Misplaced Pages

Talk:Zoroastrianism: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 07:54, 11 June 2005 editTa bu shi da yu (talk | contribs)32,902 edits →Persian women are so hot: maybe so, but as Zoroaster was most likely not a hot Persian woman I am removing this from discussion← Previous edit Revision as of 01:14, 12 June 2005 edit undoPaul Barlow (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Pending changes reviewers93,539 edits evangelicals etcNext edit →
(17 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 325: Line 325:
::::::''Those who write articles likely to be deemed in need of fact checking, for whatever reason, should expect to assist by providing references, ideally when the article is first written. Because of this, it's important to make it easy to verify the accuracy and neutrality of your content. Citing your sources is an important part of this, but not the only factor. Another good rule of thumb is to be specific (and avoid weasel words).'' ::::::''Those who write articles likely to be deemed in need of fact checking, for whatever reason, should expect to assist by providing references, ideally when the article is first written. Because of this, it's important to make it easy to verify the accuracy and neutrality of your content. Citing your sources is an important part of this, but not the only factor. Another good rule of thumb is to be specific (and avoid weasel words).''
:::::If you don't like it: sorry, but that's just tough. Our encyclopedia demands sources and ] is not negotiable. If you want to work with us on this, please procede. Otherwise, please take a moment to review Misplaced Pages's policies and goals. - ] 03:04, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC) :::::If you don't like it: sorry, but that's just tough. Our encyclopedia demands sources and ] is not negotiable. If you want to work with us on this, please procede. Otherwise, please take a moment to review Misplaced Pages's policies and goals. - ] 03:04, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:::I am familiar with the NPOV policy, of course. It's far from clear in many respects. As stated, it's full of ambiguities. How does 'majority' opinion compare to 'expert' opinion, for example? Of course we should aspire to fairness and accuracy in the expression of current knowledge in any subject. On 'idiosycratic' opinions, I guess it would be more accurate to say that the ] rule is designed to minimise idiosyncratic ideas, but I said that it ''seems'' that this is (also) one of the intents behind the - disputed - weasel words guideline. Note that your quoted statement ''again'' speaks of a "rule of thumb", not a law. ] 11:24 11 June, 2005 (UTC)



::"Evangelicals, Roman Catholics and Muslims would dispute this" is itself a POV statement, and largely false. Many Muslims, especially in Iran, identify Zoroaster as a prophet of God, following the Koranic assertion that previous prophets have been sent by God. So they would see nothing surprising about correspondence between his teachings and Mohammed's. Catholics have a variety of views, and the RC church is not closed to the idea that other teachings contain merit, or partial truths, as they would see it. Of course evangelicals deny everything that does not accept the primacy and factual truth of the Bible. So, what? Does that mean we should delete all references to anything that might contradict the Bible? How POV would that be? All the allegedly POV statements say is that Zoroastrianism ''has these teachings'', which it does. It would be dishonest to say it doesn't, and censorship to delete it. You can interpret it to mean that Abrahamic faiths borrowed these concepts or not, but it is a '''fact''' nonetheless. ] 11:30 9 June 2005 (UTC) ::"Evangelicals, Roman Catholics and Muslims would dispute this" is itself a POV statement, and largely false. Many Muslims, especially in Iran, identify Zoroaster as a prophet of God, following the Koranic assertion that previous prophets have been sent by God. So they would see nothing surprising about correspondence between his teachings and Mohammed's. Catholics have a variety of views, and the RC church is not closed to the idea that other teachings contain merit, or partial truths, as they would see it. Of course evangelicals deny everything that does not accept the primacy and factual truth of the Bible. So, what? Does that mean we should delete all references to anything that might contradict the Bible? How POV would that be? All the allegedly POV statements say is that Zoroastrianism ''has these teachings'', which it does. It would be dishonest to say it doesn't, and censorship to delete it. You can interpret it to mean that Abrahamic faiths borrowed these concepts or not, but it is a '''fact''' nonetheless. ] 11:30 9 June 2005 (UTC)
:::I have reread this comment, and have just realised that the author of it has totally mischaracterised me. Firstly, I have ''never'' advocated removing well-sourced and well-written material. I would like to say that I was out of line when talking about Muslims, and for this I acknowledge that I am in error. However, RCs and Evangelicals would not agree with you. That you automatically assumed I was an Evangelical is amusing, though I am one. It means that you are quite happy to assume what I am without knowing who I am! :::I have reread this comment, and have just realised that the author of it has totally mischaracterised me. Firstly, I have ''never'' advocated removing well-sourced and well-written material. I would like to say that I was out of line when talking about Muslims, and for this I acknowledge that I am in error. However, RCs and Evangelicals would not agree with you. That you automatically assumed I was an Evangelical is amusing, though I am one. It means that you are quite happy to assume what I am without knowing who I am!
::::I said that "your initial comments read like the lashings-out of an evangelical". Saying what they ''read like'' is not making assumptions about who you ''are''. It means what it says - "this is what it looks like". And since you have just confirmed that you are indeed an evangelical, I don't see why you are 'amused' by how I have 'mischaracterised' you! However, I think you did catch me at a point when I was feeling frustrated by a series of "outraged outpourings" from True Believers of various stripes. First it was a Jain contributor to the ] article, and then a Vaisnavite who wanted the ] article to contain his proof that Jesus was a Hindu - and so were the ancient Romans and Egyptians. ] 09:06 11 June, 2005 (UTC)
⚫ :::I find it amusing that you decided that you would judge in this way: it also explains why you make unfair and ludicrous statements like "Of course evangelicals deny everything that does not accept the primacy and factual truth of the Bible. So, what? Does that mean we should delete all references to anything that might contradict the Bible? How POV would that be?". When the heck did I ''ever'' say that? In fact, I would dispute anyone who did such a thing and put ''back'' the opposing POV into the article! What ''is'' POV is a statement like "According to internal and external histories, Zoroaster lived in Iran / Persia no earlier than 1700 BC and no later than 600 BC (although Plato believed that Zoroaster lived some 6000 years previous to himself)." Clearly this is an absolute statement made when there is some debate about such a dating. If you don't believe me, here is what our own Misplaced Pages article has to say about this issue (see ]):

:::I find it amusing that you decided that you would judge in this way: it also explains why you make unfair and ludicrous statements like "Of course evangelicals deny everything that does not accept the primacy and factual truth of the Bible. So, what? Does that mean we should delete all references to anything that might contradict the Bible? How POV would that be?". When the heck did I ''ever'' say that?
::::Now you are the one being ludicrous. The passage does not say that you said that. It's a ''reductio ad absurdam'' of your argument. ] 09:27 11 June, 2005 (UTC)


