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Theology seems the appropriate target to merge this material. Simonm223 (talk) 22:42, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
may I ask exactly merging what materials together? Researcher1988 (talk) 23:03, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would you or @Skyerise: be willing to do that? I just found out that Muhammad in Islam is GA without holding barely any GA criteria, and I would like to prioritize that one. I would prefer you Smonm223 to do this, since I already requested Skyerise to keep an eye on the jinn article, as I might not be able to be online the next few days. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 01:24, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can do this, but not right away. I'm having to fill in for someone out sick at work, and it conflicts with my usual editing time. Skyerise (talk) 10:21, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll see what I can do. Simonm223 (talk) 12:18, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do we have a citation for In the 19th century, through contact with Western academics and missionaries, Zoroastrianism experienced a massive theological change that still affects it today. The Rev. John Wilson led various missionary campaigns in India against the Parsi community, disparaging the Parsis for their "dualism" and "polytheism" and as having unnecessary rituals while declaring the Avesta to not be "divinely inspired". This caused mass dismay in the relatively uneducated Parsi community, which blamed its priests and led to some conversions towards Christianity. or should I cut it? Simonm223 (talk) 12:32, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems interesting, but I don't know a source for that. If a quick google search does not reveal anything, it probably lacks notablity and is not a generally agreed notion, and should be removed. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 14:01, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Simonm223 The Jenny source says that they were both influenced by and disparaged by Islam, who saw them as polytheists. And I believe the economist source says it evolved. The 'Gods in Hindu Garb' paper says it. In fact, a lot of our sources at least imply it. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 15:59, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's more specifically about the John Wilson history piece I'm concerned about. I did find this [2] but have not had a chance to review. Simonm223 (talk) 18:08, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is also this source that might be useable [3]. Simonm223 (talk) 18:08, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, that seems like a good find. I have a feeling that missions like that are important to the story here. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 18:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Plan to Remove Unsupported Section Making Fringe Claims

As far as I've been able to determine, there is no evidence (or academic consensus) for the idea that Zoroastrianism's ideas resulted in the creation of other religions (such as Islam, etc). The idea seems to be very WP:FRINGE, and most sources I come across say nothing about it. It is also massively controversial, and will be deeply offensive to members of said religions. Especially in light of evidence that those religions likely had a huge influence on Zoroastrianism during the Islamic conquest period (See: Jenny's work), and in the missionary period of the 19th century. I'm not really sure why would we assume the direction of influence based merely on common features, to be honest. Especially since (at the moment) the only two citations supporting it are from 1) an economist with no background I can see in Zoroastrianism, and 2) an Islamic theologian writing about art - who similarly has no background. In the latter case, the essay doesn't even mention most of the beings that the section claims it does. And I couldn't find anything discussing the claims made based on it. It also seems very gratuitous that such a controversial and unsupported section would be in the lead. When I arrived here, this section wasn't even cited - which doesn't bode well for it being a real theory. So I feel I have strong grounds to treat it as dubious. Especially in light of how it will be read. So I think my proposal will be to remove such sections, until it can be shown there is academic consensus for them - or, failing that, some kind of reliable evidence. If evidence can be provided, I suggest they be moved to a special 'controvercy' section with other such claims. Otherwise the claims should be weighed against conflicting information for neutrality. Either way, I don't think such an unverified claim it should be a core statement in the lead. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 09:02, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved the section down to its own area, for now- until we decide what to do with it- and added some clarifiers. 09:12, 18 April 2024 (UTC) Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 09:12, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will add that section again with reliable sources. Researcher1988 (talk) 09:24, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even if you can find better sourcing than an art historian, I severely doubt any existing body of reliable sources for this claim will amount to WP:DUEWEIGHT to appear in the lead as such. Remsense诉 09:29, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mary Boyce:
"Zoroaster was thus the first to teach the doctrines of an individual judgement, Heaven and Hell, the future resurrection of the body, the general last judgement, and life everlasting for the reunited soul and body. These doctrines were to become familiar articles of faith to much of mankind, through borrowing by Judaism Christianity and Islam; yet it is in Zoroastrianism itself that they have their fullest logical coherence. Since Zoroaster insisted both on the goodness of material creation, and hence of the physical body, and on the unwavering impartiality of divine justice." Researcher1988 (talk) 09:43, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Remsense why?
this part was in the lead for a long time and is supported by reliable sources. Researcher1988 (talk) 09:40, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

this part was in the lead for a long time

Wholly irrelevant.

supported by reliable sources.

