![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
There is not a single article or paragraph that talks about the role of women in the religion. I think there should at least be a paragraph on this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.156.180.134 ( talk) 10:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Could we have an account of the Zoroastrian priesthood? According to what I read long ago in my student years, there are three grades, dastur which seemed comparable to a Christian bishop, mobed which seemed comparable to a priest, and herbad or ervad which seemed comparable to a deacon. J S Ayer ( talk) 02:10, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
The remark "Zoroastrianism rejects all forms of monasticism" does not seem to make sense. Does it mean that solitary life is disapproved of? If so, (i) it needs to be made clearer and (ii) the term is not "monasticism" ("eremiticism"?). Could it please be explained or omitted? 81.151.221.255 ( talk) 07:54, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
The remark "This calendar is still used today, a fact that is attributed to the Achaemenid period" is clearly wrong (what happened in the Achaemenid period cannot be directly responsible for the fact that something has continued in use for 2500 years). Deipnosophista ( talk) 08:25, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
The opening text comes directly from http://www.mywebastrologer.com/Zoroastrianism.asp —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.162.122.222 ( talk) 02:31, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Can still be considered a "good" article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.14.141.113 ( talk) 11:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
The worst religion in the history of religion? What the hell? Worse than the Aztecs who ritually sacrificed on the order of millions? I haven't the time to read the footnote, but that statement is so loaded it can't possibly be right. Can someone verify that?
The scripted bordered main guide(the thing at the top right hand side with the symbol at top with all the main points) for Zoroastrianism might possibly need Saoshyant and frasho-kereti added as it/they are a major tenement of the religion? Text mdnp ( talk) 03:31, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Jujiro Masuda 松田重次郎, who foundered Mazda did so in honor of Zoroastrianism. Worth mentioning that bit of trivia?-- Water Stirs ( talk) 16:27, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
A bit of a mouthful, why not simply "beliefs"; also the section doesn't present clearly the Amesha Spentas, each one has a specific quality, and represents an aspect of creation, I propose adding each individually, with a brief introduction. which is essential if we are to present the Philosophy of the faith.-- Water Stirs ( talk) 20:51, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
This article no longer meets the GA criteria. The article could do with a copyedit, but this is not a matter than concerns me much. The main problem is that the article is for the most part unreferenced (failing criterion 2). Sections such as 'basic beliefs' and 'history' have few, if any, in-line references. There is also a confusing mix of footnote and Harvard-style inline citations. Online references are incorrectly formatted. The article also fails criterion 1a with a very short lead that does not summarize the article. Finally I have minor concerns regarding criterion 3a, since the article leaves out the establishment of the religion almost entiely, and simply "askes" the reader to refer to the article on Zoroaster.
I will leave this reassessment open for a week. If not major work to start referencing and reworking the lead is initiated, I will delist the article. Note that the criteria have changed since the article was listed in 2006, and it is much harder (particularly regarding referencing) to get an article to GA status today. Arsenikk (talk) 14:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
None of the matters have been seen to in the week, so I have delisted the article. If the article later meets the GA criteria, feel free to nominate it at WP:GAN. Arsenikk (talk) 11:32, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
While it is most likely obvious to individuals with a basic recognition of Zorastrianism, history, and/or religion, it may be worthwhile to clearly state in the opening what timeframe is being discussed. The Sassanid Period reference could use clarification, and perhaps the "7th Century" mention afterwards. I do not clarify it myself due to a) being new to Wiki editing and 2) yielidng to someone else who knows more about Wikipiedia's policy on BC/BCE/AD/CE. Haqui11a ( talk) 20:27, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
I am honored with your entry about me copied below
Noted Oracle Business Intelligence Developer, Ratan Vakil, is a devoted Zoroastrian.
I am a rare Zoroastrian not from India, Pakistan or Iran - so you may have to have another category
Rest of the World and put me there and feel free to indicate that I am a practicing Zoroastrian Priest.
Suggested entry maybe?
Rest of the World
Noted Oracle Business Intelligence Developer, Ratan Vakil, is a devoted Zoroastrian and a practicing Priest in his community.
```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.6.247.204 ( talk) 20:36, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
The pronunciation should be removed. It's patronizing the reader to give an IPA transcription of any pronunciation that is entirely regular. Besides, if a reader is unable to pronounce "Zoroastrianism", they're unlikely to be able to make much sense of the IPA transcription.
Also, the statement that Zoroastrianism is the first monotheistic religion overlooks Ankhenaten's experiment in Egypt. Ankhenaten reigned 1353 BC – 1336 BC[2] or 1351– 1334 BC, per Wikipedia article "Ankhenaten".
Further, the Wikipedia article "Judaism" says that Judaism is the oldest surviving monotheistic religion. Perhaps the author of the article under discussion is too personally involved, hence hasn't taken a suitably dispassionate view?
With all respect, I have to say that this part of the article "Zoroastrianism" seems too "pro" instead of neutral. It's almost as if the author thinks he (or she) is involved in a dick war "my monotheistic religion is older than your monotheistic religion." That kind of attitude is out of place on Wikipedia. Or so it seems to me.
Floozybackloves ( talk) 19:16, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
It is hard to tell which is the older religion. Although some sources make it seem that we know exactly when and where Zoroaster was born, in reality we aren't sure. There is a good 1000 year range of when he could have been born. Recent work on Ankhenaten may push back his dates further, thus we aren't really sure when he was born, either. In either case, we can't say exactly who was the first monotheist. It is the stuff of good debate but it will be a while before anyone can honestly say. 75.48.19.159 ( talk) 07:41, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
The real distinction may be only a question of who is in charge. ;) 62.178.137.216 ( talk) 13:44, 12 December 2009 (UTC) Greetings to others,
First of all I'm not an expert but know some think about it through my Father(66),who had studied it when there still was peace in Ariana/Khawaran/Afghanistan at school as National history.
There was sad that Ariana came to existence a round 6000(-6500)years ago and that (they/[we])the
Arians where Zoroastrians which was our First National belief back then.
A part from this my father had also learned that Zoroaster lived a round the same time when Ariana came to existence and was separated from the Aryan Kingdom.
("This is as fare as I know from my father who is still a live, which was Always an Top A-Student back in Afghanistan an also when he studied in 4diffrent Universities an has 2 Bachelor and 2 Masters of Ingenuity and was more than 20 years the Opposition Leader of Afghanistan which was Left") By Sayhoun Ostowar The Arian who lives in The Netherlands. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
82.171.121.87 (
talk)
00:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
The article is devoid of insight and is hopelessly one-sided. There is only one mention of Buddhism where it is stated that "However, many scholars[who?] assert the influence of Zoroastrianism (as well as later Manicheism) on elements of Buddhism, especially in terms of light symbolism." This is far from the truth. In fact the tacit assumtion of 99% of the scholars that Zoroastrianism is the oldest religion is untenable. If one rects the Nepalese frauds, it becomes clear that Zoroastrianism and Buddhism belong to the same milieu and were sister religions. The fact that there were many Buddhas before Gotama is not known to Frye, Boyce, Briant and other scholars. In his work 'Fihrist' al-Nadim also makes no mention of the Zoroastrians and states that the Shamaniya who regarded Buddha as their Prophet formed the majority of the people before Islam. A similar view is expressed by Al-beruni who was a greater scholar than Diodorus. The recently discovered Bactrian Buddhist texts mention six pre-Gotama Buddhas. Mary Boyce wrote much but had a very shallow perspective. Why does the Persepolis tablets make no mention of Zoroaster? The reason may be, as Ranajit Pal maintains in his book "Non-Jonesian Indology and Alexander", p. 190. that Zoroaster was known by the name Devadatta among the Elamite scribes. Pal suggests that Damidada of the tablets may be Zoroaster. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mejda ( talk • contribs) 07:36, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
His parents were from India, but he was born on Zanzibar. Also, it's not very clear whether he truely believed in the religion. Nevertheless, I placed him in the "from India" section. Chrisrus ( talk) 14:33, 16 October 2009 (UTC) His funeral was Zoroastrian, although his burial might not have been. Chrisrus ( talk) 03:24, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Can you hide the box that says that the page needs help on the days of November 6 - November 10? This would really help!
Danhomer ( talk) 01:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC)danhomer
The statement that most religions are based on this one was removed. It has no academic sources and was written in weasel words style ... "In fact..." whose facts? Where did the facts come from? If it is fact it is easy to cite the facts the statement is derived from. Just because the article is being rewritten doesn't allow that kind of unsubstantiated statement to be allowed to stay. 97.85.185.160 ( talk) 23:15, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
For those who extensively work on this article this source might be helpful http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/zoroastrian . Gulmammad | talk 01:15, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
I understood that some of the Kurds were Zoroastrians. Does anybody know anything about this please? SmokeyTheCat •TALK• 09:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
" Of what I know is that the majority of the Kurds that reside in current Irak and Iran were of Zoroastrian faith, this is probably the case as well concerning the Kurds of current Turkey. I am not a Kurd myself and don't have the right sources with my currently to add, but through my experience with Kurds, I know that the majority of secular Kurds from Irak very much identify themselves with their Zoroastrian roots, but I doubt that there are any Kurdish Zoroastrians left. The Kurds of Iran that are part of Iranian society see themselves as part of the Iranian plateau without any pan-Kurdish tendencies and the secular ones amongst those identify with Zoroastrianism as all other secular minded Iranians who do so. " —Preceding unsigned comment added by خرمدین۸۹ ( talk • contribs) 20:37, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
If the Amesha Spentas are manifestations/aspects of Mazda. Then it is possibly not correct to state that Mazda is not immanent. Isnt that right?
Removed claim the Zor. was the first proponent of ecology, as nearly every ancient belief system held care of Mother Earth as a high standard. The article uses weasel words: "arguably". Well, if it hasn't been decided, don't present it as fact.
there is a proposal for the creation of Wikiproject:Gnosticism. It is mentioned here as Gnosticism is a cultural impulse that in some of its forms has combined many religions such as Zoroastrianism. Its scope will include all gnostic faiths and will serve as a nexus for the improvement of Gnosticism related articles on Wikipedia, If any one would like to join or comment it is located here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals/Gnosticism -- Zaharous ( talk) 01:13, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
How so? What follows this is just evidence of Zoroastrian's influence on modern philosophy and Iranian culture.-- 70.142.44.41 ( talk) 23:05, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
From the article: "It is believed that key concepts of Zoroastrian eschatology and demonology have had influence on the Abrahamic religions". This statement is supported with two sources, both from 1987-8. Now, while Zoroastrian eschatology concepts were formed no earlier than the first millennium BCE, the book of Genesis were present before Zoroastrianism even exist and so did Jewish concepts of creation that was initially perfectly good, but was subsequently corrupted by evil (i.e. when Adam and Eve eat from the knowledge tree). I'm not sure the statement I cited from the article itself represent main stream view, I think both sources are given undue weight. -- Gilisa ( talk) 09:00, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Actually, Ian.thomson is correct. I'm not using myself as a source, but my ancestry is Zoroastrian, and I have read books (as a practicing Catholic) by Christian scholars that discuss the influence of Zoroastrianism on Judaism, especially the monotheistic aspect, the concept of the Messiah, and the hierarchy of angels. My priest was the one who educated me on the fact that Zoroaster is considered the first prophet, at least in our faith (Catholicism). I'm sure I can find more sources to back up Ian.thomson's claims. These claims do not somehow negate Judaism's own contributions. Nor does it mean that the religion itself false. Actually, it only supports (since faith can't be proven 100%) the fact that Judaism, and later Christianity, have a common foundation. Of course, in my opinion, God revealed himself (or herself, doesn't matter) through nature (earth-based religions), before over time, teaching his children through Zoroastrianism, Judaism, and Christianity. That statement, though many agree with it, is opinion. However, there is a lot of scholarly evidence for Ian.thomson's claims, and the counterarguments are held by a minority. And Zoroastrianism is indeed older than Judaism. Have you forgotten that the Jewish people lived under the Persian Empire? Where do you think Purim comes from? It coincides with the Persian New Year (Spring equinox celebrations - Persians, like their Celtic cousins, celebrate the different equinoxes), which has been celebrated for thousands of years. Zoroastrianism is actually the first Monotheistic religion. CreativeSoul7981 ( talk) 15:25, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
In this sentence: "It has no major theological divisions (the only significant schism is based on calendar differences), but it is not monolithic."