⚫ In fact, I would dispute anyone who did such a thing and put ''back'' the opposing POV into the article! What ''is'' POV is a statement like "According to internal and external histories, Zoroaster lived in Iran / Persia no earlier than 1700 BC and no later than 600 BC (although Plato believed that Zoroaster lived some 6000 years previous to himself)." Clearly this is an absolute statement made when there is some debate about such a dating. If you don't believe me, here is what our own Misplaced Pages article has to say about this issue (see ]):
::::One of the most important, and dividing, of all issues regarding the Iranian history is “the date of Zarathushtra”, that is the date when he lived and composed his ]s. Different sources ranging from linguistic evidence to textual sources and traditional dates have been used by various scholars to determine the date of Zarathushtra. Accordingly, any date from the 6th century BC to 6000 BC has been suggested, although some with more merit than others. Here we shall look at the most prominent of these arguments. ::::One of the most important, and dividing, of all issues regarding the Iranian history is “the date of Zarathushtra”, that is the date when he lived and composed his ]s. Different sources ranging from linguistic evidence to textual sources and traditional dates have been used by various scholars to determine the date of Zarathushtra. Accordingly, any date from the 6th century BC to 6000 BC has been suggested, although some with more merit than others. Here we shall look at the most prominent of these arguments.
::::A point of view held by many prominent scholars, among them ] and ] and continued by Gnoli among others, is what is known as “the Traditional Date of Zoroaster”. This date which was suggested in the Sasanian commentaries on the Avesta (]), gives the date of Zarathushtra’s life as “258 years before ]”. However one might want to interpret this statement (whether from the date of Alexander’s entry to Iran or even possibly from what is known as the “] Era”), the traditional dating would put Zarathushtra at 6th century BC. This placement is particularly attractive when one notices that this dating would make Darius and Zarathushtra contemporaries of sort, making ]’ prominent mention of “]” and other Zorostrian motifs quite appropriate. Furthermore, the fact that Zarathushtra’s benefactor, ], closely reminds us of the name of Darius’ father, ], who was the Satrap of Parthia during the time of Cyrus the Great in the middle of the 6th century BC. ::::A point of view held by many prominent scholars, among them ] and ] and continued by Gnoli among others, is what is known as “the Traditional Date of Zoroaster”. This date which was suggested in the Sasanian commentaries on the Avesta (]), gives the date of Zarathushtra’s life as “258 years before ]”. However one might want to interpret this statement (whether from the date of Alexander’s entry to Iran or even possibly from what is known as the “] Era”), the traditional dating would put Zarathushtra at 6th century BC. This placement is particularly attractive when one notices that this dating would make Darius and Zarathushtra contemporaries of sort, making ]’ prominent mention of “]” and other Zorostrian motifs quite appropriate. Furthermore, the fact that Zarathushtra’s benefactor, ], closely reminds us of the name of Darius’ father, ], who was the Satrap of Parthia during the time of Cyrus the Great in the middle of the 6th century BC.
Line 334: Line 343:
::::However, from an early time, scholars such as Bartholomea and Christensen noticed the problems with “Traditional Date”, namely the linguistic difficulties that it presents. As we know, Zarathushtra himself composed the 18 poems that make-up the oldest parts of the ], known as “the Gathas”. The language of the Gathas, as well as the text known as “Yasna Haptanghaiti” (the Seven Chapter Sermon), is called “Old ]” and is significantly different and more archaic than the language of the other parts of the Avesta, “Young Avestan”. On the other hand, Old Avestan is very close to the language of the ] (known as Vedic ]). The closeness in composition of Old Avestan and ] is so much that some parts of Gathas can be transliterated to Vedic only by following the rules of sound change (such as the development of Indo-Iranian “s” to Avestan “h”). These similarities suggest that Old Avestan and Vedic were very close in time, probably putting Old Avestan at about one century after Vedic. Since the date of the composition of Rig-Veda has been put at somewhere between the 15-12th centuries BC, we can also assume that Gathas were composed close to that time, at sometimes before 1000 BC. ::::However, from an early time, scholars such as Bartholomea and Christensen noticed the problems with “Traditional Date”, namely the linguistic difficulties that it presents. As we know, Zarathushtra himself composed the 18 poems that make-up the oldest parts of the ], known as “the Gathas”. The language of the Gathas, as well as the text known as “Yasna Haptanghaiti” (the Seven Chapter Sermon), is called “Old ]” and is significantly different and more archaic than the language of the other parts of the Avesta, “Young Avestan”. On the other hand, Old Avestan is very close to the language of the ] (known as Vedic ]). The closeness in composition of Old Avestan and ] is so much that some parts of Gathas can be transliterated to Vedic only by following the rules of sound change (such as the development of Indo-Iranian “s” to Avestan “h”). These similarities suggest that Old Avestan and Vedic were very close in time, probably putting Old Avestan at about one century after Vedic. Since the date of the composition of Rig-Veda has been put at somewhere between the 15-12th centuries BC, we can also assume that Gathas were composed close to that time, at sometimes before 1000 BC.
::::Furthermore, a look at the Gathas and their composition shows us that the society in which they were composed was a nomadic society that lived at a time prior to settlement in large urban areas and depended greatly on ]. This would stand sharply apart from the view of a Zarathushtra living in the court of an Achaemenid satrap such as Wištaspa. Also, the absence of any mention of Achaemenids or even any West Iranian tribes such as Medes and Persians, or even Parthians, in the Gathas makes it unlikely that historical Zarathushtra ever lived in the court of a 6th century Satrap. As a result, the present author is more inclined to believe that Zarathushtra lived sometimes in the 13th to 11th centuries BC, prior to the settlement of Iranian tribes in the central and west of the Iranian Plateau. ::::Furthermore, a look at the Gathas and their composition shows us that the society in which they were composed was a nomadic society that lived at a time prior to settlement in large urban areas and depended greatly on ]. This would stand sharply apart from the view of a Zarathushtra living in the court of an Achaemenid satrap such as Wištaspa. Also, the absence of any mention of Achaemenids or even any West Iranian tribes such as Medes and Persians, or even Parthians, in the Gathas makes it unlikely that historical Zarathushtra ever lived in the court of a 6th century Satrap. As a result, the present author is more inclined to believe that Zarathushtra lived sometimes in the 13th to 11th centuries BC, prior to the settlement of Iranian tribes in the central and west of the Iranian Plateau.
:::Still think I have nothing of substance to talk about?
⚫ :::Still think I have nothing of substance to talk about? However, allow me to continue (I'm really quite annoyed about how you are so quick to assume bad faith - I wasn't annoyed before, but I am now) so that I may make myself crystal clear. You have stated that "All the allegedly POV statements say is that Zoroastrianism has these teachings, which it does." This is incorrect. Perhaps we should review which weasel words I was talking about?

:::::Yup. Cutting and pasting other people's statement is hardly adding anything new, is it? As you know, I am well aware of this passage, having contributed to this very article. It also says ''exactly'' the same thing as is says here - that dates range from 6000BC to 600, with the 6000 being from a single source. It is bizarre to claim that saying dates range from between these dates is "absolute". How can a '''relative'' statement be absolute?! It is perfectly sensible that the ''detailed'' discussion of the dating should be in the article devoted to the prophet himself, not here. btw, it statement is "absolute" in just the same way as this one from the Jesus article "based on some historical data mentioned, would have been anywhere from the years 27 to 36 in the current era." ] 09:59 11 June, 2005 (UTC)


However, allow me to continue (I'm really quite annoyed about how you are so quick to assume bad faith - I wasn't annoyed before, but I am now)
:You were aggressive from your first intervention. Your comments were full of exclamation marks and very little argument. I did not at any point assume bad faith. It was your uwarranted arrogant tone I reacted to. ] 10:02 11 June, 2005 (UTC)


⚫ so that I may make myself crystal clear. You have stated that "All the allegedly POV statements say is that Zoroastrianism has these teachings, which it does." This is incorrect. Perhaps we should review which weasel words I was talking about?
:::*"Many modern scholars believe that Zoroastrianism had a large influence on Judaism, Mithraism, Manichaeism, and Christianity because of Persia's connections to the Roman Empire and because of its earlier control over Israel under rulers such as Cyrus II the Great, Darius the Great and Xerxes I." :::*"Many modern scholars believe that Zoroastrianism had a large influence on Judaism, Mithraism, Manichaeism, and Christianity because of Persia's connections to the Roman Empire and because of its earlier control over Israel under rulers such as Cyrus II the Great, Darius the Great and Xerxes I."
::::Not a single mention of Zoroastrianism's teachings: this is describing what some ''unattributed'' scholars believe. ::::Not a single mention of Zoroastrianism's teachings: this is describing what some ''unattributed'' scholars believe.
:::::Oh, for heaven's sake. This is in an overview section about historical importance. The specific teachings are discussed later. I've already answered the point about 'many scholars'. And by the way, the weasel words issue is a ''guideline'' not a policy, and it is disputed precisely because taken literally it can lead to absurdities, and because it can also be said to contain some inherent problems.

These views about the influence of Zoroastrianism cannot reasonably be attributed to speciic individual scholars because they have been longstanding since the mid-nineteenth century and have been articulated by a great many writers. I've already said that specific attribution ''can itself'' create a misleading impression. Either a long list of names should be given, which would be silly, or a general statement like this should be made. Certainly adding references would be desirable. ] 10:14 11 June, 2005 (UTC)


:::*Because Zoroastrianism is thought to have emerged from a common Indo-Iranian culture that preceded Vedic Hinduism, many scholars also use evidence from Zoroastrian texts to reconstruct the unreformed earlier stage of Indo-Iranian beliefs, and therefore to identify the culture that evolved into the Vedic religion. This has also informed attempts to characterise the original Proto-Indo-European religion (e.g. the god Dyeus who became Jupiter, Sabazios, Zeus, and Tyr). :::*Because Zoroastrianism is thought to have emerged from a common Indo-Iranian culture that preceded Vedic Hinduism, many scholars also use evidence from Zoroastrian texts to reconstruct the unreformed earlier stage of Indo-Iranian beliefs, and therefore to identify the culture that evolved into the Vedic religion. This has also informed attempts to characterise the original Proto-Indo-European religion (e.g. the god Dyeus who became Jupiter, Sabazios, Zeus, and Tyr).
::::What teachings? This says that some ''unattributed'' scholars provide some ''unattributed'' evidence, and you just expect me to accept this? This is a 💕, written by anonymous contributors! We have a policy of ], which ''requires'' attribution so we can verify statements. I'm sorry that you think that the prose would become turgid, but that is a problem with writing skills. We can ''always'' rewrite turgid prose to become more readable, it's not hard to do and I've done it many times ::::What teachings? This says that some ''unattributed'' scholars provide some ''unattributed'' evidence, and you just expect me to accept this? This is a 💕, written by anonymous contributors! We have a policy of ], which ''requires'' attribution so we can verify statements. I'm sorry that you think that the prose would become turgid, but that is a problem with writing skills. We can ''always'' rewrite turgid prose to become more readable, it's not hard to do and I've done it many times.
:::::The reason I find replying to you so frustrating, is the fact that you are so obviously very ignorant of this topic. I'm sorry if that sounds rude, but it makes your comments about POV seems quite bizarre at times. It is quite hilarious that you should quote the "original research" policy about a passage such as this. I've already said that these views have been commonplace since Max Muller. They cannot reasonably be attributed to individual writers. And I've already said that discussion of the specific teachings appears later. If as an intereted person with no backround in the subject you want to say that you find the passage ''confusing'', that's fair enough. Of course we want readers to be able to understand the text. The actual words you quote have been written by several editors, but I decided to have the Historical importance section here at the beginning in order to emphasise what is so special and distinctive about Zism from the outset. ] 10:55 11 June, 2005 (UTC)