The article has to proportionately represent its subject, we don't get to put claims we like at the top if their emphasis is not reflective of the whole body of sources on the subject. These claims belong in the body of the article, weighted appropriately in context. Just because claims are verifiable doesn't make them WP:DUE. You know this. Remsense诉 09:46, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
there is general agreement among Scholars for that claim.
Dr Stausberg:
"Zoroastrianism is one of the oldest living religions in the world. It has a very rich history and was the dominant religious tradition of pre-Islamic Iran. Zoroastrians lived in close neighbourhood to adherents of various other religions such as Jews, Christians, Manicheans, Buddhists, and others. It is generally held that Zoroastrianism made an impact on several of these religions — as well as on Islam in its formative period."
https://www.academia.edu/1792246/On_the_study_of_Zoroastrianism Researcher1988 (talk) 09:50, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Researcher1988 As near as I can tell; that section is somewhat WP:FRINGE, and was originally placed there with no sources. Meaning it was likely a WP:POV edit to begin with. Much later on (when it was challenged by me) you added two citations that don't really support it. While you have now come up with some different sources, the idea still seems WP:FRINGE and controversial. I don't think we have much of a solid WP:CONSENSUS or evidence to back it up. And I think it's too spicy/off-topic for the lead in any case. I think Wikipedia should be totally neutral on such controversial claims, and keep them in their own 'theoretical' section. Especially when the given citations seem weak, and clash with stronger evidence. For example; that Zoroastrianism went through a period where they were suppressed by Islamic Caliphate, and adopted Islamic ideas to survive. Later adopting more from Missionaries. And then, again, being interpreted and translated through a Western lens by Academics. Which is something of a known problem. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 10:22, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
TiggyTheTerrible I'd suggest opening a discussion at WP:FRINGEN, as this falls into the pseudohistory category and could use more eyes. Skyerise (talk) 10:34, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Skyerise That sounds like a good plan if this can't be resolved through conversation. I'm thinking that it's possible we should wait to see how the Admin thread resolves first, however, as I feel there may be rules about spamming those kinds of message boards. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 10:42, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TiggyTheTerrible: I'll do it then. I have no confidence in anything being done on the admin thread, and content issues are distinct from behavior issues. Each in their place is fine. Skyerise (talk) 10:49, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
a note: I found about the edit conflict on this page due to WP:RS/N and also watch WP:FRINGEN. There is currently a debate there about how that noticeboard should engage with religion articles. So it may either get no attention or a whole lot of attention. LOL. Suggest establishing the sources are unambiguously fringe and not just misrepresented first. Simonm223 (talk) 11:38, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here is an example of what I menan from the Kuehn source's abstract: Conclusive evidence points to the fact that the iconographic semantics of the medieval Western Asian equestrian dragon-fighter in its heroic as well as saintly incarnation owe much to ancient prototypes that germinated in the syncretistic melting pot of the great Near Eastern religions.
The Kuehn piece speculates on the influence of Zoroastrianism but finds evidence of syncretism between various Near Eastern religions. This isn't a fringe position - it's simply WP:CHERRYPICKING from a source that misinterprets its main thrust. Simonm223 (talk) 12:01, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Another quote from the Kuehn piece: Yet there is no evidence that would establish a direct connection, 7 since in none of the cases does the serpent seem to be a noxious beast nor does the rider seem to battle with the serpent. 8 On the contrary, in Mithraism, which became a widespread religion in the Mediterranean basin, Europe and the Near East, the serpent appears to have been “a symbol of beneficial, life-giving force.” - so, yeah, we have an issue here with selective quotation. Simonm223 (talk) 12:07, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The statement may in large part be due to the influence of Zoroastrian and Iranian dualistic conceptions in which the final triumph of good is implicit on the religions of the Near East from the Achaemenid period to the early centuries of the present era. is cited to Boyce and Grenet, 1991, pp. 361–490; Gnoli, “Dualism,” EIr; Hintze, 1999, pp. 72–9, esp. pp. 75–6. Simonm223 (talk) 12:12, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But note the double-qualifier "may in large part be due". Simonm223 (talk) 12:12, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Another key source for Kuehn is Saul Shaked here Simonm223 (talk) 12:15, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the actual conclusion The iconographic semantics of the equestrian dragon-fighter – from the greater KhurƗsƗn region to Asia Minor – in its heroic as well as saintly incarnation, thus owe much to ancient prototypes that germinated in the syncretistic melting pot of the great Near Eastern religions. These were probably inspired to a large extent by ancient Iranian dualist notions, and specifically eschatological thought systems, which resulted in close parallels between Iranian and Jewish concepts, inherited, in turn, by Christianity and then Islam.
This is a far weaker claim than it was being used to support. However the essay does not appear to be fringe - it's just being used incorrectly. Simonm223 (talk) 12:18, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The other source is literally just a bibliography. Here's nearly half of its non-bibliographical copy: Because of the introductory nature of this bibliography, one goal has been to be as broad as possible in scope. Because similar ideas can arise independently, some of the parallels between ancient Zoroastrianism and Jewish beliefs and practices are surely accidental. However, it is not the intent of this bibliography to provide original research or to identify which similarities are true instances of Persian influence on Jewish practices and doctrines and which are merely instances of two peoples who shared some cultural and religious traits developing in parallel. Simonm223 (talk) 12:31, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:RSPRIMARY Reputable tertiary sources, such as introductory-level university textbooks, almanacs, and encyclopedias, may be cited. so there's nothing wrong with using a tertiary source like a bibliography, and it doesn't look fringe at all, but it also fails verification for supporting the claim it was cited for. Simonm223 (talk) 12:36, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've noticed that as well that the sources from Reasercher1988 always turn out to dismantle their case once you read more deeply into them. 12:41, 18 April 2024 (UTC) Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 12:41, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All this is to say that the removal of the claim from the lede was righteous but it wasn't because the sources were fringe. It's because the sources fail verification of the claim. Simonm223 (talk) 12:43, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Simonm223 Thank you. My removal of the art historian source was in large part due to similar reasoning, though I do also think there are many other reasons not to place it in the lead. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 12:58, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to revert to 18 September 2023 version