I think the it's supposed to be "monotheistic" unless I'm reading it wrong.
It's very confusing to report an error here for an old guy like me, so sorry if I posted this incorrectly.
Joe Kinaydjin ( talk) 19:45, 12 September 2010 (UTC) Joe Kinaydjin
{{
edit semi-protected}}
Please change (
Ahura Mazda) to (Spenta Mainyu) in this passage: "Ahura Mazda will ultimately prevail over the evil
Angra Mainyu or Ahriman, at which point the universe will undergo a cosmic renovation and time will end. " Because Spenta Mainyu is clashing with Angra MAinyu, while Ahura Mazda is above this. Therefore it does not make sence to write that Ahura Mazda will prevail when he/she/it is not trying to prevail over anything. Thios is in the second paragraph under Basic Beliefs in the article about Zoroastrianism.
24.99.250.252 (
talk)
18:43, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
This article is currently under attack by a BC/AD bully who had displayed absolutely no previous interest or competence in the subject, Zoroastrianism. I have reverted the version twice. Any adults who don't respond well to bullying may want to repair future monkeying with the long-established convention here. I leave it to them.-- Wetman ( talk) 06:10, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
User:Ian.thomson, it appears that you don't actually know the meaning of the word "consensus"; you use it interchangeably with "majority". Anyway, the issue is unresolved both here and on the administrators' noticeboard, so it's totally inappropriate for you to be ramming changes through in the meantime.
As I said before, I innocently and helpfully fixed a consistency issue; it was User:Wetman who completely changed the article a few days later and had the nerve to accuse me of causing trouble; dragging me into a much unwanted conflict over an obscure article that I'm not interested in anyway.( Huey45 ( talk) 12:39, 17 August 2010 (UTC))
Okay, I am new to this discussion. What is the consensus on the use of BCE? Personally, I have always been taught AD and BC in school and have only recently seen the use of BCE when I went back to get another degree at university. I am Persian and have a Zoroastrian heritage (practicing these traditions along with Catholicism), and as far as I know, from Zoroastrian scholars, no one is offended by the use of BC and AD. I agree with the person who said on the BCE discussion page (I think), that being offended by the use of BC and AD is like being offended by Thor when using Thursday. Why is it that using BC and AD is offensive, but many other cultures still use the Gregorian calendar? I am not making a demand for changes, but I would like to know where everyone stands on this issue. I think the use of BCE is distracting. Everyone I know is familiar with BC and AD. But, if enough people think it's more professional to use BCE, then I guess we must follow the consensus. How is the terminology used throughout other Wikipedia articles? I am curious. CreativeSoul7981 ( talk) 07:43, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Is this issue still up for debate? Why does the article still contain references to BC and AD? -- 24.37.217.30 ( talk) 16:09, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Currently it reads:
The metaphor of the "path" of Daena is represented in Zoroastrianism by the muslin undershirt Sudra, the 'Good/Holy Path', and the 72-thread Kushti girdle, the "Pathfinder".
There is a Wikipedia article for Sedreh, which seems to be the more common spelling (more common than Sudreh, another transliteration). To further clarify, one could write: "the cotton-muslin undershirt," to help distinguish muslin from muslim for the casual reader. Thanks. Lbtwhd ( talk) 11:16, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
I totally disagree, this article IS COMPLETELY BIASED TOWARDS A SPECIFIC SECT OF ZOROASTRIANISM, AS A BELIEVER IN ZURVAN, THE GOD OF THE 3 AGES OF TIME, YOUTH, MATURITY AND OLD AGE, a far superior version of zoroastrianism that the one imposed by the impious believers of Aura Mazdha, I will continue fighting the HERETICS of the truth of infinite time —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.106.81.44 ( talk) 07:44, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Why do I sense a tinge of political correctness on this issue? The Encyclopedia Britannica, which has far more credibility than Wikipedia, states in it's Zoroastrianism article "It is likely that Zoroastrianism influenced the development of Judaism and the birth of Christianity." This article could say at least that much. 69.112.90.253 ( talk) 21:47, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
The article states, "It was probably founded some time before the 6th century BCE in Persia (Iran)." It would be better if it gave a reference for the date and place, so readers would know what sources indicated the date and place it was founded.
Jacob81 ( talk) 05:18, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
It wasn't found in Persia. The size of Persia was much smaller than modern day Iran. And it was located in south West Iran only. If you look at the Median Empire map you will see Persia as a vassal state of the empire. Thats how big it was and there is no proof that it was found there. There is only proof that Zoroastronism was the religion of Ancient Persia though. It is said that Zoroaster spread this religion. Well it doesn't say anything about him being born or living in South West Iran. There is proof though that he was born and lived in either North West or North East Iran and in those places no Persians populated the area and today still no Persians populate the area. I suggest we delete that it was found in Persia and instead we say it was found in the Land of Aryans. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
94.7.106.197 (
talk)
18:01, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi, i want to add the following external link:
http://www.wisdomlib.org/zoroastrianism/book/a-manual-of-khshnoom/index.html
It is a massive guide to Khshnoom, an occult movement of Zoroastrianism, and can help other users of wiki to research and enter new information for this. Ofcourse it is also helpfull to everyone interested in Zoroastrianism.
Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xoloitzcuintle ( talk • contribs) 10:53, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Updated Link
The article "ZOROASTRIANISM i. HISTORICAL REVIEW" by William L. Malandra for Encyclopaedia Iranica now is accessed at: http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/zoroastrianism-i-historical-review
Editorial Staff Encyclopaedia Iranica 160.39.32.153 ( talk) 19:36, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Can someone edit that it wasn't found in Persia? Persia was much smaller and it was in modern South Western Iran which is quite small. And can also add that the Prophet Zoroaster was from Medya or Modern Kurdistan? There is evidence he was born In Medya / Modern Kurdistan. Also can someone add that the oldest and biggest temple is The Fire Temple? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.7.106.197 ( talk) 17:45, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
As for the birth of Zoroaster, I said the same thing as you but when I did some research about it I did find that he was born in the Kurdish part of Iran. Its a recent discovery that not many know about yet. Also this is the website for the Fire Temple. http://zoroastrians.net/2010/03/05/largest-oldest-zoroasterian-fire-temple-of-kurdistan/ There is many more websites. Just write in google the Biggest Zoroastronism Fire Temple. It will give you a list of websites with the same answers.
I also meant Zoroastronism was not found in Persia. It was found in Modern Iran but definitely not in Persia. During the Median empire Persia was a vassal state and that was what the shape of Ancient Persia was.
I also do not want you to think that I am from Kurdistan. I am actually from the Netherlands and I know a lot about Zoroastronism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.7.106.197 ( talk) 09:53, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Zoroaster was either born in North Western Iran or North Eastern Iran. Can someone add that aswell? http://books.google.com/books?id=Uspf6eDDvjAC&pg=PA17&lpg=PA17&dq=Zoroaster+was+born+in+North+west+iran&source=bl&ots=OMynfA4kXb&sig=OSbQlXuGz-Ws1UKbTdkTBBFFejM&hl=en&ei=WHNzTsXhLIyEhQeMqdHTDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CCIQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=Zoroaster%20was%20born%20in%20North%20west%20iran&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.7.106.197 ( talk) 16:06, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Fascinating !!! Most scholars, even Western scholars, believe that Zoroaster was born in Afghanistan. This is also the view of the sources in Wikipedia, just see under Zoroaster page for his place of birth. These things cannot be decided based on political allegiance and nationalism. You need proof. The most important thing to consider is the geography covered in Avesta, the holy book of Zoroastrianism. In that book, there are NO MENTION of either Medians nor Persians. All the lands described are in today's Afghanistan or its immediate surroundings. The greatest scholar from Harvard University actually places him in MIDDLE of Afghanistan, where you have the Buddhist statues (just read the page about Zoroaster, this debate was already settelled). His place of death is also known as Balkh, as also mentionned in Ferdowsi's Shanameh.--Kasparov49acer 08:41, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Also, Avestan was an Eastern Aryan language, spoken in Bactria and Eastern Afghanistan, it was not spoken in Media or Persia, which actually didn't even exist at that time. It was centuries after that Zoroastrianism spread to Media and Persia.--Kasparov49acer 08:47, 26 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yamaweiss ( talk • contribs)
If you are going to change my edits, please have the curtosy of providing an explanation. I did explain a great deal above, and provided you with enough proof as well.--Kasparov49acer 08:50, 26 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yamaweiss ( talk • contribs)
By the late 20th century, some scholars had settled on an origin in Eastern Iran and/or Central Asia (to include present-day Afghanistan): Gnoli proposed Sistan (though in a much wider scope than the present-day province) as the homeland of Zoroastrianism; Frye voted for Bactria and Chorasmia;[15] Khlopin suggests the Tedzen Delta in present-day Turkmenistan.[16] Sarianidi considered the BMAC region as "the native land of the Zoroastrians and, probably, of Zoroaster himself."[17] Boyce includes the steppes of the former Soviet republics.[18] The medieval "from Media" hypothesis is no longer taken seriously, and Zaehner has even suggested that this was a Magi-mediated issue to garner legitimacy, but this has been likewise rejected by Gershevitch and others.--Kasparov49acer 08:53, 26 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yamaweiss ( talk • contribs)
How can Zoroaster be born in North East Iran, if there is no mention of Parthians in Avest ??? Also, Parthians were Western Iranians, while Zoroaster spoke Avestan.--Kasparov49acer 08:58, 26 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yamaweiss ( talk • contribs)
I am fine with Greater Iran. Take care.--Kasparov49acer 09:23, 26 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yamaweiss ( talk • contribs)
"^ Foltz 2004, pp. 4–16" Nobody named Foltz is listed as an author in the references at the end of the article. Please provide the complete citation here. 4.248.220.248 ( talk) 19:16, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
This entire article has serious issues with citations. The author needs to do a search on every "is believed", "is thought", and find a source that matches what the article says about whatever subject is under discussions. If "Whether Cyrus II was a Zoroastrian is subject to debate." tell who is debating it. Patrij ( talk) 19:58, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
iblogger.org is on the blacklist [1] so images from it should not be used. See also the whitelist discussion| [2]
Graeme374 ( talk) 04:08, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
"The first surviving reference to Zoroaster in Western scholarship is attributed to Thomas Browne (1605–1682)"
That's wrong. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoroaster#Western_perceptions
As far back as Ancient Roman literature, we have references to him. Someone please correct this.