:::*Zoroastrianism teaches many concepts we today find in the major Abrahamic faiths, concepts of Heaven, Hell, Day of judgement, the concept of Satan, the prophecy and coming of the Messiah and the extensive teaching of Angels and Evil spirits. :::*Zoroastrianism teaches many concepts we today find in the major Abrahamic faiths, concepts of Heaven, Hell, Day of judgement, the concept of Satan, the prophecy and coming of the Messiah and the extensive teaching of Angels and Evil spirits.
:::: That statement implied that these concepts in Abrahamic faiths comes solely from Zoroastrianism. This is most definitely disputed, and not mentioning this means that having this text in Misplaced Pages is an attempt to say that "Misplaced Pages holds the position that Zoroastrianism provides much of the foundation for major Abrahamic faiths". This, of course, is not Misplaced Pages's position ''at all'', because Misplaced Pages holds a neutral point of view on such matters. Perhaps I should clarify what you mean by: :::: That statement implied that these concepts in Abrahamic faiths comes solely from Zoroastrianism. This is most definitely disputed, and not mentioning this means that having this text in Misplaced Pages is an attempt to say that "Misplaced Pages holds the position that Zoroastrianism provides much of the foundation for major Abrahamic faiths". This, of course, is not Misplaced Pages's position ''at all'', because Misplaced Pages holds a neutral point of view on such matters.
:::::How does it imply that? It says that Zism teaches these things and that they are also to be found in Abrahamic faiths. It's phrasing deliberately leaves open the question of whether they are just similar or whether one faith drew on the other. If you had ''constructive'' rather than simply negative commnts to make, you might have sugested improvements, or even made some yourself. ] 12:59 11 June, 2005 (UTC)



Perhaps I should clarify what you mean by:
::::"Of course evangelicals deny everything that does not accept the primacy and factual truth of the Bible. So, what? Does that mean we should delete all references to anything that might contradict the Bible? How POV would that be?" ::::"Of course evangelicals deny everything that does not accept the primacy and factual truth of the Bible. So, what? Does that mean we should delete all references to anything that might contradict the Bible? How POV would that be?"
:::So that I don't assume bad faith, I would like to ask you whether you beleive that the opposing POV of Evangelicals Christians should not be heard? - ] 07:06, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC) :::So that I don't assume bad faith, I would like to ask you whether you beleive that the opposing POV of Evangelicals Christians should not be heard? - ] 07:06, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

::::It depends what you mean by "the opposing views of evangelicals". Evangelicals, atheists, neo-Nazis, Communists and anyone else have a right to express views on anything, of course, as long as they are reasonable, coherent and well-supported by the evidence. Does that mean we should articulate the ''specific'' views of all such groups in each article? No, I think that would be absurd. Many evangelical Christians, for example would believe Zoroastrianism, Hinduism etc to be false religions. Does that mean we should have a section within ] saying "Many evangelical Christians believe Hinduism to be a false religion inspired by the devil." Such a passage would tell us nothing useful about Hinduism and would be very offensive to Hindus. The views of evangelicals or any other group ''as such'' are not, I think, relevant for this reason. I think arguments and information should be judged on their merits, not as "delegations" from an ideology. ] 01:13 12 June, 2005 (UTC)
:::Yes, that is correct. My statement ''is'' a POV statement, and that's perfectly fine because '''talk''' pages ''don't follow NPOV'' policy! You should be aware that I have no problems with having the opinion of scholars on a page, but that's what it must be represented as: opinion. And it must be well sourced. I'd suggest you stop getting defensive and start fixing these issues. - ] 23:38, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC) :::Yes, that is correct. My statement ''is'' a POV statement, and that's perfectly fine because '''talk''' pages ''don't follow NPOV'' policy! You should be aware that I have no problems with having the opinion of scholars on a page, but that's what it must be represented as: opinion. And it must be well sourced. I'd suggest you stop getting defensive and start fixing these issues. - ] 23:38, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:::Gee, thanks for pointing out the obvious. You may or may not have noticed that I tried to start a ''sensible'' debate about the content of the article by replying to a commentator in the section entitled "The Judaism tangent". I that I stated my own point of view, followed by an argument for the inclusion of the reference. Some informed discussion of content and phrasing is required, not grandstanding, unargued assertion and finger-wagging. ] 12:35 10 June 2005 (UTC) :::Gee, thanks for pointing out the obvious. You may or may not have noticed that I tried to start a ''sensible'' debate about the content of the article by replying to a commentator in the section entitled "The Judaism tangent". I that I stated my own point of view, followed by an argument for the inclusion of the reference. Some informed discussion of content and phrasing is required, not grandstanding, unargued assertion and finger-wagging. ] 12:35 10 June 2005 (UTC)
Line 392: Line 425:
:"The date of Zoroaster's birth has been given variously as 6000 BC, 1400BC, and 1000BC, but Herzfeld accepts the traditional date, approximately, as now confirmed (Herzfeld, 570-500BC; Jackson, 660-582BC)." :"The date of Zoroaster's birth has been given variously as 6000 BC, 1400BC, and 1000BC, but Herzfeld accepts the traditional date, approximately, as now confirmed (Herzfeld, 570-500BC; Jackson, 660-582BC)."
The sources of these statements are Herzfeld's ''Zoroaster and His World'' and A.V.W Jackson in ''Jewish Encyclopedia''). Shouldn't we update the article based on this and add a note to the article about where I am getting this information from? - ] 06:31, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC) The sources of these statements are Herzfeld's ''Zoroaster and His World'' and A.V.W Jackson in ''Jewish Encyclopedia''). Shouldn't we update the article based on this and add a note to the article about where I am getting this information from? - ] 06:31, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

::''Update'' the article?! Herzfeld's book dates from 1947! Your reference clearly confirms the accuracy of the statement above - which you claim is "clearly the author's POV" (i.e. "Traditional Jews and Christians typically seek to place Zoroaster's life at as late a date as possible, so as to avoid the conclusion that much of the theology and morality of the non-Torah parts of the Old Testament derive from Zoroastrianism, the ideas having flowed into Judaism during the Babylonian captivity which happened shortly after 600 BC."). The Evangelical Dictionary and Jewish Encyclopedia presumably represent the views of 'traditional Jews and Christians' who have a vested interest in this dating. They do not represent ''all'' scholarly opinion, nor do they contradict the dating statement as given in the current article, unless you think that rough end date of 600BC is 'contradicted' by the 570-500 position. However, I accept, as does the current article, that this late date is a legitimate possibility. ] 14:04, 10 June 2005 (UTC)

::btw, the original version of this passage (added by user 138.88.151.133) was, imo, POV, which is why I altered it from its original form. ] 13:14, 10 June 2005 (UTC)

Revision as of 01:14, 12 June 2005

Oral "texts"

I'm going to change the section on "Holy Book" to reflect the fact that the Avesta was originally composed and learned as oral literature and not written down until the Pahlavi era, thus making Alexandrian "destruction of texts" impossible. If anyone wants to contradict me on this, please post something here in the next week, preferably with links to sources that say otherwise, and we can discuss it.

Thanks. --Marcus, May 24th 2005


Syncretism

Of the below links that were removed, I would question the removal of Syncretism, because this subject is dealt with in the second sentence, and because the argument that Zoroastrianism and its offshoot/cousin, Mithraism, are at the foundation of mainstream Hebrew and Christian doctrine is one of the most popular current arguments regarding the history of religious belief. I would encourage anyone who is interested to investigate the validity of this argument. Carefully look into the known data about the ancient roots of Zoroastrianism, when Zarathustra (aka Zoroaster) lived, the nature of his religious reformation, the the way in which his teachings, in their most pure, original form, were interpreted by his first folowers, how and when those interpretations evolved, the timing of the first appearance of Ahriman and Ormuzd in written form and the timing of the first appearance of messianism in Mithraism. Also carefully look into the history of Judaism and its scriptures, both in general, and specifically, regarding the writings of Isaiah and Daniel, and the Bablyonian/Persian exile. I would be very interested if anyone were able to show overwhelming evidence that 6th C. BCE Zoroastrianism is at the root of key Judeo-Christian doctrine, and not the other way around. --dave c

Mithraism may have some roots in proto-Zoroastrian Indo-Iranian paganism. --Zosodada 20:05, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)


Rm links

Removed these links:

New Age, Syncreticism, Occultism, Cabala

I think these are irrelevent to the article. If I'm wrong, please fix.

Syncreticism may not be irrelevant. The others seem to be. --Zosodada 20:05, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)


Page messup

Confuse! Angra Mainyu has his own page under the alternate name Ahriman -- but Ahura Mazda comes back to Zoroastrianism, and his alternate name Ormuzd is nowhere to be seen either. Does evil get better coverage here? :) --FOo

Evil is cool. :) --Bryan
That must mean that in the war between the Truth and The Lie, The Lie is winning. --Zosodada 20:05, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Also note that someone has categorized Ahriman as a "Zoroastrian god"; in this case all of the "Christian gods" should be categorized as well, including Satan. --Zosodada 20:13, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)


Parsees

I added some points about endogamy, arrival in India. I think the Parsis deserve a separate page. Although Zoroastrianism defines them, they're a disproportionately important part of Indian culture. --ESP 05:29 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)


Anti-Materialist?

This seems contradictory to me:

Unlike Manichaeism, Zoroastrianism does not associate matter with evil. On the contrary, material pursuits such as raising a family and creating wealth are considered to aid Ohrmazd.

--Lirath Q. Pynnor

That's accurate. Manichaeans believed that all matter was evil, including the human body, and engaging in animal pursuits like sexual intercourse was inherently evil. Zoroastrians, on the other hand, consider it the responsibility of human beings to reproduce and so create helpers for Ohrmazd in the fight against evil. --KASchmidt 04:56, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Pre-Islamic Zoroastrianism?

This article seems mainly focused on Zoroastrianism since the Islamic conquest. I know sources are sparse, but shouldn't it include information on the religion at its height during the Achaemenid and Sassanian empires? --Jfruh 22:02, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yes, it should.


A lot less than 250000 zoroastrians worldwide.