I propose that we revert to this version of the article, from before Researcher1988 began to edit it. It is a much more balanced presentation, and a better starting point for improving the article. Skyerise (talk) 21:57, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support as proposer. Skyerise (talk) 21:57, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose (Edited) As Simonm223 says, the article is improving by leaps and bounds. There are sections that I feel we do need to drastically redo, such as the theology section - which should probably be organised into chuncks. Each with a rough timeline. I think we could also do more to document the lack of academic consensus on monotheism/polytheism etc. I would also suggest the controversial claims of influence toward other religions be made part of the existing section, and balanced against the newly uncovered evidence that it was most likely the other way around. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 08:27, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, you are probably right. We should move forward, but we might want to compare here to there in the process. Skyerise (talk) 10:05, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If we think about it, it might be a good opportunity to paint a more vivid picture as well. Perhaps by including broad-strokes summaries of some of the stories & characters etc. What do you think? Tiggy The Terrible (talk) Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 11:43, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I would prefer not to just roll everything back. A lot of productive changes have been made recently. Simonm223 (talk) 11:54, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, actually. I think I agree. I think the new parts that were added are a lot more accurate than what was there before, and that we can actually fix this article. 13:55, 19 April 2024 (UTC) Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 13:55, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rough Timeline of Zoroastrian's Mutation

A lot of things have been bugging me about this religion for a while, and I think I've finally finished collating a timeline of events that point towards the true nature of Zoroastrianism and why we're having so much trouble categorising it. Please tell me what you think, but here's what I think happened. A lot of this is directly from this Wiki page:

  • Zoroastrianism is massive a polytheistic religion based in almost pure oral tradition until the ~6th-13th centaury.
  • Islam arises and crushes Zoroastrianism. They have to pretend to be monotheistic to survive, and start equating Yazata with angels etc. Islam has a massive effect on the society.
  • Missionaries like The Rev John Wilson in the 18th-19th centaury cause a massive collapse in Zoroastrian confidence in their faith. They literally break the back of the religion, and cause them to start adopting Christian ideas into it (this kind of adoption of a dominant invading faith is a common factor in polytheism).
  • Other missionaries then document that the Zoroastrians are talking about monotheism.
  • Academics like Martin Haug speculate that Zoroastrianism is actually the original root of all the Abrahamic religions. To quote the wiki page: "Haug postulated that Zoroastrianism was solely monotheistic with all other divinities reduced to the status of angels while Ahura Mazda became both omnipotent and the source of evil as well as good. Haug's thinking was subsequently disseminated as a Parsi interpretation, thus corroborating Haug's theory, and the idea became so popular that it is now almost universally accepted as doctrine (though being reevaluated in modern Zoroastrianism and academia)."
  • Zoroastrians and Westerners then work together to turn the Avesta into a messy hybrid. Importing Christian words directly into the text, and concealing the true nature of Zoroastrianism beneath a thin skin of Christianity.
  • Modern Zoroastrians functionally grow up practicing a broken hybrid of both religions.

Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 16:48, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Be careful of WP:OR here - we want to communicate the present academic perspective on this rather than conduct our own historical survey. Do you have a source that lays out this timeline? Simonm223 (talk) 17:07, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is fair enough @Simonm223. I wasn't suggesting we add any of that to the page, though essentially all of it is already there in a fragmentary form. My source here is actually, for the most part, the article itself as it stands. The theology section in the main part where I finally put the last pieces together. However; the sources we acquired recently that suggest the religion was mutated by Islam and the missionaries in the 19th centaury were the main part of this. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 18:13, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Any idea how many Ahuras there are?

I suspect there's two, but the stuff I've found so far allege three. Are there any others?

  • Ahura Mazda - specific in the text
  • Mithra - specific in the text
  • Apąm Napāt - at least according to his wiki page, but I can't find him referred to as such in the text.

Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 10:45, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I always thought that the Ahura were pre-Zorastrian and that Mithra was more or less a Roman attributation to Persian faiths, but not necessarily Zorastrian. However, I would like to use the oppotunity to throw in additional background information about later veneration of Devas among Iranians, since it might shed light on the nature of veneration of various spirits in Iranian thought: "Demonology & worship of Dives in Iranian local legend" by Reza Yousefvand. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 13:58, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
VenusFeuerFalle They are indeed pre Zoroastrian, and they are in Indian and Iranian texts. They are also at least two Ahuras mentioned in the text itself, however. I think we need an entire section on all these characters so we can be sure we've gotten them straight. Thank you for the recommendation. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 18:25, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, am I reading this right? I'm not sure about this being true. Though it may be they placate the dark god as the Egyptians did. "So we see dualism in Zoroaster religious that they worship both of the Ahura Mazda and devil. Demon worship never disappeared in Iran, in Zoroastrianism worshipers called Div. (demon) as Daevayasna. According to Vandidad, worshipers met each other in Cemeteries and cryptand where to spend their disgusting ritual meal that was dead bodies (Vandidad, Fargard, 53-58 articles and Fargard 16, 17)." Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 19:16, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since it is the only source covering this, I would be cautious. Though just because it is rarely covered, does not mean it is wrong. I would not put it in the article though, since the leack of coverage indicates a lack of notability in academic circles. But I thought it might be helpful to keep in mind. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 18:18, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@VenusFeuerFalle Yeah, I'm not sure about putting it in there either. I do keep hearing little hints that the Zoroastrians practice magic, but the only 'spells' I hear about are actually just rituals related to their good gods. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 06:59, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it is some folkloric practise. Post-Islamic Devas/Divs (see also the Div (mythology)-article) became demonic entities all across Central Asia in general. Some of them may have a positive depiction as they were assimilated with other animistic spirits. However, the post-Islamic Divs are more of their very own unique concept and have not much today with the previous depiction of Divs as we find it in earlier (antuquity) sources. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 20:27, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly. It's likely very hard to say now because they have been so impacted by other cultures. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 10:30, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Zoroastrianism&oldid=1222023435"