216.54.22.188 ( talk) 17:23, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
It should be made clear in the intro or historical develppment that Zoroastrianism they are talking about is synonmous with Mazdeans. Mention should be give to Zurvanism and other extinct branches. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.4.158.160 ( talk) 15:12, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Zoroastrianism at the Open Directory Project
(includes a list of Zoroastrian organizations)
99.19.43.221 ( talk) 02:17, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Please link proselytizing to Proselytism under chapter Other characteristics? That bit doesn't have many wikilinks and I feel that word falls under techinical term / jargon. - 195.148.29.73 ( talk) 08:28, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
In the Demographics sub-section the estimated figure of 25,000 in North American is not cited. "25,000" specifically conflicts with the number estimated in the linked article List of countries by Zoroastrian population, which is 17,000 if you add the U.S. and Canada figures. The latter figure is cited with a New York Times article. The contradiction needs to be fixed with either a new citation and updated numbers, or corrected numbers and the appropriately listed citation.
Additionally, the Adherents section in general needs more citations to be convincing. Trifelin ( talk) 19:20, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
"he religion first dwindled when the Achaemenid Empire was invaded by Alexander III of Macedon, after which it collapsed and disintegrated[2] and it was further gradually marginalized by Islam from the 7th century onwards with the decline of the Sassanid Empire.[3]"
The statement above is simply a lie. Zoaroastranism was erracated by the arabs and Islam by the use of sword. Persians were forced to become Muslim, even though the article of course says they were not.
Won't bother changing the article, even though many sources back up this clear statement i just did. Why won't i? cause it wouldn't do any good, wikipedia is biased because of a corrupt leadership and will remain so.
81.170.132.28 ( talk) 01:18, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
For those of you for who life had NOT been too short to learn German, I cite from the German wikipedia;
"Als bevorzugte Religion löste sich der Zoroastrismus in Folge der islamischen Eroberung des sassanidischen Reiches in den Jahren nach 636 langsam auf. Der Islam nahm als Religion beständig an Bedeutung zu, aber erst seit zirka 900 stellten die Moslems die Mehrheit im Iran. Viele iranische Feste bergen aber „insgeheim“ das zarathustrische Erbe in sich und werden noch heute im schiitischen Iran, teilweise in synkretischer Form, gefeiert. Das bedeutendste dieser Feste ist das „Frühlingsfest“ Nouruz, dessen Wurzeln noch weiter zurückreichen dürften.
Mit der Ausbreitung des Islams im Iran wurde der Zoroastrismus zunehmend unterdrückt und eine Zoroastrierverfolgung setzte ein, weshalb viele Zarathustrier vor ca. 1000 Jahren ins Ausland emigrierten, vor allem nach Indien und Pakistan, wo man ihnen den Namen Parsen (d. h.: Perser) gab. Es gibt heute weltweit etwa 120.000 Mitglieder der Religion des Zoroastrismus (auch Mazdaismus oder Parsismus genannt), die meisten in Indien. Eine nicht unbedeutende Anzahl von Zoroastriern lebt jedoch auch in Tadschikistan. Zurzeit gibt es eine Bewegung in der Kommune, alle dem zarathustrischen Glauben Zugehörigen unter dem Begriff „Zarathustrier“ zu vereinen, um wieder geschlossener auftreten zu können."
That is clear enough, I would say
Lignomontanus ( talk) 06:33, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Real cherry pie ( talk) 20:29, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
I was wondering if there should be a section to references in popular Western culture. I'm thinking along the lines of Nietzsche's Also sprach Zarathustra, Strauss's work of the same name, it's use in 2001: A Space Odyssey, and the reference in Heinlein's Tunnel in the Sky (Rod Walker's family are Zoroastrian). It might also include the use of Ahura Mazda's name for a car company and a brand of electric light bulbs.
Why only Western Culture? — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
88.91.225.250 (
talk)
16:12, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Details about Zoroaster family, his belief and his reforms updated-- Rahulkris999 ( talk) 17:00, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
spelling error: change 'inequities' to 'iniquities'
121.254.85.166 (
talk)
17:48, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
The 'Akkadianpractices' at the end of 'Principal beliefs' needs a space. Just a typo. 79.50.247.208 ( talk) 19:46, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
I believe the term Magianism is only used to refer to the form of Zoroastrianism found in Iraq before Islam. It is not a term for all of Zoroastrianism. Iraqi Zoroastrianism had many differences the most well known was its overwhelming emphasis on astrology, something not nearly as important for Persian Zoroastrianism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.85.57.51 ( talk) 11:53, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
That's liguistically problematic. The root would be Magh which refers to the priests of Zoroastrianism aka Magu/Maghi. Not really the religion it's self. Magic = of the Mage or Magus. Magian = of the Magi. Magianism = beliefs of the Magi. So Magianism would be a very indirect reference to Zoroastrianism. It tends to reveal more information about the speaker than what they are speaking of. The use of Magianism indicated that the speaker is more familiar with the Magi than their Zoroastrian beliefs. Otherwise they would use Zoroastrianism instead of Magianism. It's the equivalent of identifying Christianty as Preistianism or Judaism as Rabbianism. The only other useage of magian would be the ancient tribe the Magi came from. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MagusAmathion ( talk • contribs) 21:17, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm unaware of any other religion in antiquity that has used Magi to refer to their priests. More modernly the Golden Dawn and even Church of Satan has adopted the title Magus. But not Magi. But to the very best of my knowledge Magi refers exclusive to Zoroastrian Priests. What confuses some people is the varying titles in the heirarchcy of the priest. Aethrapati (Av)/ervad (Guj)which is the first stage of initiation into the priesthood. Magus, Mobed, Dastur and Magupaiti. All of which are Magi. You may find this link to be helpful. GLOSSARY and Standardized spelling of Zoroastrian terms
In Zoroastrianism the Temples of an area unite under a Parsis. They enjoy some autonomy. There was not the rigid structure that you find in more modern religions. It was more like the earlier Catholic Church who at one time had about 7 Popes. But all of the Parsis held the Persian Parsis to be the supreme authority. There were differing sects such and the Zurvanites and even Manicheans that arose out of that autonomy. Even though they were considered to be heretical Zoroastrians by the traditional Zoroastrians. They were still Zoroastrians because of the presence if Ahuramazda in the religion. They are also considered sects of Mazdaism. I've done a lot research on Zurvan (Timespace.) I find it interesting that the ancient Zurvanites knew Time and Space to be one. Modern Physics proves this to be truth.
MagusAmathion ( talk) 23:55, 23 October 2012 (UTC)Magus Amathion
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The number of adherents at the end of the first paragraph is way off the mark. Replace "apporx. 2.6 million" with "between 124,000 and 190,000" using http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/06/us/06faith.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2 that nytimes article as the source. GothPigeon ( talk) 13:35, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I would like to note - in the section on Zoroastrianism in the middle ages and the first paragraph - that it was in fact a necessity for the muslims of Umayyad to sustain a relatively large proportion of the population as infidels(kafir), due to Islam's economic systems and funding of the theocracy. F.ex the Ottoman Empire's economic system was too built on the enormous tax burden the infidels had to bear. Odiru ( talk) 09:30, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Not done: please provide
reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.
Begoon
talk
10:57, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
"He is said to be the one uncreated Creator to whom all worship is ultimately directed." [2]
There are several problems with this entry.
1)The link to the source leads to an Encylopedia Iranica article titled "ZOROASTRIANISM i. HISTORICAL REVIEW." Not "Zoroastrianism: Holy text, beliefs and practices."
2)This is presented as a quote and nowhere in the sourced article does that sentence appear. The word "uncreated" is only used once in the entire article. This is the sentence it appears in. "It was opposed to the dualistic theology that held Ohrmazd and Ahriman to be primordial, uncreated spirits."
3)If you read the entire paragraph it atributes the concept of Ohrmazd and Ahriman being primordial, uncreated spirits to Manicheism and Zurvanism. Both are derivative of Zoroastrianism. But niether are Zoroastrianism even though they both could be included in Mazdaism with Zoroastrianism. They are both seperate and distinct works outside of Zoroastrianism.
4)Ahura Mazda is more properly described as always existing. Always existing and uncreated can be viewed as being synonymous. But there is a very subtle difference that is very important to understanding the differences between Ahura Mazda, Spenta Mainyu and Angra Mainyu. Ahura Mazda is the always existing creator. He created the primorial spirit Spenta Mainyu to which a twin arose in opposition to the creation. That twin is the uncreated primodial spirit Angra Mainyu. This is evidenced in part in the AHUNAVAITI GATHA 30, 3 & 4 with the twin primorial spirits creation of "life and not life." That opposition carries all the way through the creation begining with Spenta Mainyu(created)and Angra Mainyu (uncreated). So to portray Ahura Mazda as being uncreated only sets the stage for confusion in trying to understand the nonexistential nature of Angra Mainyu. That confusion always leads to the misunderstaning that Zoroastrianism is dualistic. Ahura Mazda exists above and beyond both good and evil as their Wise Lord. So it is therefore truly monotheistic. The supreme being is niether good nor evil as in other religions. In Zoroastrianism the supreme being is Wisdom.
I wanted to let you know there is a problem with this part. I am now begining a search for a link to support Ahura Mazda being always existing to correct that problem.
MagusAmathion ( talk) 17:36, 22 February 2013 (UTC) Magus Amathion
I have been able to find this to support Ahura Mazda always existing.
At the bottom of page 25 of 122. The third sentence in "(A PRAYER TO THE DEITY)" says, "may there be praise for the name of Ahura Mazda, who has always existed, exists, and will always exist."
On pages 28 - 29 of 122 there is a list of Ahura Mazda's names, powers and attributes. "1. Self existing."
MagusAmathion ( talk) 22:03, 23 February 2013 (UTC)Magus Amathion
I just took out this line again from the intro: Before the Bronze Age people worshipped many deities within a confusing, sometimes conflicting complex of mythologies.. First off, the article on the Bronze Age is very general, and not Iran (or Persia, if you will) specific. Worshiping many deities still existed a long time after the arrival of Zoroaster: Christianity became the Roman Empire's state religion in 380 - well into the Iron Age. Second, besides the fact that "many deities" are still worshiped today (i.e., Hinduism, Shinto), the word "confusing" is an obvious biased word against polytheistic religions. --Soetermans. T / C 17:19, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Zoroastrianism originated in the 16th century BC, not 6th century. I can cite, if need be (Fisher, Mary P. Living Religions. 8th Ed. blahblahblah. p. 235. Print.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.11.70.13 ( talk) 00:42, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
From the article: "In Zoroastrianism, the creator Ahura Mazda is all good, and no evil originates from him."
According to the Avestic Creation, Ormuzd first created the Kingdom of Light. The translation of the second verse is as follows: "I cast my shadow, Angra Mainyu, who is all death." Angra Mainyu is Ormuzds creation, and evil therefore originates from him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.246.2.81 ( talk) 23:12, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
from the article: "Zoroastrian ideas led to a formal religion bearing his name by about the 6th century BCE and have influenced other later religions including Judaism, Gnosticism, Christianity and Islam"
Isn't there also evidence (alluded to in the article by the linguistic comparisons with Hindu texts) that Zorastrianism has influenced Hinduism (and therefore Buddhism because Buddhism was influenced by Hinduism). — Preceding unsigned comment added by RobinReborn ( talk • contribs) 12:49, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Currently 2nd sentence of the "Terminology" sub-heading reads as follows "The first surviving reference to Zoroaster in Engish", spelling mistake in word "Engish", should be "English". I hope this helps. 121.99.48.167 ( talk) 20:15, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please remove the following with blank as they are at odds with current theories and established facts: "Whether Cyrus II was a Zoroastrian is subject to debate. It did, however, influence him to the extent that it became the non-imposing religion of his empire, and its beliefs later allowed Cyrus to free the Jews and allow them to return to Judea when the emperor took Babylon in 539 BCE."
I will begin with established facts and briefly include that no Zoroastrian belief includes Judea or the Jews. It is quite a bizarre comment given that it is widely-held among scholars and historians (and even the wikipedia page for "Zoroastrianism") that Zoroastrianism pre-dates Judaism.
Furthermore, it is widely believed and reported in outlets such as BBC's "Engineering an Empire: Persia", that Cyrus the Great freed the Jews so that they could act as a buffer state between Persia and Egypt. Darius's Canal (present-day Suez Canal) was also constructed by the Persian Empire for the very same purpose.
The page once again makes a false claim stating: "Almost nothing is known of the status of Zoroastrianism under the Seleucids and Parthians, who ruled over Persia following Alexander the Great's invasion in 330 BCE. " No citation is provided and from my own previous research & knowledge on the subject, I knew that to be incorrect as Magistanes (high-ranking Parthian officials/ Zoroastrian Priests) during the Parthian Empire were and are of great significance due to the rivalry between the Parthian Empire and the Roman Empire and the major role religion had between them. Steven Collins, in the book "The Missing Years of the Life of Christ" argues that Jesus Christ actually played a role in the great power politics which occurred between the empires of Parthia and Rome.
I also shouldn't leave out that there are extensive information regarding Zoroastrianism in the Parthian Empire and that the "Wise Men" who selected Jesus upon his birth and presented him with 3 gifts were Zoroastrian and one of their burial sites is believed to be in Orumieh, Iran where an Assyrian Church now lies (Fox News has a report on it that is accessible on youtube.) Quite contrary to the claim that "almost nothing is known of the status of Zoroastrianism under the Seleucids and Parthians."
The claims sound ridiculous and the overall Wikipedia page regarding "Zoroastrianism" is extremely murky.
The next claim: "It was also during the later Achaemenid era that many of the divinities and divine concepts of proto-Indo-Iranian religion(s) were incorporated in Zoroastrianism, in particular those to whom the days of the month of the Zoroastrian calendar are dedicated." is also in dire need of citation.
Thank You.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by KBadie ( talk • contribs) 2 March 2013
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I think the following statement is incorrect. "In the eastern part of ancient Persia over a thousand years BCE a religious philosopher called Zoroaster simplified the pantheon of early Iranian gods[1] into two opposing forces: Ahura Mazda (Illuminating Wisdom) and Angra Mainyu (Destructive Spirit) which were in conflict." I request that it should read as follows. In the eastern part of ancient Persia over a thousand years BCE a religious philosopher called Zoroaster simplified the pantheon of early Iranian gods[1] into two opposing forces: spenta mainyu (Holy spirit) and Angre Mainyu (Destructive Spirit) which were in conflict."
references below are from the "gathas" or divine songs of Zarathushtra. = [3]Ha 30 para 3 para 4 para 5 There are two opposing forces = their names are "spenta mainyu" and "angre mainyu" para 10 says "understand law of happiness and misery which ahura mazda has ordained" "age-long pain for the wicked sinful persons and advantages for the righteous person which lead to happiness" [4] Ha 29 para 4 "ahura mazda himself is the judge (of good and evil) So let happen unto us as He himself desires." the gathas (divine songs of zarathustra) clearly state that there is one god = ahura mazda = [5] ha 31 para 8 Ever since I have held thee (O Ahura Mazda) in ( my) eye I have always regarded Thee O Ahura Mazda as the first of all, as worthy of worship with pure thought as the father of Vohu61 Mana (good mind) as the real origin of truth (and) as the lord over (all) actions of this world."
there are two spirits in this world = spenta mainyu and angre mainyu In christianity there is holy spirit and the devil (or satan)(or shaitaan). Spenta mainyu or holy spirit guides a person Angre mainyu or (evil spirit) (sound is like "angry spirit") deceives you. Ahura mazda is judge of good and evil. Man has a choice. If he listens to spenta mainyu he will have good thoughts, speak good words and do good deeds and he will be happy and prosperous in this life and at the end of life he will go to garothman heaven (abode of songs). If he listens to angre mainyu he will be the opposite and he will suffer. The references are clear in the "gathas". Sarosh mehta ( talk) 12:16, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
How did it influence them? I've heard that claimed, but never heard of how exactly that took place. Also I second the previous question about Hinduism, and possibly Buddhism. (It may have influenced Hinduism after Buddhism came along, I don't know.) It definitely has influenced Hinduism some at least; there is a fire temple revered by both Hindus and Zoroastrians in Azerbaijan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.62.247.226 ( talk) 23:11, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
I have seen several articles one by the New York Times claiming that there are Zoroastrians in Afghanistan. However no information about this Zoroastrian population seems to be available, just statistics which often vary. Does anyone have any more specific and detailed information about the Zoroastrians in Afghanistan. Ten thousand is a considerable number of Zoroastrians if there are any in Afghanistan but due to the fact I have only seen one or two statistics saying that there were Zoroastrians in the country I am skeptical that there actually are any in Afghanistan. Please clarify as to whether this skepticism is justified or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.238.26.136 ( talk) 01:54, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
It notes that Zoratorism (Spelling?) influenced later religions including Judaism. If I am not incorrect, Gods chosen people, the Jews (Judaism) was the first known organized belief system. They were the direct descendants of Adam and Eve. So how can a religion that developed thousands of years after Gods chosen people, the Jews, have influenced what is called 'later religions'? Just a question, I'm not a Jew, I'm a believer in God and that's all it takes IMHO. But was wondering. Stephen 76.183.177.89 ( talk) 00:09, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
The current section claims: "there was little serious pressure" exerted on newly subjected people to adopt Islam. The claimed support is Boyce (1979).
Here is the PDF version of Boyce book: Zoroastrians by Mary Boyce
If you read chapter 14, starting page 145, it predominantly describes violence, torture and forced conversion of Zoroastrian people to Islam. Boyce's chapter states the conquest of Zoroastrian people was inspired by Surah 9.29 of Quran, 'Fight those who believe not in God and the Last Day and do not forbid what Allah and his Messenger have forbidden - such men as practise not the religion of truth, being people of the book - until they pay tribute out of hand and have been humbled.'
On page 150, it mentions a short period when the pressure to adopt Islam was not serious - but there too, in the same paragraph, it mentions "a commissioner who supervised the destruction of fire temples throughout Iran, regardless of treaty obligations." Most of the chapter describes serious pressure used to convert, nevertheless.
Request: This section should be revised to properly summarize Chapter 14 of Boyce. The current version heavily distorts what Boyce is saying in that chapter. At the very least, the sentence should revised to: The conquest began with slaughter, enslavement, looting and destruction of Zoroastrians, thereafter the state treated the conquered Zoroastrians as dhimmis under the Umayyad Caliphate. There were periods when little serious pressure was subjected on Zoroastrians to adopt Islam, along with other periods where violent pressure was exerted.
Thank you, Prof.akbar ( talk) 21:11, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
For a second source, please see Encyclopedia Britannica article on Zoroastrianism. It reads - "Islam, in principle, tolerated the ancient religion, but conversions by persuasion or force were massive in many provinces. ...(skip)... Zoroastrians, called Gabars by the Muslims, survived in Iran as a persecuted minority in small enclaves at Yazd and Kerman." Thank you, Prof.akbar ( talk) 22:52, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Zoroastrian beliefs are scattered in three sections: Philosophy, Basic Beliefs, and Principal beliefs. I suggest merging their contents into one section "Beliefs&Practices" and dividing them into subsections as follows:
Kiatdd ( talk) 18:58, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
If it's strictly necessary to keep this page semi-protected on a long-term basis, can someone at least add the appropriate template? (If not, then some sort of timescale for lifting that should be considered.) 84.203.32.169 ( talk) 07:30, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
It says in the article that:
"The Zarathushtri also practice traditional head covering ritual similar to that of Judaism (probably predating it)."
There is no source quoted that it "most likely" predates it, thus the words in brackets should either be deleted or a source must be quoted. Nonetheless, the words "most likely" should be taken out.
Thank you Gdawgb1 ( talk) 22:56, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
It is true that some aspects of Zoroastrian iconography have clear sumerian influences, but the doctrines and gods are vastly different. It would be interesting to this article or preferably other to detail what were those influences.
Also,apart from some periods of persian history (such as during the seleucid dinasty,were there was partial syncretism and reduction of zoroastrian identity) the relation of zoroastrian and babylonian religion are much more regarding art and iconography than any other thing, hence it is wrong to say itwas "strongly" influenced by the babylonians.
Some minor groups could be considered as more influenced though, such as mazdakism. 201.9.179.230 ( talk) 13:26, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the second paragraph of the introduction, it currently reads: "In the eastern part of ancient Persia more than thousand years BCE, a religious philosopher called Zoroaster simplified the pantheon of early Iranian gods[2] into two opposing forces: Ahura Mazda (Illuminating Wisdom) and Angra Mainyu (Destructive Spirit) which were in conflict."
This should be changed to: In the eastern part of ancient Persia more than a thousand years BCE, a religious philosopher called Zoroaster simplified the pantheon of early Iranian gods[2] into two opposing forces: Ahura Mazda (Illuminating Wisdom) and Angra Mainyu (Destructive Spirit) which were in conflict."
Just adding an "a" between the words "than" and "thousand".
Thanks JSimar ( talk) 00:12, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Already done Thanks,
Celestra (
talk)
04:33, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Could we have a description of Zoroastrian worship? J S Ayer ( talk) 22:37, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
There is not a single article or paragraph that talks about the role of women in the religion. I think there should at least be a paragraph on this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.156.180.134 ( talk) 10:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Could we have an account of the Zoroastrian priesthood? According to what I read long ago in my student years, there are three grades, dastur which seemed comparable to a Christian bishop, mobed which seemed comparable to a priest, and herbad or ervad which seemed comparable to a deacon. J S Ayer ( talk) 02:10, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
The remark "Zoroastrianism rejects all forms of monasticism" does not seem to make sense. Does it mean that solitary life is disapproved of? If so, (i) it needs to be made clearer and (ii) the term is not "monasticism" ("eremiticism"?). Could it please be explained or omitted? 81.151.221.255 ( talk) 07:54, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
The remark "This calendar is still used today, a fact that is attributed to the Achaemenid period" is clearly wrong (what happened in the Achaemenid period cannot be directly responsible for the fact that something has continued in use for 2500 years). Deipnosophista ( talk) 08:25, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
The opening text comes directly from http://www.mywebastrologer.com/Zoroastrianism.asp —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.162.122.222 ( talk) 02:31, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Can still be considered a "good" article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.14.141.113 ( talk) 11:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
The worst religion in the history of religion? What the hell? Worse than the Aztecs who ritually sacrificed on the order of millions? I haven't the time to read the footnote, but that statement is so loaded it can't possibly be right. Can someone verify that?
The scripted bordered main guide(the thing at the top right hand side with the symbol at top with all the main points) for Zoroastrianism might possibly need Saoshyant and frasho-kereti added as it/they are a major tenement of the religion? Text mdnp ( talk) 03:31, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Jujiro Masuda 松田重次郎, who foundered Mazda did so in honor of Zoroastrianism. Worth mentioning that bit of trivia?-- Water Stirs ( talk) 16:27, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
A bit of a mouthful, why not simply "beliefs"; also the section doesn't present clearly the Amesha Spentas, each one has a specific quality, and represents an aspect of creation, I propose adding each individually, with a brief introduction. which is essential if we are to present the Philosophy of the faith.-- Water Stirs ( talk) 20:51, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
This article no longer meets the GA criteria. The article could do with a copyedit, but this is not a matter than concerns me much. The main problem is that the article is for the most part unreferenced (failing criterion 2). Sections such as 'basic beliefs' and 'history' have few, if any, in-line references. There is also a confusing mix of footnote and Harvard-style inline citations. Online references are incorrectly formatted. The article also fails criterion 1a with a very short lead that does not summarize the article. Finally I have minor concerns regarding criterion 3a, since the article leaves out the establishment of the religion almost entiely, and simply "askes" the reader to refer to the article on Zoroaster.
I will leave this reassessment open for a week. If not major work to start referencing and reworking the lead is initiated, I will delist the article. Note that the criteria have changed since the article was listed in 2006, and it is much harder (particularly regarding referencing) to get an article to GA status today. Arsenikk (talk) 14:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
None of the matters have been seen to in the week, so I have delisted the article. If the article later meets the GA criteria, feel free to nominate it at WP:GAN. Arsenikk (talk) 11:32, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
While it is most likely obvious to individuals with a basic recognition of Zorastrianism, history, and/or religion, it may be worthwhile to clearly state in the opening what timeframe is being discussed. The Sassanid Period reference could use clarification, and perhaps the "7th Century" mention afterwards. I do not clarify it myself due to a) being new to Wiki editing and 2) yielidng to someone else who knows more about Wikipiedia's policy on BC/BCE/AD/CE. Haqui11a ( talk) 20:27, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
I am honored with your entry about me copied below
Noted Oracle Business Intelligence Developer, Ratan Vakil, is a devoted Zoroastrian.
I am a rare Zoroastrian not from India, Pakistan or Iran - so you may have to have another category
Rest of the World and put me there and feel free to indicate that I am a practicing Zoroastrian Priest.
Suggested entry maybe?
Rest of the World
Noted Oracle Business Intelligence Developer, Ratan Vakil, is a devoted Zoroastrian and a practicing Priest in his community.
```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.6.247.204 ( talk) 20:36, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
The pronunciation should be removed. It's patronizing the reader to give an IPA transcription of any pronunciation that is entirely regular. Besides, if a reader is unable to pronounce "Zoroastrianism", they're unlikely to be able to make much sense of the IPA transcription.
Also, the statement that Zoroastrianism is the first monotheistic religion overlooks Ankhenaten's experiment in Egypt. Ankhenaten reigned 1353 BC – 1336 BC[2] or 1351– 1334 BC, per Wikipedia article "Ankhenaten".
Further, the Wikipedia article "Judaism" says that Judaism is the oldest surviving monotheistic religion. Perhaps the author of the article under discussion is too personally involved, hence hasn't taken a suitably dispassionate view?
With all respect, I have to say that this part of the article "Zoroastrianism" seems too "pro" instead of neutral. It's almost as if the author thinks he (or she) is involved in a dick war "my monotheistic religion is older than your monotheistic religion." That kind of attitude is out of place on Wikipedia. Or so it seems to me.
Floozybackloves ( talk) 19:16, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
It is hard to tell which is the older religion. Although some sources make it seem that we know exactly when and where Zoroaster was born, in reality we aren't sure. There is a good 1000 year range of when he could have been born. Recent work on Ankhenaten may push back his dates further, thus we aren't really sure when he was born, either. In either case, we can't say exactly who was the first monotheist. It is the stuff of good debate but it will be a while before anyone can honestly say. 75.48.19.159 ( talk) 07:41, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
The real distinction may be only a question of who is in charge. ;) 62.178.137.216 ( talk) 13:44, 12 December 2009 (UTC) Greetings to others,
First of all I'm not an expert but know some think about it through my Father(66),who had studied it when there still was peace in Ariana/Khawaran/Afghanistan at school as National history.
There was sad that Ariana came to existence a round 6000(-6500)years ago and that (they/[we])the
Arians where Zoroastrians which was our First National belief back then.
A part from this my father had also learned that Zoroaster lived a round the same time when Ariana came to existence and was separated from the Aryan Kingdom.
("This is as fare as I know from my father who is still a live, which was Always an Top A-Student back in Afghanistan an also when he studied in 4diffrent Universities an has 2 Bachelor and 2 Masters of Ingenuity and was more than 20 years the Opposition Leader of Afghanistan which was Left") By Sayhoun Ostowar The Arian who lives in The Netherlands. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
82.171.121.87 (
talk)
00:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
The article is devoid of insight and is hopelessly one-sided. There is only one mention of Buddhism where it is stated that "However, many scholars[who?] assert the influence of Zoroastrianism (as well as later Manicheism) on elements of Buddhism, especially in terms of light symbolism." This is far from the truth. In fact the tacit assumtion of 99% of the scholars that Zoroastrianism is the oldest religion is untenable. If one rects the Nepalese frauds, it becomes clear that Zoroastrianism and Buddhism belong to the same milieu and were sister religions. The fact that there were many Buddhas before Gotama is not known to Frye, Boyce, Briant and other scholars. In his work 'Fihrist' al-Nadim also makes no mention of the Zoroastrians and states that the Shamaniya who regarded Buddha as their Prophet formed the majority of the people before Islam. A similar view is expressed by Al-beruni who was a greater scholar than Diodorus. The recently discovered Bactrian Buddhist texts mention six pre-Gotama Buddhas. Mary Boyce wrote much but had a very shallow perspective. Why does the Persepolis tablets make no mention of Zoroaster? The reason may be, as Ranajit Pal maintains in his book "Non-Jonesian Indology and Alexander", p. 190. that Zoroaster was known by the name Devadatta among the Elamite scribes. Pal suggests that Damidada of the tablets may be Zoroaster. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mejda ( talk • contribs) 07:36, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
His parents were from India, but he was born on Zanzibar. Also, it's not very clear whether he truely believed in the religion. Nevertheless, I placed him in the "from India" section. Chrisrus ( talk) 14:33, 16 October 2009 (UTC) His funeral was Zoroastrian, although his burial might not have been. Chrisrus ( talk) 03:24, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Can you hide the box that says that the page needs help on the days of November 6 - November 10? This would really help!
Danhomer ( talk) 01:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC)danhomer
The statement that most religions are based on this one was removed. It has no academic sources and was written in weasel words style ... "In fact..." whose facts? Where did the facts come from? If it is fact it is easy to cite the facts the statement is derived from. Just because the article is being rewritten doesn't allow that kind of unsubstantiated statement to be allowed to stay. 97.85.185.160 ( talk) 23:15, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
For those who extensively work on this article this source might be helpful http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/zoroastrian . Gulmammad | talk 01:15, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
I understood that some of the Kurds were Zoroastrians. Does anybody know anything about this please? SmokeyTheCat •TALK• 09:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
" Of what I know is that the majority of the Kurds that reside in current Irak and Iran were of Zoroastrian faith, this is probably the case as well concerning the Kurds of current Turkey. I am not a Kurd myself and don't have the right sources with my currently to add, but through my experience with Kurds, I know that the majority of secular Kurds from Irak very much identify themselves with their Zoroastrian roots, but I doubt that there are any Kurdish Zoroastrians left. The Kurds of Iran that are part of Iranian society see themselves as part of the Iranian plateau without any pan-Kurdish tendencies and the secular ones amongst those identify with Zoroastrianism as all other secular minded Iranians who do so. " —Preceding unsigned comment added by خرمدین۸۹ ( talk • contribs) 20:37, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
If the Amesha Spentas are manifestations/aspects of Mazda. Then it is possibly not correct to state that Mazda is not immanent. Isnt that right?
Removed claim the Zor. was the first proponent of ecology, as nearly every ancient belief system held care of Mother Earth as a high standard. The article uses weasel words: "arguably". Well, if it hasn't been decided, don't present it as fact.
there is a proposal for the creation of Wikiproject:Gnosticism. It is mentioned here as Gnosticism is a cultural impulse that in some of its forms has combined many religions such as Zoroastrianism. Its scope will include all gnostic faiths and will serve as a nexus for the improvement of Gnosticism related articles on Wikipedia, If any one would like to join or comment it is located here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals/Gnosticism -- Zaharous ( talk) 01:13, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
How so? What follows this is just evidence of Zoroastrian's influence on modern philosophy and Iranian culture.-- 70.142.44.41 ( talk) 23:05, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
From the article: "It is believed that key concepts of Zoroastrian eschatology and demonology have had influence on the Abrahamic religions". This statement is supported with two sources, both from 1987-8. Now, while Zoroastrian eschatology concepts were formed no earlier than the first millennium BCE, the book of Genesis were present before Zoroastrianism even exist and so did Jewish concepts of creation that was initially perfectly good, but was subsequently corrupted by evil (i.e. when Adam and Eve eat from the knowledge tree). I'm not sure the statement I cited from the article itself represent main stream view, I think both sources are given undue weight. -- Gilisa ( talk) 09:00, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Actually, Ian.thomson is correct. I'm not using myself as a source, but my ancestry is Zoroastrian, and I have read books (as a practicing Catholic) by Christian scholars that discuss the influence of Zoroastrianism on Judaism, especially the monotheistic aspect, the concept of the Messiah, and the hierarchy of angels. My priest was the one who educated me on the fact that Zoroaster is considered the first prophet, at least in our faith (Catholicism). I'm sure I can find more sources to back up Ian.thomson's claims. These claims do not somehow negate Judaism's own contributions. Nor does it mean that the religion itself false. Actually, it only supports (since faith can't be proven 100%) the fact that Judaism, and later Christianity, have a common foundation. Of course, in my opinion, God revealed himself (or herself, doesn't matter) through nature (earth-based religions), before over time, teaching his children through Zoroastrianism, Judaism, and Christianity. That statement, though many agree with it, is opinion. However, there is a lot of scholarly evidence for Ian.thomson's claims, and the counterarguments are held by a minority. And Zoroastrianism is indeed older than Judaism. Have you forgotten that the Jewish people lived under the Persian Empire? Where do you think Purim comes from? It coincides with the Persian New Year (Spring equinox celebrations - Persians, like their Celtic cousins, celebrate the different equinoxes), which has been celebrated for thousands of years. Zoroastrianism is actually the first Monotheistic religion. CreativeSoul7981 ( talk) 15:25, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
In this sentence: "It has no major theological divisions (the only significant schism is based on calendar differences), but it is not monolithic."
I think the it's supposed to be "monotheistic" unless I'm reading it wrong.
It's very confusing to report an error here for an old guy like me, so sorry if I posted this incorrectly.
Joe Kinaydjin ( talk) 19:45, 12 September 2010 (UTC) Joe Kinaydjin
{{
edit semi-protected}}
Please change (
Ahura Mazda) to (Spenta Mainyu) in this passage: "Ahura Mazda will ultimately prevail over the evil
Angra Mainyu or Ahriman, at which point the universe will undergo a cosmic renovation and time will end. " Because Spenta Mainyu is clashing with Angra MAinyu, while Ahura Mazda is above this. Therefore it does not make sence to write that Ahura Mazda will prevail when he/she/it is not trying to prevail over anything. Thios is in the second paragraph under Basic Beliefs in the article about Zoroastrianism.
24.99.250.252 (
talk)
18:43, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
This article is currently under attack by a BC/AD bully who had displayed absolutely no previous interest or competence in the subject, Zoroastrianism. I have reverted the version twice. Any adults who don't respond well to bullying may want to repair future monkeying with the long-established convention here. I leave it to them.-- Wetman ( talk) 06:10, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
User:Ian.thomson, it appears that you don't actually know the meaning of the word "consensus"; you use it interchangeably with "majority". Anyway, the issue is unresolved both here and on the administrators' noticeboard, so it's totally inappropriate for you to be ramming changes through in the meantime.
As I said before, I innocently and helpfully fixed a consistency issue; it was User:Wetman who completely changed the article a few days later and had the nerve to accuse me of causing trouble; dragging me into a much unwanted conflict over an obscure article that I'm not interested in anyway.( Huey45 ( talk) 12:39, 17 August 2010 (UTC))
Okay, I am new to this discussion. What is the consensus on the use of BCE? Personally, I have always been taught AD and BC in school and have only recently seen the use of BCE when I went back to get another degree at university. I am Persian and have a Zoroastrian heritage (practicing these traditions along with Catholicism), and as far as I know, from Zoroastrian scholars, no one is offended by the use of BC and AD. I agree with the person who said on the BCE discussion page (I think), that being offended by the use of BC and AD is like being offended by Thor when using Thursday. Why is it that using BC and AD is offensive, but many other cultures still use the Gregorian calendar? I am not making a demand for changes, but I would like to know where everyone stands on this issue. I think the use of BCE is distracting. Everyone I know is familiar with BC and AD. But, if enough people think it's more professional to use BCE, then I guess we must follow the consensus. How is the terminology used throughout other Wikipedia articles? I am curious. CreativeSoul7981 ( talk) 07:43, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Is this issue still up for debate? Why does the article still contain references to BC and AD? -- 24.37.217.30 ( talk) 16:09, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Currently it reads:
The metaphor of the "path" of Daena is represented in Zoroastrianism by the muslin undershirt Sudra, the 'Good/Holy Path', and the 72-thread Kushti girdle, the "Pathfinder".
There is a Wikipedia article for Sedreh, which seems to be the more common spelling (more common than Sudreh, another transliteration). To further clarify, one could write: "the cotton-muslin undershirt," to help distinguish muslin from muslim for the casual reader. Thanks. Lbtwhd ( talk) 11:16, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
I totally disagree, this article IS COMPLETELY BIASED TOWARDS A SPECIFIC SECT OF ZOROASTRIANISM, AS A BELIEVER IN ZURVAN, THE GOD OF THE 3 AGES OF TIME, YOUTH, MATURITY AND OLD AGE, a far superior version of zoroastrianism that the one imposed by the impious believers of Aura Mazdha, I will continue fighting the HERETICS of the truth of infinite time —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.106.81.44 ( talk) 07:44, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Why do I sense a tinge of political correctness on this issue? The Encyclopedia Britannica, which has far more credibility than Wikipedia, states in it's Zoroastrianism article "It is likely that Zoroastrianism influenced the development of Judaism and the birth of Christianity." This article could say at least that much. 69.112.90.253 ( talk) 21:47, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
The article states, "It was probably founded some time before the 6th century BCE in Persia (Iran)." It would be better if it gave a reference for the date and place, so readers would know what sources indicated the date and place it was founded.
Jacob81 ( talk) 05:18, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
It wasn't found in Persia. The size of Persia was much smaller than modern day Iran. And it was located in south West Iran only. If you look at the Median Empire map you will see Persia as a vassal state of the empire. Thats how big it was and there is no proof that it was found there. There is only proof that Zoroastronism was the religion of Ancient Persia though. It is said that Zoroaster spread this religion. Well it doesn't say anything about him being born or living in South West Iran. There is proof though that he was born and lived in either North West or North East Iran and in those places no Persians populated the area and today still no Persians populate the area. I suggest we delete that it was found in Persia and instead we say it was found in the Land of Aryans. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
94.7.106.197 (
talk)
18:01, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi, i want to add the following external link:
http://www.wisdomlib.org/zoroastrianism/book/a-manual-of-khshnoom/index.html
It is a massive guide to Khshnoom, an occult movement of Zoroastrianism, and can help other users of wiki to research and enter new information for this. Ofcourse it is also helpfull to everyone interested in Zoroastrianism.
Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xoloitzcuintle ( talk • contribs) 10:53, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Updated Link
The article "ZOROASTRIANISM i. HISTORICAL REVIEW" by William L. Malandra for Encyclopaedia Iranica now is accessed at: http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/zoroastrianism-i-historical-review
Editorial Staff Encyclopaedia Iranica 160.39.32.153 ( talk) 19:36, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Can someone edit that it wasn't found in Persia? Persia was much smaller and it was in modern South Western Iran which is quite small. And can also add that the Prophet Zoroaster was from Medya or Modern Kurdistan? There is evidence he was born In Medya / Modern Kurdistan. Also can someone add that the oldest and biggest temple is The Fire Temple? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.7.106.197 ( talk) 17:45, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
As for the birth of Zoroaster, I said the same thing as you but when I did some research about it I did find that he was born in the Kurdish part of Iran. Its a recent discovery that not many know about yet. Also this is the website for the Fire Temple. http://zoroastrians.net/2010/03/05/largest-oldest-zoroasterian-fire-temple-of-kurdistan/ There is many more websites. Just write in google the Biggest Zoroastronism Fire Temple. It will give you a list of websites with the same answers.
I also meant Zoroastronism was not found in Persia. It was found in Modern Iran but definitely not in Persia. During the Median empire Persia was a vassal state and that was what the shape of Ancient Persia was.
I also do not want you to think that I am from Kurdistan. I am actually from the Netherlands and I know a lot about Zoroastronism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.7.106.197 ( talk) 09:53, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Zoroaster was either born in North Western Iran or North Eastern Iran. Can someone add that aswell? http://books.google.com/books?id=Uspf6eDDvjAC&pg=PA17&lpg=PA17&dq=Zoroaster+was+born+in+North+west+iran&source=bl&ots=OMynfA4kXb&sig=OSbQlXuGz-Ws1UKbTdkTBBFFejM&hl=en&ei=WHNzTsXhLIyEhQeMqdHTDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CCIQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=Zoroaster%20was%20born%20in%20North%20west%20iran&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.7.106.197 ( talk) 16:06, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Fascinating !!! Most scholars, even Western scholars, believe that Zoroaster was born in Afghanistan. This is also the view of the sources in Wikipedia, just see under Zoroaster page for his place of birth. These things cannot be decided based on political allegiance and nationalism. You need proof. The most important thing to consider is the geography covered in Avesta, the holy book of Zoroastrianism. In that book, there are NO MENTION of either Medians nor Persians. All the lands described are in today's Afghanistan or its immediate surroundings. The greatest scholar from Harvard University actually places him in MIDDLE of Afghanistan, where you have the Buddhist statues (just read the page about Zoroaster, this debate was already settelled). His place of death is also known as Balkh, as also mentionned in Ferdowsi's Shanameh.--Kasparov49acer 08:41, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Also, Avestan was an Eastern Aryan language, spoken in Bactria and Eastern Afghanistan, it was not spoken in Media or Persia, which actually didn't even exist at that time. It was centuries after that Zoroastrianism spread to Media and Persia.--Kasparov49acer 08:47, 26 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yamaweiss ( talk • contribs)
If you are going to change my edits, please have the curtosy of providing an explanation. I did explain a great deal above, and provided you with enough proof as well.--Kasparov49acer 08:50, 26 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yamaweiss ( talk • contribs)
By the late 20th century, some scholars had settled on an origin in Eastern Iran and/or Central Asia (to include present-day Afghanistan): Gnoli proposed Sistan (though in a much wider scope than the present-day province) as the homeland of Zoroastrianism; Frye voted for Bactria and Chorasmia;[15] Khlopin suggests the Tedzen Delta in present-day Turkmenistan.[16] Sarianidi considered the BMAC region as "the native land of the Zoroastrians and, probably, of Zoroaster himself."[17] Boyce includes the steppes of the former Soviet republics.[18] The medieval "from Media" hypothesis is no longer taken seriously, and Zaehner has even suggested that this was a Magi-mediated issue to garner legitimacy, but this has been likewise rejected by Gershevitch and others.--Kasparov49acer 08:53, 26 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yamaweiss ( talk • contribs)
How can Zoroaster be born in North East Iran, if there is no mention of Parthians in Avest ??? Also, Parthians were Western Iranians, while Zoroaster spoke Avestan.--Kasparov49acer 08:58, 26 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yamaweiss ( talk • contribs)
I am fine with Greater Iran. Take care.--Kasparov49acer 09:23, 26 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yamaweiss ( talk • contribs)
"^ Foltz 2004, pp. 4–16" Nobody named Foltz is listed as an author in the references at the end of the article. Please provide the complete citation here. 4.248.220.248 ( talk) 19:16, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
This entire article has serious issues with citations. The author needs to do a search on every "is believed", "is thought", and find a source that matches what the article says about whatever subject is under discussions. If "Whether Cyrus II was a Zoroastrian is subject to debate." tell who is debating it. Patrij ( talk) 19:58, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
iblogger.org is on the blacklist [1] so images from it should not be used. See also the whitelist discussion| [2]
Graeme374 ( talk) 04:08, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
"The first surviving reference to Zoroaster in Western scholarship is attributed to Thomas Browne (1605–1682)"
That's wrong. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoroaster#Western_perceptions
As far back as Ancient Roman literature, we have references to him. Someone please correct this.
216.54.22.188 ( talk) 17:23, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
It should be made clear in the intro or historical develppment that Zoroastrianism they are talking about is synonmous with Mazdeans. Mention should be give to Zurvanism and other extinct branches. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.4.158.160 ( talk) 15:12, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Zoroastrianism at the Open Directory Project
(includes a list of Zoroastrian organizations)
99.19.43.221 ( talk) 02:17, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Please link proselytizing to Proselytism under chapter Other characteristics? That bit doesn't have many wikilinks and I feel that word falls under techinical term / jargon. - 195.148.29.73 ( talk) 08:28, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
In the Demographics sub-section the estimated figure of 25,000 in North American is not cited. "25,000" specifically conflicts with the number estimated in the linked article List of countries by Zoroastrian population, which is 17,000 if you add the U.S. and Canada figures. The latter figure is cited with a New York Times article. The contradiction needs to be fixed with either a new citation and updated numbers, or corrected numbers and the appropriately listed citation.
Additionally, the Adherents section in general needs more citations to be convincing. Trifelin ( talk) 19:20, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
"he religion first dwindled when the Achaemenid Empire was invaded by Alexander III of Macedon, after which it collapsed and disintegrated[2] and it was further gradually marginalized by Islam from the 7th century onwards with the decline of the Sassanid Empire.[3]"
The statement above is simply a lie. Zoaroastranism was erracated by the arabs and Islam by the use of sword. Persians were forced to become Muslim, even though the article of course says they were not.
Won't bother changing the article, even though many sources back up this clear statement i just did. Why won't i? cause it wouldn't do any good, wikipedia is biased because of a corrupt leadership and will remain so.
81.170.132.28 ( talk) 01:18, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
For those of you for who life had NOT been too short to learn German, I cite from the German wikipedia;
"Als bevorzugte Religion löste sich der Zoroastrismus in Folge der islamischen Eroberung des sassanidischen Reiches in den Jahren nach 636 langsam auf. Der Islam nahm als Religion beständig an Bedeutung zu, aber erst seit zirka 900 stellten die Moslems die Mehrheit im Iran. Viele iranische Feste bergen aber „insgeheim“ das zarathustrische Erbe in sich und werden noch heute im schiitischen Iran, teilweise in synkretischer Form, gefeiert. Das bedeutendste dieser Feste ist das „Frühlingsfest“ Nouruz, dessen Wurzeln noch weiter zurückreichen dürften.
Mit der Ausbreitung des Islams im Iran wurde der Zoroastrismus zunehmend unterdrückt und eine Zoroastrierverfolgung setzte ein, weshalb viele Zarathustrier vor ca. 1000 Jahren ins Ausland emigrierten, vor allem nach Indien und Pakistan, wo man ihnen den Namen Parsen (d. h.: Perser) gab. Es gibt heute weltweit etwa 120.000 Mitglieder der Religion des Zoroastrismus (auch Mazdaismus oder Parsismus genannt), die meisten in Indien. Eine nicht unbedeutende Anzahl von Zoroastriern lebt jedoch auch in Tadschikistan. Zurzeit gibt es eine Bewegung in der Kommune, alle dem zarathustrischen Glauben Zugehörigen unter dem Begriff „Zarathustrier“ zu vereinen, um wieder geschlossener auftreten zu können."
That is clear enough, I would say
Lignomontanus ( talk) 06:33, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Real cherry pie ( talk) 20:29, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
I was wondering if there should be a section to references in popular Western culture. I'm thinking along the lines of Nietzsche's Also sprach Zarathustra, Strauss's work of the same name, it's use in 2001: A Space Odyssey, and the reference in Heinlein's Tunnel in the Sky (Rod Walker's family are Zoroastrian). It might also include the use of Ahura Mazda's name for a car company and a brand of electric light bulbs.
Why only Western Culture? — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
88.91.225.250 (
talk)
16:12, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Details about Zoroaster family, his belief and his reforms updated-- Rahulkris999 ( talk) 17:00, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
spelling error: change 'inequities' to 'iniquities'
121.254.85.166 (
talk)
17:48, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
The 'Akkadianpractices' at the end of 'Principal beliefs' needs a space. Just a typo. 79.50.247.208 ( talk) 19:46, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
I believe the term Magianism is only used to refer to the form of Zoroastrianism found in Iraq before Islam. It is not a term for all of Zoroastrianism. Iraqi Zoroastrianism had many differences the most well known was its overwhelming emphasis on astrology, something not nearly as important for Persian Zoroastrianism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.85.57.51 ( talk) 11:53, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
That's liguistically problematic. The root would be Magh which refers to the priests of Zoroastrianism aka Magu/Maghi. Not really the religion it's self. Magic = of the Mage or Magus. Magian = of the Magi. Magianism = beliefs of the Magi. So Magianism would be a very indirect reference to Zoroastrianism. It tends to reveal more information about the speaker than what they are speaking of. The use of Magianism indicated that the speaker is more familiar with the Magi than their Zoroastrian beliefs. Otherwise they would use Zoroastrianism instead of Magianism. It's the equivalent of identifying Christianty as Preistianism or Judaism as Rabbianism. The only other useage of magian would be the ancient tribe the Magi came from. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MagusAmathion ( talk • contribs) 21:17, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm unaware of any other religion in antiquity that has used Magi to refer to their priests. More modernly the Golden Dawn and even Church of Satan has adopted the title Magus. But not Magi. But to the very best of my knowledge Magi refers exclusive to Zoroastrian Priests. What confuses some people is the varying titles in the heirarchcy of the priest. Aethrapati (Av)/ervad (Guj)which is the first stage of initiation into the priesthood. Magus, Mobed, Dastur and Magupaiti. All of which are Magi. You may find this link to be helpful. GLOSSARY and Standardized spelling of Zoroastrian terms
In Zoroastrianism the Temples of an area unite under a Parsis. They enjoy some autonomy. There was not the rigid structure that you find in more modern religions. It was more like the earlier Catholic Church who at one time had about 7 Popes. But all of the Parsis held the Persian Parsis to be the supreme authority. There were differing sects such and the Zurvanites and even Manicheans that arose out of that autonomy. Even though they were considered to be heretical Zoroastrians by the traditional Zoroastrians. They were still Zoroastrians because of the presence if Ahuramazda in the religion. They are also considered sects of Mazdaism. I've done a lot research on Zurvan (Timespace.) I find it interesting that the ancient Zurvanites knew Time and Space to be one. Modern Physics proves this to be truth.
MagusAmathion ( talk) 23:55, 23 October 2012 (UTC)Magus Amathion
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The number of adherents at the end of the first paragraph is way off the mark. Replace "apporx. 2.6 million" with "between 124,000 and 190,000" using http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/06/us/06faith.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2 that nytimes article as the source. GothPigeon ( talk) 13:35, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I would like to note - in the section on Zoroastrianism in the middle ages and the first paragraph - that it was in fact a necessity for the muslims of Umayyad to sustain a relatively large proportion of the population as infidels(kafir), due to Islam's economic systems and funding of the theocracy. F.ex the Ottoman Empire's economic system was too built on the enormous tax burden the infidels had to bear. Odiru ( talk) 09:30, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Not done: please provide
reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.
Begoon
talk
10:57, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
"He is said to be the one uncreated Creator to whom all worship is ultimately directed." [2]
There are several problems with this entry.
1)The link to the source leads to an Encylopedia Iranica article titled "ZOROASTRIANISM i. HISTORICAL REVIEW." Not "Zoroastrianism: Holy text, beliefs and practices."
2)This is presented as a quote and nowhere in the sourced article does that sentence appear. The word "uncreated" is only used once in the entire article. This is the sentence it appears in. "It was opposed to the dualistic theology that held Ohrmazd and Ahriman to be primordial, uncreated spirits."
3)If you read the entire paragraph it atributes the concept of Ohrmazd and Ahriman being primordial, uncreated spirits to Manicheism and Zurvanism. Both are derivative of Zoroastrianism. But niether are Zoroastrianism even though they both could be included in Mazdaism with Zoroastrianism. They are both seperate and distinct works outside of Zoroastrianism.
4)Ahura Mazda is more properly described as always existing. Always existing and uncreated can be viewed as being synonymous. But there is a very subtle difference that is very important to understanding the differences between Ahura Mazda, Spenta Mainyu and Angra Mainyu. Ahura Mazda is the always existing creator. He created the primorial spirit Spenta Mainyu to which a twin arose in opposition to the creation. That twin is the uncreated primodial spirit Angra Mainyu. This is evidenced in part in the AHUNAVAITI GATHA 30, 3 & 4 with the twin primorial spirits creation of "life and not life." That opposition carries all the way through the creation begining with Spenta Mainyu(created)and Angra Mainyu (uncreated). So to portray Ahura Mazda as being uncreated only sets the stage for confusion in trying to understand the nonexistential nature of Angra Mainyu. That confusion always leads to the misunderstaning that Zoroastrianism is dualistic. Ahura Mazda exists above and beyond both good and evil as their Wise Lord. So it is therefore truly monotheistic. The supreme being is niether good nor evil as in other religions. In Zoroastrianism the supreme being is Wisdom.
I wanted to let you know there is a problem with this part. I am now begining a search for a link to support Ahura Mazda being always existing to correct that problem.
MagusAmathion ( talk) 17:36, 22 February 2013 (UTC) Magus Amathion
I have been able to find this to support Ahura Mazda always existing.
At the bottom of page 25 of 122. The third sentence in "(A PRAYER TO THE DEITY)" says, "may there be praise for the name of Ahura Mazda, who has always existed, exists, and will always exist."
On pages 28 - 29 of 122 there is a list of Ahura Mazda's names, powers and attributes. "1. Self existing."
MagusAmathion ( talk) 22:03, 23 February 2013 (UTC)Magus Amathion
I just took out this line again from the intro: Before the Bronze Age people worshipped many deities within a confusing, sometimes conflicting complex of mythologies.. First off, the article on the Bronze Age is very general, and not Iran (or Persia, if you will) specific. Worshiping many deities still existed a long time after the arrival of Zoroaster: Christianity became the Roman Empire's state religion in 380 - well into the Iron Age. Second, besides the fact that "many deities" are still worshiped today (i.e., Hinduism, Shinto), the word "confusing" is an obvious biased word against polytheistic religions. --Soetermans. T / C 17:19, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Zoroastrianism originated in the 16th century BC, not 6th century. I can cite, if need be (Fisher, Mary P. Living Religions. 8th Ed. blahblahblah. p. 235. Print.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.11.70.13 ( talk) 00:42, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
From the article: "In Zoroastrianism, the creator Ahura Mazda is all good, and no evil originates from him."
According to the Avestic Creation, Ormuzd first created the Kingdom of Light. The translation of the second verse is as follows: "I cast my shadow, Angra Mainyu, who is all death." Angra Mainyu is Ormuzds creation, and evil therefore originates from him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.246.2.81 ( talk) 23:12, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
from the article: "Zoroastrian ideas led to a formal religion bearing his name by about the 6th century BCE and have influenced other later religions including Judaism, Gnosticism, Christianity and Islam"
Isn't there also evidence (alluded to in the article by the linguistic comparisons with Hindu texts) that Zorastrianism has influenced Hinduism (and therefore Buddhism because Buddhism was influenced by Hinduism). — Preceding unsigned comment added by RobinReborn ( talk • contribs) 12:49, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Currently 2nd sentence of the "Terminology" sub-heading reads as follows "The first surviving reference to Zoroaster in Engish", spelling mistake in word "Engish", should be "English". I hope this helps. 121.99.48.167 ( talk) 20:15, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please remove the following with blank as they are at odds with current theories and established facts: "Whether Cyrus II was a Zoroastrian is subject to debate. It did, however, influence him to the extent that it became the non-imposing religion of his empire, and its beliefs later allowed Cyrus to free the Jews and allow them to return to Judea when the emperor took Babylon in 539 BCE."
I will begin with established facts and briefly include that no Zoroastrian belief includes Judea or the Jews. It is quite a bizarre comment given that it is widely-held among scholars and historians (and even the wikipedia page for "Zoroastrianism") that Zoroastrianism pre-dates Judaism.
Furthermore, it is widely believed and reported in outlets such as BBC's "Engineering an Empire: Persia", that Cyrus the Great freed the Jews so that they could act as a buffer state between Persia and Egypt. Darius's Canal (present-day Suez Canal) was also constructed by the Persian Empire for the very same purpose.
The page once again makes a false claim stating: "Almost nothing is known of the status of Zoroastrianism under the Seleucids and Parthians, who ruled over Persia following Alexander the Great's invasion in 330 BCE. " No citation is provided and from my own previous research & knowledge on the subject, I knew that to be incorrect as Magistanes (high-ranking Parthian officials/ Zoroastrian Priests) during the Parthian Empire were and are of great significance due to the rivalry between the Parthian Empire and the Roman Empire and the major role religion had between them. Steven Collins, in the book "The Missing Years of the Life of Christ" argues that Jesus Christ actually played a role in the great power politics which occurred between the empires of Parthia and Rome.
I also shouldn't leave out that there are extensive information regarding Zoroastrianism in the Parthian Empire and that the "Wise Men" who selected Jesus upon his birth and presented him with 3 gifts were Zoroastrian and one of their burial sites is believed to be in Orumieh, Iran where an Assyrian Church now lies (Fox News has a report on it that is accessible on youtube.) Quite contrary to the claim that "almost nothing is known of the status of Zoroastrianism under the Seleucids and Parthians."
The claims sound ridiculous and the overall Wikipedia page regarding "Zoroastrianism" is extremely murky.
The next claim: "It was also during the later Achaemenid era that many of the divinities and divine concepts of proto-Indo-Iranian religion(s) were incorporated in Zoroastrianism, in particular those to whom the days of the month of the Zoroastrian calendar are dedicated." is also in dire need of citation.
Thank You.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by KBadie ( talk • contribs) 2 March 2013
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I think the following statement is incorrect. "In the eastern part of ancient Persia over a thousand years BCE a religious philosopher called Zoroaster simplified the pantheon of early Iranian gods[1] into two opposing forces: Ahura Mazda (Illuminating Wisdom) and Angra Mainyu (Destructive Spirit) which were in conflict." I request that it should read as follows. In the eastern part of ancient Persia over a thousand years BCE a religious philosopher called Zoroaster simplified the pantheon of early Iranian gods[1] into two opposing forces: spenta mainyu (Holy spirit) and Angre Mainyu (Destructive Spirit) which were in conflict."
references below are from the "gathas" or divine songs of Zarathushtra. = [3]Ha 30 para 3 para 4 para 5 There are two opposing forces = their names are "spenta mainyu" and "angre mainyu" para 10 says "understand law of happiness and misery which ahura mazda has ordained" "age-long pain for the wicked sinful persons and advantages for the righteous person which lead to happiness" [4] Ha 29 para 4 "ahura mazda himself is the judge (of good and evil) So let happen unto us as He himself desires." the gathas (divine songs of zarathustra) clearly state that there is one god = ahura mazda = [5] ha 31 para 8 Ever since I have held thee (O Ahura Mazda) in ( my) eye I have always regarded Thee O Ahura Mazda as the first of all, as worthy of worship with pure thought as the father of Vohu61 Mana (good mind) as the real origin of truth (and) as the lord over (all) actions of this world."
there are two spirits in this world = spenta mainyu and angre mainyu In christianity there is holy spirit and the devil (or satan)(or shaitaan). Spenta mainyu or holy spirit guides a person Angre mainyu or (evil spirit) (sound is like "angry spirit") deceives you. Ahura mazda is judge of good and evil. Man has a choice. If he listens to spenta mainyu he will have good thoughts, speak good words and do good deeds and he will be happy and prosperous in this life and at the end of life he will go to garothman heaven (abode of songs). If he listens to angre mainyu he will be the opposite and he will suffer. The references are clear in the "gathas". Sarosh mehta ( talk) 12:16, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
How did it influence them? I've heard that claimed, but never heard of how exactly that took place. Also I second the previous question about Hinduism, and possibly Buddhism. (It may have influenced Hinduism after Buddhism came along, I don't know.) It definitely has influenced Hinduism some at least; there is a fire temple revered by both Hindus and Zoroastrians in Azerbaijan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.62.247.226 ( talk) 23:11, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
I have seen several articles one by the New York Times claiming that there are Zoroastrians in Afghanistan. However no information about this Zoroastrian population seems to be available, just statistics which often vary. Does anyone have any more specific and detailed information about the Zoroastrians in Afghanistan. Ten thousand is a considerable number of Zoroastrians if there are any in Afghanistan but due to the fact I have only seen one or two statistics saying that there were Zoroastrians in the country I am skeptical that there actually are any in Afghanistan. Please clarify as to whether this skepticism is justified or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.238.26.136 ( talk) 01:54, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
It notes that Zoratorism (Spelling?) influenced later religions including Judaism. If I am not incorrect, Gods chosen people, the Jews (Judaism) was the first known organized belief system. They were the direct descendants of Adam and Eve. So how can a religion that developed thousands of years after Gods chosen people, the Jews, have influenced what is called 'later religions'? Just a question, I'm not a Jew, I'm a believer in God and that's all it takes IMHO. But was wondering. Stephen 76.183.177.89 ( talk) 00:09, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
The current section claims: "there was little serious pressure" exerted on newly subjected people to adopt Islam. The claimed support is Boyce (1979).
Here is the PDF version of Boyce book: Zoroastrians by Mary Boyce
If you read chapter 14, starting page 145, it predominantly describes violence, torture and forced conversion of Zoroastrian people to Islam. Boyce's chapter states the conquest of Zoroastrian people was inspired by Surah 9.29 of Quran, 'Fight those who believe not in God and the Last Day and do not forbid what Allah and his Messenger have forbidden - such men as practise not the religion of truth, being people of the book - until they pay tribute out of hand and have been humbled.'
On page 150, it mentions a short period when the pressure to adopt Islam was not serious - but there too, in the same paragraph, it mentions "a commissioner who supervised the destruction of fire temples throughout Iran, regardless of treaty obligations." Most of the chapter describes serious pressure used to convert, nevertheless.
Request: This section should be revised to properly summarize Chapter 14 of Boyce. The current version heavily distorts what Boyce is saying in that chapter. At the very least, the sentence should revised to: The conquest began with slaughter, enslavement, looting and destruction of Zoroastrians, thereafter the state treated the conquered Zoroastrians as dhimmis under the Umayyad Caliphate. There were periods when little serious pressure was subjected on Zoroastrians to adopt Islam, along with other periods where violent pressure was exerted.
Thank you, Prof.akbar ( talk) 21:11, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
For a second source, please see Encyclopedia Britannica article on Zoroastrianism. It reads - "Islam, in principle, tolerated the ancient religion, but conversions by persuasion or force were massive in many provinces. ...(skip)... Zoroastrians, called Gabars by the Muslims, survived in Iran as a persecuted minority in small enclaves at Yazd and Kerman." Thank you, Prof.akbar ( talk) 22:52, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Zoroastrian beliefs are scattered in three sections: Philosophy, Basic Beliefs, and Principal beliefs. I suggest merging their contents into one section "Beliefs&Practices" and dividing them into subsections as follows:
Kiatdd ( talk) 18:58, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
If it's strictly necessary to keep this page semi-protected on a long-term basis, can someone at least add the appropriate template? (If not, then some sort of timescale for lifting that should be considered.) 84.203.32.169 ( talk) 07:30, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
It says in the article that:
"The Zarathushtri also practice traditional head covering ritual similar to that of Judaism (probably predating it)."
There is no source quoted that it "most likely" predates it, thus the words in brackets should either be deleted or a source must be quoted. Nonetheless, the words "most likely" should be taken out.
Thank you Gdawgb1 ( talk) 22:56, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
It is true that some aspects of Zoroastrian iconography have clear sumerian influences, but the doctrines and gods are vastly different. It would be interesting to this article or preferably other to detail what were those influences.
Also,apart from some periods of persian history (such as during the seleucid dinasty,were there was partial syncretism and reduction of zoroastrian identity) the relation of zoroastrian and babylonian religion are much more regarding art and iconography than any other thing, hence it is wrong to say itwas "strongly" influenced by the babylonians.
Some minor groups could be considered as more influenced though, such as mazdakism. 201.9.179.230 ( talk) 13:26, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the second paragraph of the introduction, it currently reads: "In the eastern part of ancient Persia more than thousand years BCE, a religious philosopher called Zoroaster simplified the pantheon of early Iranian gods[2] into two opposing forces: Ahura Mazda (Illuminating Wisdom) and Angra Mainyu (Destructive Spirit) which were in conflict."
This should be changed to: In the eastern part of ancient Persia more than a thousand years BCE, a religious philosopher called Zoroaster simplified the pantheon of early Iranian gods[2] into two opposing forces: Ahura Mazda (Illuminating Wisdom) and Angra Mainyu (Destructive Spirit) which were in conflict."
Just adding an "a" between the words "than" and "thousand".
Thanks JSimar ( talk) 00:12, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Already done Thanks,
Celestra (
talk)
04:33, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Could we have a description of Zoroastrian worship? J S Ayer ( talk) 22:37, 27 September 2013 (UTC)