I think the figures for the Zoroastrian population of today given in the article are far too high. Here's why:

The parsi population of india is only about seventy thousand according to a recent census. The total number of zoroastrians is estimated by the Zoroastrian Trust Fund of Europe to be 6000 to 7000, ergo the total number of parsis in Europe is less than 6000 to 7000. There are about 2500 parsis in Pakistan (according to a Pakistani parsi I met at the 2004 World zoroastrian youth congress, which was really a parsi congress in all but name) and I estimate the parsi population of North America and Australia to be very optimistically 12000. Adding a few thousand to account for parsis in the united arab emirates, oman, and other gulf countries and another few thousand (optimistically) for prsis living elsewhere and the sum total should be less than hundred thousand, probably significantly less, say ninety thousand. parsis have a serious demographic problem: over thirty percent of the parsi population is over sixtyfive (in India, certainly according to the census of the govt. of India, anecdotal evidence would support this for other countries also).

Official figures concerning the irani zoroastrian population of the govt. of the islamic republic of iran are too high by a factor of ten, according to somebody from the zoroastrian trust funds of Europe. According to him Irani zoroastrians number in the ten thousands, most likely about thirty thousand.

I too agree that parsis should have a seperate page.

Aside: I've never written a wikipedia article, so I dont know how to put links, signature etc, I might come back to this later and find better references, add links and edit the main article (and use capital letters).

Hopefully you will soon discover the shift key. You're forgetting about the Zoroastrians in the US, Britan, the Netherlands, France &c., &c. --Zosodada 19:56, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)


Hinduism

Unusually among religions, the Zoroastrian faith, like Hinduism, even when holding positions of power, has been tolerant and supportive of other faiths.

There are a number of reasons why I'm taking out the mention of hinduism:

  1. It's historically incorrect. As soon as the British govement gave India even limited self rule the Hindus started to oppress Muslims
(I guess you are the one incorrect 'bout this, my pissed-off friend, the "intolerant" Hindus let 40 million Muslims (now 130 million) live in India even whilst their co-religionists were driven out from Pakistan. Muslims have ruled over majority Hindu population in India for better part of last millenium. They put jiazat tax on Hindus for following their religion. They killed, maimed and converted an estimated 25 million Hindus. So My Dear History-Know-It-All friend kindly read any book on India's partiton, except probably from a Pakistani source to get the actual account of Hindu-muslim confrontation. I'd also like to state that those "intolerent" Hindus let Jews,Sikhs,Buddhists,Parsis and Christians stay but "opressed" the Muslims).
It doesn't matter how the muslims behaved. It matters how the hindus behaved. If someone wanted to claim that muslims had a history of being tollerant of other relgions then it would be but no one is claiming that. --Geni 13:29, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  1. This article is about zoroastrianism, not hinduism. If you want to claim this about hinduism please do it in the hindu article
  1. I could make a pretty good case for budism and taoism to be mentioned in the same space. (along with most of the egyptian relgions) it would resuilt in the article looking silly though. --Geni 16:02, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
That's a bunch of bull. If the Muslims are so oppressed by the Hindus, how come there are 100 million of them in India and none in Pakistan? First of all, the alleged oppression was done by nationalist leaders like Nehru who care more about being the first prime minister of India than caring for Hindus. Nehru was a nominal Hindu and didn't care about Hinduism as Jinnah cared about Islam. If Hindus were so intolerant, there would be no Parsi, Muslims, and Jews in India.
Secondly, Hinduvta or Hindu nationalism is not Hinduism and does not represents Hinduism. (see discussion)
No true scotsman fallacy. They are Hindus by most standard defintions. While polytheistic relgions do tend to be more tolerant to other faiths than monothistic relgions this is not total
Also, in general, Muslims and Hindus have gotten along well except for the extremist kooks.
Britian was wooried about relgius conflict even as it was leaveing
I can agree with you about not putting in Hinduism because this is a Zoroastrian article.
Good.Thank you
Are you Muslim? You seem to ignore likewise Muslim oppression against Hindus (which is far more than alleged Hindu oppression).
My religion is not significant but no, I'm not a Muslim. Muslim wars againsts hindus were not relevant to my arguments
Secondly, Buddhism was not so tolerant as you suggest. For ages, when Buddhism was a state religion, devotional Hinduism was in decline. Only with the rise of the Advaita movement and bhakti movement, did Hinduism arise. Also, Sri Lankan Buddhists have persecuted Hindu Tamils.
They also didn't get on too well with the taoists either but those who did the oprressing were not representative of buddists, etc (you can see where I'm coming from here). --Geni 17:29, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Secondly, Hinduism is not polytheistic but rather either monist (i.e. Advaita) , either pantheist or panenthestic or monotheistic(i.e., Vaishnavism and Shaivism). Ok, I agree with you on the Buddhist point as well.


Disposal of the dead

I don't know enough about Zoroastrianism to verify this, but I'm not sure it is accurate to say that all modern Zoroastrians bury or cremate their dead. While it is probably accurate that most Zoroastrians have abandoned it, I have read that the ancient practice of placing the deceased on scaffolds for vultures is still practiced in some traditional Zoroastrian communities in India, or at least has certainly been widely practiced in modern times. I don't think this is an exclusively ancient practice anyway. Note in particular that this assertion is directly contradicted in the article Towers of Silence. --NTK 00:04, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It's a tricky one. Most of the information in the Towers of Silence article comes from a radio program (BBC) and some cross cheaking. So it wasn't orinaly writen by an expert on Zoroastrianism. My understanding of the current situtation is that in theory the bodies are eaten by vultures. However the shortage of vultures has resulted in large mirrors being set up around the towers that focus the sun onto the bodies. Whether this counts as cremation or this mearly results in the drying out of the bodies is an issue of dispute and not one I feel know enough to comment on. --Geni 01:06, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Perhaps using the correct word, excarnation, would help your research in this regard.
The Towers Of Silence are still very much in use in India. At least in Mumbai, Pune and Bangalore - there may be others that I am not aware of. The problems reported about dwindling number of vultures (due to dwindling number of corpses) are resolved by the use of solar mirrors IN the Tower of Silence at Pune. I do not think this would count as cremation as the corpse is not burnt per se, but decomposes at a faster rate. All in all, dokhmenashi v/s cremation v/s burial is a very divisive topic for Parsis and we need to ensure fair and neutral description of the same.


"A.C."?

In an otherwise excellent recent addition to this article, there is this sentence:

"Mardanfarrokh, a Zoroastrian theologian in the ninth century A.C..."

Should "A.C." be "A.D." (or, if you prefer "C.E.")? I think A.C. is a bit confusing here. I'm assuming we mean AD here (there wouldn't be much reason to argue for dualism over monotheism in the 9th century B.C., when monotheism wasn't on most people's radar). --Jfruh 20:11, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Google suggests AD and d is closer to c on the keyboard then a is to b the article us BC and AC elsewhere so AD would be consistent. --Geni 20:41, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)


Improving

Changed many things apparently, Major improvements;

--Included Persian script term and actual correct term "Zartosht" in contrast to "Zarathusthra" wich is generally known to be greek and Alien to most english speakers to begin with. Also corrected many other words wich contained spell errors.

--Added "overview" (speaks for itself)

--Added "Holy Book" (speaks for itself)

--Added "Beliefs" (speaks for itself)

--Added "The prophet" huge improvement in order to elaborate on what was requested previously.

--Added "Zoroastrian Concepts"

Tried putting it in a correct order so the viewer gets a nice overall view and reading experience. Ill try to work on "History" and the other two sections as well..ill also try to elaborate on the Abrahamic faiths and how they have taken shape after Zoroastrianism among many other things. If i flawed anywhere by all means correct me, Respectfully. --Paradoxic 00:49, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

What? "Zarathustra" isn't Greek, it's Avestan. I assume you are thinking of "Zoroaster". Zardosht is not the original version of the name, afaik, but Zarathushtra is. --Paul B 09;20, 9 May 2005 (UTC)


Thanks for correcting me, Zoroaster is greek yes, but my reasons for Zartosht would be that it's the most common word in modern day Persian and to my knowledge Zoroastrians also pronounce it this way. There are many ways to pronounce his name and there are many forms of interpretation, I do agree that the avesta does say Zarthoshtra if its in context and is classically pronounced.

Zar- Sort of Gold (a shining form of gold)

tosht - Camel/Shining Star (? I have no clue what this would mean as it is possibly avestan or Dari)

Ra-{Rah} - (Path)


Generally the rough translation to Zaratushtra is thought to be something along the lines of "He that can deal with camels of Gold (In a particular way/path) although it makes no real sense to me. Zartosht is a shorter easier to pronounce (Perhaps informal) but is universally used as far as i know. ill try and double check it either way...thanks.
Hi, check out the Zoroaster page and the discussion. --Paul B 17:00, 9 May 2005 (UTC)


Alexander/Pliny

I have restored the qualification of the statement about Alexander's persecution, which was deleted by Paradoxic. It is a fact that historians have questioned this explanation. It is not an undisputed truth that Alexander was responsible for these losses.

I find the restoration of the non-link to "plinius secundus" incomprehensible. The link should go to "Pliny the Younger". Initially I changed this to the ambiguous Pliny, because I thought it more likely that the reference came from Pliny the Elder, but was far from sure. I still haven't found the reference, but am provisionally leaving it as Pliny the Younger. --Paul B 15:11, 11 May, 2005 (UTC)

Just checked, and, yup, it's Pliny the Elder, so I'm changing it. --Paul B 15:30, 11 May, 2005 (UTC)


Announcing policy proposal

This is just to inform people that I want Misplaced Pages to accept a general policy that BC and AD represent a Christian Point of View and should be used only when they are appropriate, that is, in the context of expressing or providing an account of a Christian point of view. In other contexts, I argue that they violate our NPOV policy and we should use BCE and CE instead. See Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/BCE-CE Debate for the detailed proposal. --Slrubenstein | Talk 22:55, 15 May 2005 (UTC)


Consistency

Please ensure that this article remains consistent with the BCE/CE and that no one changes it to BC/AD. There is a growing problem with users who wish to continue the imposition of Christian BC/AD convention on non-Christian histories and religions. Editors comments on this page reflecting consensus opinion would be appreciated so as not to allow constant reversion to BC/AD. Thank you. --SouthernComfort 11:21, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

You have never edited this page before nor (AFAIK) edited any related page. Therefore will you please take your campain elsewhere? --Geni 11:31, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
Geni, I am a major contributor to Iran-related articles (and this is certainly Iran-related), and what makes you think I won't begin editing to this one among all the others? I noticed that this article uses both BC/AD and BCE/CE - an article should be consistent in the use of dating conventions and BCE/CE makes the most sense. Please don't revert my changes. --SouthernComfort 15:12, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
I'm broadly in favour of BCE/CE over BC/AD, though I think people get "offended" for the sake of it sometimes. The reality is that the number system is based on the birth of Jesus however you label it. I don't see why the BC/AD should be 'offensive' anymore than "March" and "Tuesday" are offensive to Christians because they are named after pagan gods. It's just a convention. I'd prefer consistency though. --Paul B 14:46, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
You are editing as part of a campaign. A campaign you were unable to get comuunity consensus for. --Geni 18:52, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
You are the one going against consensus when most editors involved with these articles prefer BCE/CE. --SouthernComfort 19:03, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
evidence?
Furthermore, it is very rude to constantly revert when an editor tries to improve the article by maintaining consistency. This behaviour is not appreciated at all. Instead of reverting without discussion (not proper behavior for an admin), let the editors decide for themselves. --SouthernComfort 19:12, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
every one of your non date chages has been left in. You know this.Geni 21:27, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
Geni, I think your behaviour is wholly inappropriate. You should know that CE/BCE is legitimate usage within Misplaced Pages. I can only assume that you have an ideological agenda of some sort. You have no grounds to revert. --Paul B 19:17, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
There has been/is a massive debate of the BCE/BC isssue. The BCE lot were unable to obtain a consensus (or even a straight majority). User:SouthernComfort is currently involved in an arbcom issue of changeing articles over to BCE. There is not wikipedia conseus on this and I have just as much right to change them to BC as User:SouthernComfort has to change them to AD (ok so I draw the line at doing this over multiple pages that I have no previous involvement with).Geni 21:27, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
I am well aware of the debate in question. It is clear that both BC/AD and BCE/CE are acceptable.' You are trying to make BCE/CE unacceptable. The question here is which is more appropriate. I can see good reasons to adopt this latter convention in this case. I can see no reason at all to adopt the absurd convention of years before the present as one anti-CE/BCE zealot has just tried to do (and which for specific dates would have to be changed every year!). --Paul B 22:15, 24 May 2005 (UTC)


Wouldn't you agree that BCE/CE is more appropriate in this article (and related articles) than BC/AD (being a Christian POV)? And what do my actions have to do with the consensus? There is such a thing as editorial consensus as regards specific articles such as this one. Please allow other editors to make up their own minds as to which convention they prefer. SouthernComfort 21:41, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
a)fallacy of the excluded middle b)everything C)you owe me for an irony meter.Geni 21:44, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
By the way, the article as it was before was not consistent in dating convention. Style guidelines dictate that an article should be consistent - and I propose that BCE/CE is the most appropriate considering Zarathustrianism is an Iranian religion. Please do not impose Christian POV terminology. Would you insist on doing the same to Jewish articles? SouthernComfort 21:45, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
Once again you use the pathetic "Christian POV" argument. BC/AD is not Christian POV. It is in fact you that is forcing a POV. violet/riga (t) 22:02, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
There is no dispute that BC/AD is Christian POV terminology - and plus, shouldn't it be left to editorial consensus? If most editors agree with BCE/CE, what is the problem? And read my comments above - the article was not consistent. I chose to go with BCE/CE. SouthernComfort 22:09, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
And therein lies the problem! You are horribly mistaken about BC/AD and that is your justification for your blatant POV-pushing. violet/riga (t) 22:14, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
See Talk:List of kings of Persia - if Codex (who opposes BCE/CE) can agree to consensus, why should Jguk be allowed to go against that? SouthernComfort 22:11, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
Articles should be taken back to their original version and not edited until Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Eras is finished. violet/riga (t) 22:14, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
SC, at the moment you have shown no respect for anything other than your own political viewpoint. If we are to have any sort of constructive dialogue, you will need to calm down a bit and stop acting like a politician. Kind regards, jguk 22:16, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
Jguk, cease and desist following me around all over the place and reverting so much that editors have lost their contribs - some might interpret this behavior as 'trolling.' SouthernComfort 22:39, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
I think I rest my case. Now SouthernComfort if you would be so good as to disscuss this over policy pages rather than carrying out activities that some might say are an attempt to get things your way by the back door perhaphs this whole issue can be sorted out all the sooner.Geni 23:41, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
Excuse me? The article was not consistent in the use of dating convention - how many times do I have to repeat myself? I simply made sure that the article was consistent, going with BCE/CE since it is most appropriate as Zarathushtrianism is not a Christian religion nor was Zarathushtra a Christian. There is far more justification for BCE/CE than BC/AD. There is no WP policy which prohibits my actions, nor is there any policy which favors one convention or the other. You reverted so quickly so as not to even allow for proper discussion or to even see if other editors have a problem with this - and Jguk doesn't count, considering he's been stalking me all over the place, nor has he even remotely contributed to articles dealing with Iranian history and religion. If most editors do not oppose BCE/CE, what is the problem?? SouthernComfort 10:50, 25 May 2005 (UTC)


stragey there is no wikipedia policy against what I am doing. If most editors don't opose AD/BC what is the problem? You are editing this article as part of a campain that could be better delt with through the more normal channels. I do not view this as acceptable editing practice.Geni 12:00, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
What "campaign"? Another editor here stated that he supported the use of BCE/CE and yet you continued to revert despite this fact. Why you are so insistent upon BC/AD in an entirely non-Christian article is beyond me. I'm afraid your position lacks credibility. SouthernComfort 12:09, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
< Losing indent

I think a fundamental problem you are having, SouthernComfort, is that you are not allowing yourself to see the views of the opposing side even though they have been presented on numerous pages. I suggest you just take a step back for a moment and read through our opinions. --violet/riga (t) 12:23, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

No, the problem is that Jguk, who has never been involved with Iran-related articles decided to revert every single one of my changes and refusing to allow other editors to discuss the changes or to even see if they opposed them. You and RickK supported and defended him (neither of you involved in Iran-related articles either), and yourselves engaged in the revert war that he initiated. And all this despite the fact that other editors clearly involved with those articles spoke up in favour of BCE/CE. Regarding this article, another editor chimed in and spoke out in favour of BCE/CE and even then Geni reverted. Now tell me, who is being unreasonable here? --SouthernComfort 12:27, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
Excuse me but I need to dig some bits of my latest irony meter out of the wall. --Geni 12:31, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
Note again my attempts to resolve the issue have been shot down by someone that believes that revert warring is the best approach. Have you even commented at Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Eras yet? --violet/riga (t) 12:39, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
My quick two cents on this. I think it's irrelevant. Both BC/AD and BCE/CE are linear time systems that use the Birth of Jesus of Nazareth as their year one. Six of one, half dozen of another, if you ask me. The traditional system for numbering years that most people around the world used was what year it was of the reign of the current king. I suppose that BC/AD came from the Christian notion that Jesus was the King of the world, but now it's become the standard, so we're stuck with it. It's for the best anyway: Isn't 2005 easier to write than, "In the fifth year of the Presidency of the George Bush, the Younger..." -Marcus 1 June 2005


SouthernComfort

Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:SouthernComfort - for all who are interested in knowing what has been going on. --SouthernComfort 09:14, 25 May 2005 (UTC)


Take a chill pill, y'all

As someone who has contributed a lot to this article but who has no strong opinion about the AD/BC - CE/BCE controversy, I have to say: this is quickly approaching candidate status for the list of lamest edit wars ever. At the risk of sounding like your therapist, I urge all of you to take a step back, reflect on whether this issue is that important in regards to this article, and consider whether it's worth the energy that constant revisions take. Maybe it would help to state on this thread exactly why you're so passionate about this issue, as it's kind of mystifying and nobody's really explained it -- that might help others see your point view better than just reverting their edits and telling them they're wrong. --Jfruh 13:24, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

See ],], their respective talk pages, rather a lot of posts to the mailing list and probably some other places I can't remember. --Geni 13:32, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
Also see Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Jguk for background on my intentions and involvement. --SouthernComfort 14:05, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
Jfruh, it is unfortunate that, after the failed policy proposal, some editors chose to implement it, and this is one of these pages. I apologise for the disruption to an article you clearly care about - particularly as the issues being fought over have nothing to do with Zoroastrianism. Hopefully it will all die down soon. Kind regards, jguk 18:21, 25 May 2005 (UTC)


The Judaism Tangent

This sentence seems to go off on a tangent that has little to do with Zoroastrianism:

Judaism does not appear to become strictly monothesitic until after the Jewish people is freed from Babylon by Cyrus the Great (c539 BC). Even the first commandment reflects the henotheistic nature of early Judaism. "Thou shalt have no other gods before Me" implictly accepts the existance of other gods."

The earlier part, about the dating, does pertain to Zoroastrianism, of course, but this part seems unnecessary, in addition to controversial. --Jonadab

This section was added by user 138.88.151.133 some little while ago. I shortened it, because it was too tangental, but left the last sentence. The last sentence was deleted recently, but rapidly restored by Marudubshinki. I'm in two minds about it. I happen to agree with the point that the first commandment is henotheistic, and the reference to it helps to clarify the claims in the earlier sentence. --Paul B 23:55, 8 June 2005 (UTC)

NPOV? I don't think so.

"The timing of Zoroaster's life is significant for understanding the development of Judeo-Christian beliefs. Should it be before 1300 BC (prior to Akhenaten), then Zoroaster would be the earliest monotheist known in any religion. Even a later date could make Zoroaster a template for Biblical figures who introduce monotheism over henotheism. Traditional Jews and Christians typically seek to place Zoroaster's life at as late a date as possible, so as to avoid the conclusion that much of the theology and morality of the non-Torah parts of the Old Testament derive from Zoroastrianism, the ideas having flowed into Judaism during the Babylonian captivity which happened shortly after 600 BC. Even the first commandment reflects the henotheistic nature of early Judaism. "Thou shalt have no other gods before Me" implictly accepts the existance of other gods."

So much for not reading in our own points of view! --Ta bu shi da yu 04:24, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Let's have a look at other POV statements:
  • Many modern scholars believe that Zoroastrianism had a large influence on Judaism, Mithraism, Manichaeism, and Christianity because of Persia's connections to the Roman Empire and because of its earlier control over Israel under rulers such as Cyrus II the Great, Darius the Great and Xerxes I.
  • Because Zoroastrianism is thought to have emerged from a common Indo-Iranian culture that preceded Vedic Hinduism, many scholars also use evidence from Zoroastrian texts to reconstruct the unreformed earlier stage of Indo-Iranian beliefs, and therefore to identify the culture that evolved into the Vedic religion. This has also informed attempts to characterise the original Proto-Indo-European religion (e.g. the god Dyeus who became Jupiter, Sabazios, Zeus, and Tyr).
  • Zoroastrianism teaches many concepts we today find in the major Abrahamic faiths, concepts of Heaven, Hell, Day of judgement, the concept of Satan, the prophecy and coming of the Messiah and the extensive teaching of Angels and Evil spirits.
    • Implies that these concepts in Abrahamic faiths comes solely from Zoroastrianism. Most evangelicals, Roman Catholics and Muslims would dispute this.
Until these can be fixed (and the whole tone) with proper footnotes, I doubt this will be an NPOV article. It's going on my watchlist, btw. --Ta bu shi da yu 04:28, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Your arguments are little more than an attempt at censoring entirely commonplace scholarly views about Zoroastrianism. There is nothing NPOV about them, nor does the phrase 'many scholars' in any way constitute "weasel words". In fact they mean exactly what they say. It is very easy indeed to find examples of such many scholars. I will do so later today or at the weekend. In fact the point about Proto-Indo-European religion is so utterly commonplace you can find it throughout Misplaced Pages on the many pages devoted to Indo-European studies. It has been a fact of the study of religion ever since Max Muller.
Incorrect. Perhaps a read of Misplaced Pages:Avoid weasel terms might be helpful. Perhaps a direct quote from that page might assist you to alter this article:
This is a half-hearted attempt to give it the appearance of a neutral point of view:
"Some people say Montreal is the coolest city in the world."
Who says that? You? Me? When did they say it? How many people think that? What kind of people think that? Where are they? What kind of bias do they have?
It's better to put a name and a face on an opinion (and to seek out other alternate opinions to discuss) than to assign an opinion to an anonymous source. This doesn't really give a neutral point of view; it just spreads hearsay, or (worse) couches personal opinion in vague, indirect syntax.
"Some have criticized the King James Version as archaic (e.g. "thou shalt not" instead of "do not")..." The use of "some" is a disguised passive voice which means to avoid attribution, just as the passive voice may do. Legend has it... is a weasel phrase, a cover for not pinning down which legend, in play where and when. The phrase is also a flag for spurious "legends."
Here's a listing of some weasel terms that should be used only with caution:
  • "Some people say..."
  • "...is widely regarded as..."
  • "...is widely considered..."
  • "...has been called..."
  • "It is believed that..."
  • "It has been suggested/noticed/decided..."
  • "Some people believe..."
  • "It has been said that..."
  • "Some would say..."
  • "Legend has it that..."
  • "Critics say that..."
  • "Some historians argue..."
Until you fix the issues, this is a blatantly POV article. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:38, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
No, you are wrong. It is virtually impossible to avoid these kinds of phrases altogether without creating utterly turgid prose. Note that the rule says should be used with caution, not should not be used at all. Surely one needs to apply common sense. If you write "the Mona Lisa is widely regarded as the best known painting in the world" it would be absurd to attribute the opinion to an individual. One reason why it can actually be misleading to attribute comments to individuals is that it implies that standard views are quirky or personal ones. The whole point of the "weasle words" guideline seems to be to avoid the smuggling in of idiosycratic opinions by evasive phrasing, as in "some people believe that the Mona Lisa encodes secret messages about alien landings". In other words, it would be wholly contrary to the 'spirit of the law' to use the weasel words ruling in order to be weaselish - by trying to imply that standard scholarly views are idiosyncratic opinions. I have no objection to your pointing out that the article could be improved in several ways - and that the addition of footnotes would be one of them. However I don't think you have even begun to demonstrate that the article is "blatantly POV". Your initial comments read like the lashings-out of an evangelical who has encountered threatening material.
Nice. I was not "lashing out" any more than you are violating Misplaced Pages's policy of Misplaced Pages:Assume good faith. I have specific criticism of wording and yet you are accusing me of "lashing out" at an editor or at their material. I found a whole paragraph and several statements that are obviously the point of view of the author, given at the exclusion of all other points of view (see my comments on Zoroaster's birth date below!). I am not, and I don't thank you for telling me that I am. Again, please acquaint yourself with the policies and goals of Misplaced Pages. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:38, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
BTW, my aggressive style in reponse to your comments merely mirroring of your own. I note you have nothing to say about any issues of substance. As far as I can see your outraged outpourings come down to nothing more subtantial than the fact that you don't like the phrase "many scholars". Paul B 09:11, 10 June 2005 (UTC)
"Outraged outpourings"? well, that's reading into things a little, isn't it? I think you're getting a little defensive here. As for your statement that the whole point of the weasel word guidlelines is to avoid the smuggling in of idiosyncratic opinions: where did you get that? In NPOV, we cannot say that one opinion is more idiosyncratic than the other. As for stating that standard scholarly opinion is one way or the other - that's for you to prove, not for me to just accept. If this is the case, then you'll back up your contributions with plenty of sourced material (which I can see you can do already, but haven't bothered to). Its not hard to see that if a position is a "standard" scholarly viewpoint then you will be easily able to source scholarly material that backs up your case. If you can't do that, then don't make the statements. It's easy. I suggest you look at Misplaced Pages:Verifiability:
Those who write articles likely to be deemed in need of fact checking, for whatever reason, should expect to assist by providing references, ideally when the article is first written. Because of this, it's important to make it easy to verify the accuracy and neutrality of your content. Citing your sources is an important part of this, but not the only factor. Another good rule of thumb is to be specific (and avoid weasel words).
If you don't like it: sorry, but that's just tough. Our encyclopedia demands sources and WP:NPOV is not negotiable. If you want to work with us on this, please procede. Otherwise, please take a moment to review Misplaced Pages's policies and goals. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:04, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I am familiar with the NPOV policy, of course. It's far from clear in many respects. As stated, it's full of ambiguities. How does 'majority' opinion compare to 'expert' opinion, for example? Of course we should aspire to fairness and accuracy in the expression of current knowledge in any subject. On 'idiosycratic' opinions, I guess it would be more accurate to say that the original research rule is designed to minimise idiosyncratic ideas, but I said that it seems that this is (also) one of the intents behind the - disputed - weasel words guideline. Note that your quoted statement again speaks of a "rule of thumb", not a law. Paul B 11:24 11 June, 2005 (UTC)


"Evangelicals, Roman Catholics and Muslims would dispute this" is itself a POV statement, and largely false. Many Muslims, especially in Iran, identify Zoroaster as a prophet of God, following the Koranic assertion that previous prophets have been sent by God. So they would see nothing surprising about correspondence between his teachings and Mohammed's. Catholics have a variety of views, and the RC church is not closed to the idea that other teachings contain merit, or partial truths, as they would see it. Of course evangelicals deny everything that does not accept the primacy and factual truth of the Bible. So, what? Does that mean we should delete all references to anything that might contradict the Bible? How POV would that be? All the allegedly POV statements say is that Zoroastrianism has these teachings, which it does. It would be dishonest to say it doesn't, and censorship to delete it. You can interpret it to mean that Abrahamic faiths borrowed these concepts or not, but it is a fact nonetheless. Paul B 11:30 9 June 2005 (UTC)
I have reread this comment, and have just realised that the author of it has totally mischaracterised me. Firstly, I have never advocated removing well-sourced and well-written material. I would like to say that I was out of line when talking about Muslims, and for this I acknowledge that I am in error. However, RCs and Evangelicals would not agree with you. That you automatically assumed I was an Evangelical is amusing, though I am one. It means that you are quite happy to assume what I am without knowing who I am!
I said that "your initial comments read like the lashings-out of an evangelical". Saying what they read like is not making assumptions about who you are. It means what it says - "this is what it looks like". And since you have just confirmed that you are indeed an evangelical, I don't see why you are 'amused' by how I have 'mischaracterised' you! However, I think you did catch me at a point when I was feeling frustrated by a series of "outraged outpourings" from True Believers of various stripes. First it was a Jain contributor to the Swastika article, and then a Vaisnavite who wanted the tilaka article to contain his proof that Jesus was a Hindu - and so were the ancient Romans and Egyptians. Paul B 09:06 11 June, 2005 (UTC)


I find it amusing that you decided that you would judge in this way: it also explains why you make unfair and ludicrous statements like "Of course evangelicals deny everything that does not accept the primacy and factual truth of the Bible. So, what? Does that mean we should delete all references to anything that might contradict the Bible? How POV would that be?". When the heck did I ever say that?
Now you are the one being ludicrous. The passage does not say that you said that. It's a reductio ad absurdam of your argument. Paul B 09:27 11 June, 2005 (UTC)


In fact, I would dispute anyone who did such a thing and put back the opposing POV into the article! What is POV is a statement like "According to internal and external histories, Zoroaster lived in Iran / Persia no earlier than 1700 BC and no later than 600 BC (although Plato believed that Zoroaster lived some 6000 years previous to himself)." Clearly this is an absolute statement made when there is some debate about such a dating. If you don't believe me, here is what our own Misplaced Pages article has to say about this issue (see Zoroaster#Date of Zoroaster):

One of the most important, and dividing, of all issues regarding the Iranian history is “the date of Zarathushtra”, that is the date when he lived and composed his Gathas. Different sources ranging from linguistic evidence to textual sources and traditional dates have been used by various scholars to determine the date of Zarathushtra. Accordingly, any date from the 6th century BC to 6000 BC has been suggested, although some with more merit than others. Here we shall look at the most prominent of these arguments.
A point of view held by many prominent scholars, among them Taghizadeh and W.B.Henning and continued by Gnoli among others, is what is known as “the Traditional Date of Zoroaster”. This date which was suggested in the Sasanian commentaries on the Avesta (Bundahišn), gives the date of Zarathushtra’s life as “258 years before Alexander”. However one might want to interpret this statement (whether from the date of Alexander’s entry to Iran or even possibly from what is known as the “Seleucid Era”), the traditional dating would put Zarathushtra at 6th century BC. This placement is particularly attractive when one notices that this dating would make Darius and Zarathushtra contemporaries of sort, making Darius’ prominent mention of “Ahuramazda” and other Zorostrian motifs quite appropriate. Furthermore, the fact that Zarathushtra’s benefactor, Kāvi Wishtaspa, closely reminds us of the name of Darius’ father, Wishtaspa, who was the Satrap of Parthia during the time of Cyrus the Great in the middle of the 6th century BC.
According to this view, Zarathushtra lived in the court of Darius’ father as the chief clergy and influenced Darius as a young man. It was due to this influence that Darius makes constant mentions of Ahuramāmazdā and other Zoroastrian motifs in his inscriptions. The traditional tale of Zarathushtra's death, being slain by invading “Turan” warriors has also been affiliated with the unrests of Darius’ early years on the throne and the attacks of the rulers of Drangiana and Sogdiana on Bactria.
However, from an early time, scholars such as Bartholomea and Christensen noticed the problems with “Traditional Date”, namely the linguistic difficulties that it presents. As we know, Zarathushtra himself composed the 18 poems that make-up the oldest parts of the Avesta, known as “the Gathas”. The language of the Gathas, as well as the text known as “Yasna Haptanghaiti” (the Seven Chapter Sermon), is called “Old Avestan” and is significantly different and more archaic than the language of the other parts of the Avesta, “Young Avestan”. On the other hand, Old Avestan is very close to the language of the Rig Veda (known as Vedic Sanskrit). The closeness in composition of Old Avestan and Vedic is so much that some parts of Gathas can be transliterated to Vedic only by following the rules of sound change (such as the development of Indo-Iranian “s” to Avestan “h”). These similarities suggest that Old Avestan and Vedic were very close in time, probably putting Old Avestan at about one century after Vedic. Since the date of the composition of Rig-Veda has been put at somewhere between the 15-12th centuries BC, we can also assume that Gathas were composed close to that time, at sometimes before 1000 BC.
Furthermore, a look at the Gathas and their composition shows us that the society in which they were composed was a nomadic society that lived at a time prior to settlement in large urban areas and depended greatly on pastoralism. This would stand sharply apart from the view of a Zarathushtra living in the court of an Achaemenid satrap such as Wištaspa. Also, the absence of any mention of Achaemenids or even any West Iranian tribes such as Medes and Persians, or even Parthians, in the Gathas makes it unlikely that historical Zarathushtra ever lived in the court of a 6th century Satrap. As a result, the present author is more inclined to believe that Zarathushtra lived sometimes in the 13th to 11th centuries BC, prior to the settlement of Iranian tribes in the central and west of the Iranian Plateau.
Still think I have nothing of substance to talk about?
Yup. Cutting and pasting other people's statement is hardly adding anything new, is it? As you know, I am well aware of this passage, having contributed to this very article. It also says exactly the same thing as is says here - that dates range from 6000BC to 600, with the 6000 being from a single source. It is bizarre to claim that saying dates range from between these dates is "absolute". How can a 'relative statement be absolute?! It is perfectly sensible that the detailed discussion of the dating should be in the article devoted to the prophet himself, not here. btw, it statement is "absolute" in just the same way as this one from the Jesus article "based on some historical data mentioned, would have been anywhere from the years 27 to 36 in the current era." Paul B 09:59 11 June, 2005 (UTC)


However, allow me to continue (I'm really quite annoyed about how you are so quick to assume bad faith - I wasn't annoyed before, but I am now)

You were aggressive from your first intervention. Your comments were full of exclamation marks and very little argument. I did not at any point assume bad faith. It was your uwarranted arrogant tone I reacted to. Paul B 10:02 11 June, 2005 (UTC)


so that I may make myself crystal clear. You have stated that "All the allegedly POV statements say is that Zoroastrianism has these teachings, which it does." This is incorrect. Perhaps we should review which weasel words I was talking about?

  • "Many modern scholars believe that Zoroastrianism had a large influence on Judaism, Mithraism, Manichaeism, and Christianity because of Persia's connections to the Roman Empire and because of its earlier control over Israel under rulers such as Cyrus II the Great, Darius the Great and Xerxes I."
Not a single mention of Zoroastrianism's teachings: this is describing what some unattributed scholars believe.
Oh, for heaven's sake. This is in an overview section about historical importance. The specific teachings are discussed later. I've already answered the point about 'many scholars'. And by the way, the weasel words issue is a guideline not a policy, and it is disputed precisely because taken literally it can lead to absurdities, and because it can also be said to contain some inherent problems.

These views about the influence of Zoroastrianism cannot reasonably be attributed to speciic individual scholars because they have been longstanding since the mid-nineteenth century and have been articulated by a great many writers. I've already said that specific attribution can itself create a misleading impression. Either a long list of names should be given, which would be silly, or a general statement like this should be made. Certainly adding references would be desirable. Paul B 10:14 11 June, 2005 (UTC)


  • Because Zoroastrianism is thought to have emerged from a common Indo-Iranian culture that preceded Vedic Hinduism, many scholars also use evidence from Zoroastrian texts to reconstruct the unreformed earlier stage of Indo-Iranian beliefs, and therefore to identify the culture that evolved into the Vedic religion. This has also informed attempts to characterise the original Proto-Indo-European religion (e.g. the god Dyeus who became Jupiter, Sabazios, Zeus, and Tyr).
What teachings? This says that some unattributed scholars provide some unattributed evidence, and you just expect me to accept this? This is a 💕, written by anonymous contributors! We have a policy of Misplaced Pages:No original research, which requires attribution so we can verify statements. I'm sorry that you think that the prose would become turgid, but that is a problem with writing skills. We can always rewrite turgid prose to become more readable, it's not hard to do and I've done it many times.
The reason I find replying to you so frustrating, is the fact that you are so obviously very ignorant of this topic. I'm sorry if that sounds rude, but it makes your comments about POV seems quite bizarre at times. It is quite hilarious that you should quote the "original research" policy about a passage such as this. I've already said that these views have been commonplace since Max Muller. They cannot reasonably be attributed to individual writers. And I've already said that discussion of the specific teachings appears later. If as an intereted person with no backround in the subject you want to say that you find the passage confusing, that's fair enough. Of course we want readers to be able to understand the text. The actual words you quote have been written by several editors, but I decided to have the Historical importance section here at the beginning in order to emphasise what is so special and distinctive about Zism from the outset. Paul B 10:55 11 June, 2005 (UTC)


  • Zoroastrianism teaches many concepts we today find in the major Abrahamic faiths, concepts of Heaven, Hell, Day of judgement, the concept of Satan, the prophecy and coming of the Messiah and the extensive teaching of Angels and Evil spirits.
That statement implied that these concepts in Abrahamic faiths comes solely from Zoroastrianism. This is most definitely disputed, and not mentioning this means that having this text in Misplaced Pages is an attempt to say that "Misplaced Pages holds the position that Zoroastrianism provides much of the foundation for major Abrahamic faiths". This, of course, is not Misplaced Pages's position at all, because Misplaced Pages holds a neutral point of view on such matters.
How does it imply that? It says that Zism teaches these things and that they are also to be found in Abrahamic faiths. It's phrasing deliberately leaves open the question of whether they are just similar or whether one faith drew on the other. If you had constructive rather than simply negative commnts to make, you might have sugested improvements, or even made some yourself. Paul B 12:59 11 June, 2005 (UTC)


Perhaps I should clarify what you mean by:

"Of course evangelicals deny everything that does not accept the primacy and factual truth of the Bible. So, what? Does that mean we should delete all references to anything that might contradict the Bible? How POV would that be?"
So that I don't assume bad faith, I would like to ask you whether you beleive that the opposing POV of Evangelicals Christians should not be heard? - Ta bu shi da yu 07:06, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It depends what you mean by "the opposing views of evangelicals". Evangelicals, atheists, neo-Nazis, Communists and anyone else have a right to express views on anything, of course, as long as they are reasonable, coherent and well-supported by the evidence. Does that mean we should articulate the specific views of all such groups in each article? No, I think that would be absurd. Many evangelical Christians, for example would believe Zoroastrianism, Hinduism etc to be false religions. Does that mean we should have a section within Hinduism saying "Many evangelical Christians believe Hinduism to be a false religion inspired by the devil." Such a passage would tell us nothing useful about Hinduism and would be very offensive to Hindus. The views of evangelicals or any other group as such are not, I think, relevant for this reason. I think arguments and information should be judged on their merits, not as "delegations" from an ideology. Paul B 01:13 12 June, 2005 (UTC)
Yes, that is correct. My statement is a POV statement, and that's perfectly fine because talk pages don't follow NPOV policy! You should be aware that I have no problems with having the opinion of scholars on a page, but that's what it must be represented as: opinion. And it must be well sourced. I'd suggest you stop getting defensive and start fixing these issues. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:38, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Gee, thanks for pointing out the obvious. You may or may not have noticed that I tried to start a sensible debate about the content of the article by replying to a commentator in the section entitled "The Judaism tangent". I that I stated my own point of view, followed by an argument for the inclusion of the reference. Some informed discussion of content and phrasing is required, not grandstanding, unargued assertion and finger-wagging. Paul B 12:35 10 June 2005 (UTC)
And yet... you are doing the very thing you accuse me of doing. My concerns stand, and until someone can resolve them, I'm not budging. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:04, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Right, here's some references:

Bowker, John, ed. The Oxford Dictionary of World Religions. 1st ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997. Boyce, Mary. Textual Sources for the Study of Zoroastrianism. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1984. Boyce, Mary. 1979. Zoroastrians. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Duchesne-Guillemin, J. 1958. The Western Response to Zoroaster. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Duchesne-Guillemin, J. The Religion of Ancient Iran Herzfeld, Ernst. 1947. Zoroaster and his World. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Jackson, William A. V. 1965. Zoroastrian Studies. New York: AMS Press, Inc. Masani, Rustom. 1968. Zoroastrianism: The Religion of the Good Life. New York: The MacMillan Co. Melton, J. Gordon. 1996. Encyclopedia of American Religions. Detroit: Gale Research. Mistree, Khojeste P. 1982. Zoroastrianism: an Ethnic Perspective. Bombay: Good Impressions. Nigosian, S.A., The Zoroastrian Faith: Tradition and Modern Research (1993). Ramazani, Nesta. 1997. "Fire in the Temple: The Zoroastrians." Pardis. Spring: Vol. 1, Issue 2. Writer, Rashna. 1994. Contemporary Zoroastrians: An Unstructured Nation. Lanham, MD: University Press of America. Zaehner, R.C. 1961. The Dawn and Twilight of Zoroastrianism. New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons.

Duchesne-Guillemin writes that "the figure of Satan, originally a servant of God, appointed by Him as His prosecutor, came more and more to resemble Ahriman, the enemy of God. Secondly, the figure of the Messiah, originally a future King of Israel who would save his people from oppression, evolved, in Deutero-Isaiah for instance, into a universal Savior very similar to the Iranian Saoshyant. Other points of comparison between Iran and Israel include the doctrine of the millennia; the Last Judgment; the heavenly book in which human actions are inscribed; the Resurrection; the final transformation of the earth; paradise on earth or in heaven; and hell." Duchesne-Guillemin is also the author of the current Britannica article on Zoroastrianism. In this article you may read the following - "After the exile, the traditional hope in a messiah-king of the House of David who would reestablish Israel as an independent nation and make it triumph over all enemies gave way gradually to a concept at once more universal and more moral. The salvation of Israel was still essential, but it had to come about in the framework of a general renewal; the appearance of a saviour would mean the end of this world and the birth of a new creation; his judgment of Israel would become a general judgment, dividing mankind into good and evil. This new concept, at once universal and ethical, recalls Iran so strongly that many scholars attribute it to the influence of that country. John R. Hinnells has seen this influence especially in the saviour's defeat of the demons, his gathering of men for the judgment scene, his raising of the dead, and his administration of the judgment." He adds "that the debt of Israel to its Eastern neighbours in religious matters is easy to demonstrate on a few precise points of minor importance but less so in other more important points, such as dualism, angelology, and eschatology." This is, of course, a reference to the well established claim that such debts exist. He states they can't be proved one way or the other. These arguments date back to the nineteenth century - see King and Moore The Gnostics and Their Remains (1887), in which is to be found the following: "it was from this very creed of Zoroaster that the Jews derived all the angelology of their religion...the belief in a future state; of rewards and punishments, ...the soul's immortality, and the Last Judgment - all of them essential parts of the Zoroastrian scheme."

These arguments will be found in Religious Studies courses in universites throughout the western world. They are so standard and commonplace that you can even buy essays trotting them out. See http://www.essays.cc/free_essays/f3/nyv78.shtml and http://www.student-papers.com/12790.htm

And btw, an Islamic contributor on the Talk:Zoroaster page confirms what I said above about Muslim views of Zoroaster. See the (unfortunately misnamed) subheading "Zoroaster is the first mouthiest of written history."

To be honest, it seems from your own comments that you know nothing about this subject, but nevertheless seem to feel qualified to shout "POV", slap on a neutrality dispute, and say things need to be 'fixed' before you are satisfied. I'm inclined to say that you need to "fix" the "whole tone" of your comments. Paul B 20:50 9 June 2005 (UTC)

Oh please. Obviously the article needs work, or you would not need to provide a whole list of sources! I suggest you work on fixing these issues, not making personal attacks on myself! - Ta bu shi da yu 23:38, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The logic of your first sentence escapes me. The sources are provided because you claimed the article is POV. The "personal attacks" were attacks on what you wrote and on the unwarranted manner of self-appointed judge and jury you adopt. Paul B 11:15 10 June 2005 (UTC)
Sorry... your statement escapes me! You have just provided a whole bunch of sources which I was not aware that you used. Is that my issue? I came to this article expecting an NPOV article, and this is not what I have found. See above, where I will respond to the weasel word comments. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:04, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Further to your comments: "Traditional Jews and Christians typically seek to place Zoroaster's life at as late a date as possible, so as to avoid the conclusion that much of the theology and morality of the non-Torah parts of the Old Testament derive from Zoroastrianism, the ideas having flowed into Judaism during the Babylonian captivity which happened shortly after 600 BC." This is clearly the author's POV. I'm going to bring in others to this conversation. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:08, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The writing obviously needs some improvment, such as removing unsourced statements about what Jews and Christians might think, but Paul B is basically correct that many scholars see Zoroastrianism as having a foundational influence on other religions that came out of the region. It is hardly surprising that the founders of a new religion would incorporate aspects of what came before. In some cases it occurs openly, such as the relationship between Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. With Zoroasatrianism, which is basically dead in most of the world, most people aren't aware of the parallels or the influence it had, but I believe there is fairly good scholarly agreement that subsequent religious traditions did incorporate beliefs originally attributed (as far as history records) to Zoroastrian teachings. Dragons flight 04:03, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

P.S. An inspection of the google search on Judaism Zoroastrianism Babylon (9750 hits) clearly shows that the disputed section is not original to contributors here though the tone encountered in my cursory inspection of those websites seems to run from "and some Jewish teaching were influenced by contact with the Persians" to grossly defamatory remarks which belittle Judaism as entirely unoriginal. I believe that the relationship between Zoroastrianism and Judaism needs to be discussed, but I don't really have the right background to say what the balance ought to be. Dragons flight 04:50, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

More information that needs updating

From my reading of Bakers' Evangelical Dictionary of Theology I see that the statement: "According to internal and external histories, Zoroaster lived in Iran / Persia no earlier than 1700 BC and no later than 600 BC (although Plato believed that Zoroaster lived some 6000 years previous to himself)." is disputed. According to their entry on Zoroastrianism (page 1310, 2001) they state:

"The date of Zoroaster's birth has been given variously as 6000 BC, 1400BC, and 1000BC, but Herzfeld accepts the traditional date, approximately, as now confirmed (Herzfeld, 570-500BC; Jackson, 660-582BC)."

The sources of these statements are Herzfeld's Zoroaster and His World and A.V.W Jackson in Jewish Encyclopedia). Shouldn't we update the article based on this and add a note to the article about where I am getting this information from? - Ta bu shi da yu 06:31, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Update the article?! Herzfeld's book dates from 1947! Your reference clearly confirms the accuracy of the statement above - which you claim is "clearly the author's POV" (i.e. "Traditional Jews and Christians typically seek to place Zoroaster's life at as late a date as possible, so as to avoid the conclusion that much of the theology and morality of the non-Torah parts of the Old Testament derive from Zoroastrianism, the ideas having flowed into Judaism during the Babylonian captivity which happened shortly after 600 BC."). The Evangelical Dictionary and Jewish Encyclopedia presumably represent the views of 'traditional Jews and Christians' who have a vested interest in this dating. They do not represent all scholarly opinion, nor do they contradict the dating statement as given in the current article, unless you think that rough end date of 600BC is 'contradicted' by the 570-500 position. However, I accept, as does the current article, that this late date is a legitimate possibility. Paul B 14:04, 10 June 2005 (UTC)
btw, the original version of this passage (added by user 138.88.151.133) was, imo, POV, which is why I altered it from its original form. Paul B 13:14, 10 June 2005 (UTC)
Category: