Jump to content

Talk:Zoroastrianism/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11

Monotheism, polytheism, dualism

@Researcher1988 If you could just talk to me and explain your stance, and why it matters so much, that would be very helpful. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 20:06, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

it's you who should describe your stance to us. I just want to protect the article from meaningless and unhelpful edits.
1- There is a Consensus that Zoroastrianism is Monotheistic. the Article should not be misleading, and should express this consensus.
2- there is a Consensus that Zoroastrianism has influenced major religions and beliefs. the article should express such consensus. otherwise it would be misleading. Researcher1988 (talk) 20:13, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Thank you Researcher1988, it is a helpful to know your stance here. I'm not entirely sure that is actually the consensus because Britannica says it is actually a polytheistic religion that emphasises a central godhead. Sources that you have added also describe it as polytheistic. I have mentioned this before, but you did not reply. My stance is simply that the page should reflect the sources used on is, and the ones that are freely available. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 20:20, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Britannica does say that Zoroastrianism contains Both monotheistic and dualistic features. also, Britannica says that Zoroastrianism had influenced major religions.
the articles that I cited, clearly demonstrate that the religion has an early form of Monotheism, that Zoroastrian Monotheism is unique to Zoroastrianism, and though it has dualistic features, still, it should be considered a monotheistic religion. (the articles says why.)
finally, there is a general consensus that Zoroastrianism had influenced major religions, and there are a lot of articles to support this. Researcher1988 (talk) 20:33, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Both articles explicitly say it is rooted in polytheism. I have seen several articles claiming that it has influenced other religions, but also I've seen numerous saying it has not. I have yet to see the given reason that they think this. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 08:45, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Judaism is rooted in polytheism too.
Zoroastrianism is Monotheistic, but it has its own exceptional form. Researcher1988 (talk) 17:24, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
I don't think that's correct, but I don't see it being especially relevant in any case. We aren't editing the Judaism article @Researcher1988. But I suspect you are trying to start an edit war with me, which is something you seem to have a history of. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 17:31, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
no, its you.
you are trying to impose your personal views on this article. you are distorting whole paragraphs, you are changing and altering the original meaning of the texts and paragraphs, and creating meaningless titles which I see as vandalism. Researcher1988 (talk) 17:46, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
@Researcher1988 these are the views of people who you are personally citing. I'm just trying to interweave what I see as an interesting academic discussion into the article. However, I can't really hope to do anything if you simply revert everything without trying to discuss it or fully explain what you think is so wrong. Not when you don't seem willing to talk to me. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 18:53, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
I think, you are distorting my edits and altering its meaning, because you do not like what I post.
the texts I posted, extensively talks about the "polytheism/dualism" problem, and debunks the misconceptions. your edits change the meaning and purpose of the article, which is unnecessary.
I did not delete your edit, but added some extra content from the same sources you cited. Researcher1988 (talk) 19:05, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
@Researcher1988 I'm sorry if you are offended by my edits, but I was trying to collaborate. I feel the section on monotheism/polytheism/dualism should give the different and varied perspectives as if discussing them with the reader. I don't feel the section is all that clear at the moment, which is likely because Zor is esoteric and doesn't fit neatly into any of the categories. I feel it would be best to give each option a small section, and make the case for each there. We should take care to define and be clear on them. Particularly as they can blur together somewhat, and because taking out dualism doesn't preclude the other two. It also really depends on which strain of Zor you mean, and at which point in its history. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 20:43, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
that section discusses the monotheism and the so called duality/polytheism problem. I think you didn't read it very well. Researcher1988 (talk) 20:48, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
@Researcher1988 Why are you being rude? The section did not mention polytheism or dualism until a few days ago, and dualism is only one form that polytheism can take. The current version is, in my mind, far too negative towards dualism. Especially in light of the fact that the rest of the article, and all sources, seem to agree that the religion is dualist. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 09:53, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

the articles I cited discusses the problem of dualism too.

besides, Zoroastrian dualism is not polytheism. because Ahriman is not worshipped. Researcher1988 (talk) 10:28, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

@Researcher1988 What about the other gods they worship, other than Ahriman? Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 17:18, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
you have absolutely no knowledge of Zoroastrianism. Ahriman is not worshiped, he is the devil. Yazatas are Angels, they are created by Ahura Mazda, they are not gods. Researcher1988 (talk) 17:23, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
@Researcher1988 If you could slow down and listen, you would understand that that has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. In order:
  • Polytheism and Dualism are not the same thing.
  • I am fully aware that Ahriman is not worshiped. However, he's not a devil figure. I.e. a created being, made by the father, who fell away from him via sin. Instead, he is considered a god of equal standing who acts in opposition. One god can only bring good, the other can only corrupt.
  • My main point is that the section needs to address the concept of polytheism, and arguments made for dualism. Not that the section needs to be favourable to these arguments..
  • What about Mithra and Tishtrya? They are zor gods.
  • "Yazatas" is a word meaning "worthy of worship", and the Zor use it interchangeably with the word "gods". Now, I admit I'm not an expert on Zor. Neither are you. However, I've read numerous sources that agree that the worship of Yazatas makes the religion polytheistic, and that the oldest copies of their holy book are very polytheistic. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 17:42, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
- Ahriman is the devil figure. he is not a god. he is a destructive force. Zoroastrianism believes in one single creator god.
-Yazatas are angels, created by Ahura Mazda. they obey the will of god, have limited power and act according to god's command. they are not independent beings.
-the section already discussed these issues in detail, and debunks these arguments. I think it needs no extra content about these issues. Researcher1988 (talk) 17:50, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
@Researcher1988 The wiki pages for Mithra and Tishtrya, two of the Yazatas, literally call them gods. Polytheism is barely mentioned on the page at all, and nowhere within the theology section. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 18:11, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
-Those Wiki pages are wrong then.
- yazatas are NOT gods. they are created by an uncreated deity. they have limited power and only obey god's command. but they are venerated in Zoroastrianism. This veneration is not against Ahura Mazda's Greatness or Godhood.
- the section discusses these matters in detail. Researcher1988 (talk) 18:17, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
@Researcher1988 If the wiki page is wrong, then so is Britannica and every other source I've come across related to Mithras etc. Though there are so many strains of Zor I should probably ask which one you mean. I find it hard to understand why you are trying so hard to fit religion known for pantheism into the mould of one that isn't. Which section discusses these matters in detail? Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 18:47, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
There is a general Consensus that Zoroastrianism is Monotheistic. it seems you don't want to read what was posted on this article which clearly discusses such matters. Researcher1988 (talk) 18:53, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
@Researcher1988 Britannica seems to disagree Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 18:57, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
Britannica states that Zoroastrianism is monotheistic.
also:
https://www.history.com/topics/religion/zoroastrianism
"Arguably the world's first monotheistic faith..." Researcher1988 (talk) 19:03, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
@Researcher1988 Then there's a contradiction here. the sources say two different things. Both that it's monotheistic, and that it's not and they go on to name other gods in the religion and say that they do have a pantheon but they focus worship on one central god. Other sources say that it is definitely not monotheistic in its origins, but became more so. Others that it never really has been. So why are you getting so angry at me? This is something I think should be discussed fairly, and should be spoken about in that section. BTW I do not trust "History" as it is a conspiracy site that runs 'aliens built the pyramids' type shows. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 19:14, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
- The majority of sources say Zoroastrianism is monotheistic.
-There is a consensus that Zoroastrianism had influenced Abrahamic religions. even Britannica agrees with that.
-the section in this article discusses Dualism/Polytheism Arguments fairly, and debunks the misconceptions.
End of discussion. Researcher1988 (talk) 19:32, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
@Researcher1988 It barely mentions Polytheism, and where is this consensus? So far I've seen one source saying that, but it doesn't tally. And how do we know Zoroastrianism influenced Abrahamic religions? What's the source for that, beyond people just repeating it? Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 19:54, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
from Britannica:
"Zoroastrianism is one of the world’s oldest monotheistic religions, having originated in ancient Persia. It contains both monotheistic and dualistic elements, and many scholars believe Zoroastrianism influenced the belief systems of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam."
There are plenty of sources and articles to support such claims. Researcher1988 (talk) 19:57, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
@Researcher1988 "and many scholars believe" does not mean all. The article goes on to say "Though Zoroastrianism was never, even in the thinking of its founder, as insistently monotheistic as, for instance, Judaism or Islam, it does represent an original attempt at unifying under the worship of one supreme god a polytheistic religion comparable to those of the ancient Greeks, Latins, Indians, and other early peoples. Its other salient feature, namely dualism, was never understood in an absolute, rigorous fashion. " Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 20:43, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

(Editors, may I suggest the use of more verbatim quotations of sources when making a claim and adding the relevant citation. I think it would lead to a more objective discussion instead of a subjective one.) Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 23:35, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

That could certainly help for a subject as apparently controversial as an obscure religion comprising of a few thousand people. lol Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 08:18, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
This religion is monotheistic, but some people are mistaken because they consider Ahriman as a God, but this is not true, Ahriman is in fact the Devil, the only true God is Ahura Mazda. Saying that Zoroastrianism is dualistic would be tantamount saying that Christianism is so too, since you also have a God and a Devil for Christianism. Sources : "The prophet Zoroaster founded the first monotheistic religion in history", "Zoroastrianism proclaims a movement through time from dualism toward monotheism, i.e., a dualism which is being made false by the dynamics of time, and a monotheism which is being made true by those same dynamics of time. The meaning of the eschaton in Zoroastrianism is thus the triumph of monotheism, the good God Ahura Mazdä having at last won his way through to complete and final ascendancy.".---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 10:01, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
@Wikaviani Thank you for the interesting sources, though I'm not sure that they support the point you want to make - or the ones made in that section of the article. The first one is an economics journal that doesn't cite its source, so I'm not sure we can use it. The second actively rebukes it; since it says Zor went from polytheism, to dualism, to monotheism over time. This is actually what I've been saying throughout this page. I.e. that it began with pagan ideas, then morphed. Likely in response to the rise of another popular monotheistic religion. There is also, still, the problem of Mithra and the 'ones who are worthy of worship'. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 14:57, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Mithra is not mentioned in the Gathas, it is not linked with Zoroastrism, thus your remark is irrelevant here. Zoroastrism is a reform of Mazdeism aimed to become a monotheistic religion, that became true over time.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 11:22, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
Okay Wikaviani. So we agree it stems from a polytheistic religions. I feel this should be mentioned, and the progression of the theology laid out. Mithra is just one of various divine beings in the Yasht hymns, where Mithra is described as a radiant, shining, deity associated with the sun. He is often invoked alongside other divine entities, such as Hvare-khshaeta (sun god) and Surya (Indian Vedic sun god). Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 15:35, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
Judaism started from a polytheistic background too. so what? what is your point here? Zoroastrianism was monotheistic from the beginning. Zoroaster changed and revolutionized his native polytheistic religion and created the new faith. Researcher1988 (talk) 19:00, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
@Researcher1988 Again; that is speculation to be had on the Judaism page, and is not relevant to this conversation. The sources here make it clear that Mithra and other pagan gods were, at minimum, subjects of worship by the Zor religion that seem to have dwindled to background figures over time. We have established, through sources, that early versions of the Zor holy book were polytheist. Other sources claim it to have at least dabbled in Dualism, though the consensus appears to be that it's Dualist. Or, at least, that's what the majority of sources I've checked seem to say. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 08:16, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Wrong. we have established Zoroastrianism was Monotheistic from the beginning. Yazatas Are not gods. they were created by Ahura Mazda. you have to increase your knowledge of Zoroastrianism before giving opinion about such matters. Researcher1988 (talk) 08:20, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Nope, Zoroastrianism might be seemingly polytheistic or dualistic,[1] but this is not true, as i said above, it is a reform of a polytheistic religion (Mazdeism) aimed to become a monotheistic religion. Even the Arabs, who conquered Persia in the 7th century AD agreed on this finally.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 10:21, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
exactly.
1- it is monotheistic, because the religion believes in one supreme un-created deity who has created all that exists.
2- Yazatas are NOT gods, or deities, but divinities, emanations of Ahura Mazda, obedient and subordinate to him.
3- veneration of Yazatas gives Zoroastrianism, a false "Polytheistic appearance;" while in fact yazatas are not equal, similar, or comparable to Ahura Mazda, but his subordinate agents. Researcher1988 (talk) 11:10, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
@Researcher1988 How was this established, and in what way, and from what point in its history? Bearing in mind we have sources showing it has changed over time, and saying the Avesta was (at least in the beginning) polytheistic. Can you define how we separate the Yazata from gods? Gods often create other gods, so that cannot be a criteria. And, according to @Wikaviani's source, Zor seems to acknowledge and even worship multiple gods. Including ones that are worshiped as gods by other loacl religions. This seems as lot like a pantheon with a head god, like Zeus. Which would make it a form of Henotheism or perhaps Monolatry. Either way, I don't really think it fits the definition of Monotheism, which Britannica says is "Belief in the existence of one god alone". At the very least, it doesn't fit it across all of its existence, as we have seen from this source. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 11:47, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
1- we don't have sources that prove Zoroastrianism has changed over time. its your personal opinion.
2-yazatas were created by Ahura Mazda. they have limited power and are obedient and subordinate to him. Yazatas are emanations of god. besides gods don't CREATE gods, but beget them through sexual intercourse etc.
3-No. Zoroastrianism is neither Henotheistic nor monolatrous. Zoroastrianism believes in one single creator, which is the source of all the existence, and doesn't recognize any other deity. Researcher1988 (talk) 12:06, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Of course we don't have to prove it. You've admitted they began via one of these changes, and it's already proven by multiple sources - including many that are cited on the page itself. Brahma is said to have created gods through the power of his divine thought. The Greek gods turned humans into gods. Gaia and Uanus give birth to other gods. The Shabaka Stone, from the Twenty-Fifth Dynasty, says Ptah "gave life to all the gods and their kas as well, through this heart and this tongue.". And I'm wondering how you explain veneration of Mithra in the texts, because he's certainly worshiped as a god. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 18:41, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
(Editors, may I suggest the use of more verbatim quotations of sources when making a claim and adding the relevant citation. I think it would lead to a more objective discussion instead of a subjective one.) Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 23:03, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Re-ordering and re-arranging the page sections

I've noticed in this article, there are some paragraphs which discuss matters and subjects that belong to other sections; for example some paragraphs in "practice" section, which discusses individual duties and life of a Zoroastrian, fits better in "principal beliefs" section, while a paragraph (about dead corpse) fits better in "rituals and prayer" sub-section. I suggest, I re-order those paragraphs and then, re-arrange the sections and sub-sections like this: 

-Etymology
-Theology
-Principal beliefs 
 - tenets of faith
 - Cosmology
 - Eschatology
-Practices and rituals ("practice" section, merges with "Ritual and prayer" subsection)
-Scripture
-History
 - Zoroaster ("Zoroaster" section becomes a sub-section of history) 
-Demographics
-Relation with other religions Researcher1988 (talk) 06:45, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
Good call. Remsense诉 08:06, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
You're right. The theology section, especially, is a bit of a confusing mess and really needs to be built as a timeline rather than a single section as their beliefs changed radically over the centuries. However, getting others to agree to something like that may be like pulling teeth. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 15:38, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
Eh? Nah, I doubt it often. You'd be surprised how often you can start taking a hacksaw to a big, high-traffic article, and no one is particularly concerned (unless real mistakes start happening.) Remsense诉 15:40, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
Well, I will try to help if I can. But I think we should agree a plan before doing something like that. My thought is that the history section could be used as a template for several smaller theology sections that go over the 'early, middle, late' beliefs. Starting with the origins as a breakaway from other local religions, the journey through/from dualism and polytheism to the current iteration. What do you think? Tiggy The Terrible (talk) Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 15:45, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
Worst that can happen is you have to revert it! Be bold, but not reckless, as they say. Remsense诉 15:46, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
Zoroastrianism did not change radically over centuries. there is no evidence for your claims.
Zoroastrianism was monotheistic from the beginning and it remained such in the coming centuries after Zoroaster. Researcher1988 (talk) 19:03, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
@Researcher1988 Both your sources, and mine, state that it has changed radically over the centuries. Here is a short list of some of them:
  • "Like the rest of the Zoroastrian texts, the Old Avesta does not teach monotheism, and this severely undermines the argument of Zoroastrian Influence Theory, which sees Zoroastrianism as the source of the Bible’s monotheistic beliefs." And also : [2]"Zoroastrianism has a unique theistic doctrine which combines dualism, polytheism and pantheism. Therefore, Zoroastrianism should stop being referred to as the oldestmonotheistic religion"
  • [3]"This one shows how Zoroastrianism developed, through time, from polytheism and dualism toward monotheism,"
  • [4]This one points directly to the religion being a 'mix'.
This is just a small selection. There are numerous others cited on the Zor page. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 08:25, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
No sources ever stated such a thing. it is your own personal opinion. Researcher1988 (talk) 08:28, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
@Researcher1988 "Like the rest of the Zoroastrian texts, the Old Avesta does not teach monotheism, and this severely undermines the argument of Zoroastrian Influence Theory, which sees Zoroastrianism as the source of the Bible’s monotheistic beliefs." And also : [1]"Zoroastrianism has a unique theistic doctrine which combines dualism, polytheism and pantheism. Therefore, Zoroastrianism should stop being referred to as the oldest monotheistic religion" Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 09:24, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
your source is not reliable. the article has many inconsistencies and does not provide any valuable argument to prove its point.
the vast majority of scholars believe Zoroastrianism is monotheistic. from worldhistory.org:
"Zoroastrianism is the monotheistic faith established by the Persian prophet Zoroaster (also given as Zarathustra, Zartosht) between c. 1500-1000 BCE. It holds that there is one supreme deity, Ahura Mazda (Lord of Wisdom), creator and sustainer of all things, and encourages adherents to express their faith through the principle of Good Thoughts, Good Words, and Good Deeds." Researcher1988 (talk) 09:31, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
@Researcher1988 Which of my sources are unreliable, and why? Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 11:55, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
the article you are using does not provide any reliable arguments for its claims.
besides, your claims doesn't match what the article says.
there are countless articles that prove you wrong. but you are repeating your false arguments time after time. this discussion must end here. Researcher1988 (talk) 12:17, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
@Researcher1988 I'm confused about the way you argue. People are citing articles in here all the time that don't "provide any reliable arguments for its claims". The one I gave you actually does, and is a fully cited master's thesis. It even cites some of the things cited at me. You won't even listen to what I'm saying, or read enough to realise I'm quoting the thesis directly, and that it very much is saying what I am saying. In fact, there are several other thesis that say much the same that I can see here. All I am arguing here is that the article should have a timeline showing the rise of Zor out of polytheism, just as your sources say. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 18:29, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
no. the one you gave here actually doesn't.
you don't listen to what I am saying.
according to my sources and every other out there, Zoroastrianism is Monotheistic.
any idea that implies Zoroastrianism is not monotheistic, should be regarded as "anti-Zoroastrian" misinformation. Researcher1988 (talk) 19:00, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
@Researcher1988 Even if it comes from sources that you yourself cite? Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 06:57, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Consensus on Monotheism

I suggest, we reach a consensus on Zoroastrian monotheism.

Zoroastrianism IS Monotheistic because:

1-Zoroastrianism believes in one single creator god, that has created the entire universe, and all that exists.

2-Yazats are divinities and subordinate agents emanated from Ahura Mazda. Yazatas ARE NOT gods. their veneration IS NOT against Monotheistic nature of Zoroastrianism, because they have been created by god, they are obedient to god, they don't have any creative powers and they are subordinate to power of their creator. this gives Zoroastrianism a "polytheistic appearance" but yet, is not against Monotheistic nature of the religion.

3-After reaching a conclusion, we must consider any claim that implies Zoroastrianism is not monotheistic, as "anti-Zoroastrian misinformation", and prevent such ideas from being published on this page.

Thanks. Researcher1988 (talk) 19:23, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Conversation About The Vote

@Wikaviani Do you agree to reach a consensus and end this discussion? Researcher1988 (talk) 09:10, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
The problem is that the discussion is mainly about personal opinions, which constitute original research and is not the basis to include info in articles. I have noticed a few times lax interpretation of what sources say. The discussion should be primarily about what reliable sources state about the topic, presenting quotes of material.
Examples,
  • Zoroastrianism believes in one single creator god, that has created the entire universe, and all that exists.[citation needed]
  • Modern Zoroastrians may be more inclined to Henotheism or perhaps Monolatry[citation needed]
Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 05:18, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
Well, I don't see a clear consensus here, even if I think that Zoroastrianism is monotheistic, just like you, some other editors seem to disagree.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 06:14, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
@Wikaviani
there is a scholarly Consensus about this. and the vast majority of editors seem to agree.
there should be a way to reach a consensus anyway. Researcher1988 (talk) 07:30, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
Just FYI, I've shunted this to its own section to stop the vote being messed up.
@Thinker78 I think that one factor that keeps being pushed past in this is that Zoroastrianism is not a single thing, like say Judaism or Islam. Just reading off Wiki, we have many different forms - such as Zurvanite Zoroastrianism, which believed in multiple gods. Mazdakism, which was duellist. Manichaeism, which was created by combining a multitude of other religions with Zoroastrianism - including Buddhism, Judaism, Gnostics, and Christianity. So there are many branches that are Polytheist, while others are more dualistic or steeped in Henotheism or Monolatry.
@Researcher1988 Which editors? I only count one other who has openly supported you on this, and they only replied once. As to scholarly consensus.... on which version of Zoroastrianism, and at which time? It could be more monotheistic now, but it certainly has had a long history of not being so. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 14:42, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
you don't know anything about Zoroastrianism. Zoroastrianism was certainly a monotheistic religion from the beginning and it had no other version. Researcher1988 (talk) 14:46, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia, quite assuredly, has pages for multiple different offshoots. Including the ones above, but also cults like Mithraism. Most of these offshoots were killed off, but they are quite real. I suggest you click on some of the hotlinks I provided. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 15:25, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
unfortunately you have no information about Zoroastrianism or any other Iranian religiosns or .
1-Zoroastrianism is a single religion. it was found by prophet Zoroaster, and is based on Avesta. Zoroastrianism is less sectarian than Abrahamic religions and is more uniform in its doctrine and teaching.
2-Manichaeism is another religion which was founded by Mani. it is an independent religion.
3-Mazdakism is a socio-economic ideology, founded by Mazdak. It is an independent ideology.
You have very little information about these religions. Researcher1988 (talk) 16:17, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
To answer to the editors saying that people here don't provide sources, i would say that most expert sources ackowledge Zoroastrianism as Monotheistic, for example, Yves Bomati, a well-known French historian of religions says "Zarathoustra, le réformateur monothéiste", i. e. "Zarathustra, the monotheistic reformer" [5], Jean Kellens, another prominent expert of this topic says : "Les accusations de dualisme ne sont pas sans fondement mais elles sont sans portée. Le dualisme du fondateur n'est pas de nature religieuse mais philosophique et cette philosophie est imprégnée de morale. Elle fonde une éthique du comportement qui exige le discernement entre le bien et le mal et est soumise à une
rétribution posthume." i.e."Accusations of dualism are not unfounded, but they are irrelevant. The founder's dualism is not religious, but philosophical in nature, and this philosophy is imbued with morality. It is based on a behavioral ethics that require discernment between good and evil, and is subject to posthumous retribution." [6]. George Foot Moore, a prominent American historian of religions says : "The religion whose adherents call themselves "whorshippers of Mazda", the wise God, and which we commonly name after its founder Zoroastrianism, is in many ways of peculiar interest. It is the only Monotheistic religion of Indo-European origin as Judaism is the one independent Semitic Monotheism." [7]. hope this will help.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 19:31, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
I appreciate your direct quotes but no idea why are you quoting in French if this is the English Wikipedia though. Is there lack of English sources for the topic? Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 04:01, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
Guys, could we be careful to ensure replies are indented properly as it makes it easier for me to see who is replying to who?
To @Researcher1988 1) I refer you to the wiki pages I linked to, showing that there have historically been a wide variety of Zoroastrian sects. I'm not sure why you think it is uniform as Zoroastrianism has changed a lot over its existence. Older versions of the holy book are polytheist, 2) Manichaeism combines the teachings of Zoroastrianism, but it is not the strongest of the examples I've given. Mani saw himself as a prophet in the line of Zor. 3) Mazdakism's wiki page terms it "an offshoot of Zoroastrianism", and it is part of the Zoroastrian series on Wikipedia and by Oxford
@Wikaviani I'm sorry I cannot read most of your sources, but I am a little sceptical that Zoroastrianism is partly European as it is very Persian. I also have a variety of sources that I have given before, which clearly say that it is not monotheistic but that it became more so over time. Time is a huge factor in this discussion, which needs to be addressed. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 08:54, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
Zoroastrianism has not been changed over centuries, and it seems you can't even comprehend those pages.
you don't even know the difference between Mazdakism, Manichaeism and Zoroastrianism.
why you keep repeating your false beliefs which are based on misinformation and ignorance? Researcher1988 (talk) 09:01, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
Stop talking to other editors like that, it is totally unacceptable. If you continue doing so, I'm going to report you to WP:ANI. Remsense诉 09:02, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
we know Zoroastrianism is monotheistic:
1- "The prophet Zoroaster founded the first monotheistic religion in history, which once rose to great imperial status and still survives unchanged today despite centuries of Muslim pressure.."
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s41412-021-00113-4
2- "Both the Zoroastrian faith and Judaism had ancient origins. These two religions started out as polytheistic and pagan, but transformed into two dynamic, yet related faiths. If Zoroaster and Abraham were real people, then Zoroastrianism became monotheistic first followed by Judaism."
https://digitalcommons.winthrop.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1151&context=graduatetheses
Mazdakism and Manichaeism are NOT Sects within Zoroastrianism. they are Independent and different religions. Researcher1988 (talk) 09:44, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
I think that you misunderstood the source, Indo'European does not mean that Zoroastrianism is partly European, it mean that it is the only montheistic religion that appeared in Indo-European speaking countries. Iran speaks Persian, which is an Indo-European language. As to the sources you're speaking about, it's a matter of quality, the sources i cited just above are prominent experts of this topic.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 15:24, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
I quoted in French because the sources are in French, and I translated them in English just in case you guys do not understand French.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 13:59, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

@Researcher1988 I keep repeating myself because I believe myself right. Is that not what you are doing? Source 1) is an economics paper, not a historical or religious studies paper. We have better sources that show it has been changed. For example, this one. Or the Zoroastrian holy book, which starts mentioning gods like Mithra in the first couple of paragraphs. 2) That source states "More often than not, Zoroastrianism is considered to be the world’s first monotheistic religion. However, that does not necessarily mean it began as a monotheistic religion. Indeed, it did not. The religion which would come to be known as Zoroastrianism started as an Indo-Iranian polytheistic religion." 3) Then why is Mazdakism under wiki project Zoroastrianism? I'll give you that Manichaeism is weaker, but it's still based on it. @Wikaviani Ah I see. Well, I would like to cite the Yasna from the holy book of the Zoroastrians itself. To quote Wiki;" the Yasna "is the Avestan name of Zoroastrianism's principal act of worship. It is also the name of the primary liturgical collection of Avesta texts, recited during that yasna ceremony. " To quote the text itself: "I announce (and) carry out (this Yasna) for Mithra of wide pastures, of the thousand ears, and of the myriad eyes, the Yazad of the spoken name, and for Raman Khwastra." I have found nothing on the latter name, but I have found many many references to the god Mithra in godly roles in the text. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 18:55, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

@TiggyTheTerrible: I'm sorry, but none of your above arguments are convincing. you are trying to contradict high quality reliable source with your own interpretation of holy Zoroastrian books, that's WP:OR for the least. Your comment about Zoroastrianism being partly European shows that you don't know what you're talking about and failing to get the point, like you're doing now is starting to be disruptive even if I'm still assuming good faith. I disagree with the aggressive behaviour of Researcher1988, but they, unlike you, at least know what they're talking about.
  • "Source 1 is an economic paper" and what about the many other expert sources i provided later ?
  • "That source states "More often than not, Zoroastrianism is considered to be the world’s first monotheistic religion. However, that does not necessarily mean it began as a monotheistic religion. Indeed, it did not." This is your own interpretation, not what the source says again WP:OR.
  • "Then why is Mazdakism under wiki project Zoroastrianism? So Mazdakism being under Wiki project Zoroastrianism is an argument that can contradict what prominent historians of religion and Iranologists like Jean Kellens, George Foot Moore or Yves Bomati say about that religion ??
  • "I have found nothing on the latter name, but I have found many many references to the god Mithra in godly roles in the text." If that was that simple, then why are almost all reliable sources disagree with you ?
You did your best to state this case, but I think that you're seriously running out of arguments, better to drop the stick and move forward in my humble opinion.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 20:28, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
@Wikaviani I don't think it is fair to accuse only one party of being disruptive, specially the party that doesn't agree with you. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 23:02, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
@Thinker78: Ok, then how would you call a user who clearly refuses to get the point ? A user who thinks that calling Zoroastrianism an Indo-European religion means that said religion is partly European ? According to you, applying what our guidlines say is unfair ? I quote : "Sometimes, even when editors act in good faith, their contributions may be disruptive and time-wasting, especially if they can't understand what the problem is." Sounds cristal clear. When one party is disruptive and not the other, there is nothing unfair to call a cat a cat. Besides, I also said that I'm still assuming good faith ...---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 23:31, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
The discussions and my advise to both parties illustrate what is going on. Also the editing history of the article. As I said, you seem to be unfairly biased against just one of the parties that you seem to be in disagreement with. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 02:00, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
Your "advise" was to provide sources, this has been done. How I interact with other editors is my business, I just follow our guidelines as i quoted above, sorry if you feel that unfair.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 13:13, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
How I interact with other editors is my business not just your business if you are lobing accusations. I do think you have an unfair bias against only one editor. The discussion surely has issues but as I said, it is not only a matter of one editor. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 00:47, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
There is no "bias" in saying that an editor who fails to get the point is disruptive, this is explicitly written in our guidelines. If you have a problem with my editing, go ahead and file a report, but stop trying my patience while attacking me on baseless ground.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 13:55, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
that source is not an economic paper. read it comprehensively. it is solely about religion and religious subject and we can rely on that. there are countless other sources as well. Researcher1988 (talk) 21:09, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
No, that source is from an economist, thus, has no expertise for this topic, my bad, I was the one who cited it. But that's not the issue here, I already cited several high quality sources from historians of religion and Iranologists that supports the Monotheistic view about Zoroastrianism.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 23:40, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
But judging from his other publications, Mario Ferrero is an expert on religious matters too. its not just from a pure economic point of view, but a theological perspective too. Researcher1988 (talk) 07:46, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
Okay, I'm finding it very hard to tell who anyone is talking to here so I'm going to have to guess. Apologies if I get it wrong.
@Researcher1988 How do you interpret the fact that there are at least 22 very flattering references to the god Mithras in the Yasna alone? Please explain his presence.
  • "Source 1" is from an economics journal. I've yet to see a source explaining the monotheism claim. Just a lot saying it's monotheistic, then contradicting themselves. There are better sources on this. If you feel Mario Ferrero is an expert on religious matters it would be helpful if you cited some of his other studies.
  • "This is your own interpretation" It's a direct quote?
  • I'm simply asking you a question. Why is it under Wiki Project Zoroastrianism?
  • I'm not sure what percentage of the academic ones agree or disagree, but I've yet to see one explain why this religion is monotheistic. I would like to know what the reasoning was, personally, and how they account for all those references to Mithra and other gods.
@Wikaviani Apologies for misunderstanding that, but I feel you are now joining in the defamation against me. I don't appreciate the tactics being used here. Certainly not the attempts to invalidate me, and attack my character, as a cover for ignoring my arguments. I don't feel I should be bullied into accepting something that's plainly wrong based on the apparent evidence, especially when no positive case has been made for it. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 11:34, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
There is no defamation, please don't play the victim card. If you really think that my conduct is misplaced, take this to WP:ANI. I provided multiple high quality sources that explicitly support the Monotheistic view about Zoroastrianism, but you refuse to get the point, this is disruptive, as you can see if you follow the blue link. Please note that your personal interpretation of the religious Zoroastrian texts is irrelevant, just like mine. As editors, we have to go by what the sources say and avoid original research. I strongly suggest you drop the stick unless you are able to find convincing arguments, which you failed to do so far.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 13:26, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
No defamation? Are you sure? I have tried to be as polite as I can, but you - personally - have labelled me "disruptive" and said I "refused to get the point". Among other inflammatory things. Researcher1988 has also launched multiple accusations at me. When I directly quote your own sources, both accuse me of "personal interpretation" without clarifying what that even means. All I have done, constantly, is ask you two to produce the method and evidence that lead to it being declared monotheistic. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 13:51, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
It's not our job, as editors, to give our interpretation of what reliable sources say. First you asked for sources that say Zoroastrianism is monotheistic, this has been done, now you question the sources, so yeah, I'm sure of what I'm saying, there is no defamation, you refuse to get the point and this is starting to be disruptive. Zoroastrianism is a reform of an older polytheistic religion, but the Gods of that older religion are still respected in Zoroastrianism, however, there is one and only God for Zoroastrians, Ahura Mazda. I am not an expert or a historian of religions, if you need explanations, read what reliable sources say.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 14:31, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
@Wikaviani It's not my interpretation that Mithra is a god who appears very frequently in the Zoroastrian holy book. Or that this source says that Zoroastrianism is polytheistic. Your sources do say that Zoroastrianism is monotheistic, but they also say ""Zoroastrianism proclaims a movement through time from dualism toward monotheism" They also say, very often, that it was polytheistic before even that. My argument here is that the page simply explain this by breaking down the theology into periods. "Zoroastrianism is a reform of an older polytheistic religion" should be part of the first period. And "the Gods of that older religion are still respected in Zoroastrianism" the latter ones. My main problem here is that there is an extremely wide consensus that this is not the definition of Monotheism. This consensus is far wider than the entire field of study into Zoroastrianism. I am not an expert or a historian of religions, either, but this seems really obvious. You are agreeing with me with one hand, then disagreeing with the other.
Definitions of monotheism:
  • "the doctrine or belief that there is but one God" - Merriam Webster
  • "the belief that there is only one god" - Cambridge Dictionary
  • "Belief in one personal and transcendent God." Oxford Dictionary
  • "Monotheism is the belief in a single all-powerful god, as opposed to religions that believe in multiple gods." Vocabulary.com
  • Monotheism is the belief or doctrine that there is one—and only one—god or deity..... A person who believes in only one god can be called a monotheist." - Dictionary.com
Definitions of Polytheism
  • "belief in or worship of more than one god" - Merriam Webster
  • "the belief in or worship of more than one god" - Cambridge Dictionary
  • "The belief in, or worship of, many gods." - Oxford Dictionary
  • "Polytheism is belief in many gods — it's kind of the opposite of monotheism, which is belief in one god." -Vocabulary.com
  • "Polytheism is the belief or doctrine that there are multiple gods or deities." - Dictionary.com
By your own words, this isn't monotheism. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 20:02, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
Your first source is an academic specialized in Christian/Muslim studies, thus not an expert source for this topic, or, at least, cannot challenge our best sources, i.e. Iranologists and expert sources of Avesta (unlike Jean Kellens, George Foot Moore or Yves Bomati whom I quoted above). The second one, Boyd & Donald are a bit better, but they seem to have no specific expertise about Avestan studies. If you are now speaking about the definitions of what monotheism is, then one could probably find some definition according to which Islam, Judaism or Christianity are not Monotheistic either ...
You keep interpreting what expert sources say and try to challenge them with much weaker sources, which is irrelevant.
Let's take a look at who are the sources I quoted above :
Yves Bomati is a French academic specialized in the history of Iran, Jean Kellens is a Belgian Iranologist who specialises in Avestan studies and George Foot Moore an American historian of religions member of the American Oriental Society, you'll have hard time to find better sources than these guys. And now I have a simple question for you, why do all these prominent experts of this topic disagree with you ? Finally, I'll tell this for the second time, if you think that my behaviour here is disruptive, then go ahead and take this to WP:ANI.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 20:37, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
@Wikaviani so you are accusing Tiggy The Terrible of disruption because they don't agree with you? Really? Thinker78 (talk) 05:15, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
@Wikaviani This first source is from a PHD in scriptural studies, which is what would be required to compare the two scriptures. He isn't only interested in Christian & Muslim studies. He also has a background in the Persian period, from his bio. It's also not from an unrelated field, such as economics. The second source is your own, and I would therefore move that it's one of our best sources because it has editor consensus.
Wikipedia requires me to read, interpret, and synthesise a source in order to make an edit. So I'm not entirely sure why you have an issue with the interpretation part. Or where the interpretation lies when I'm directly quoting them. And, indeed, using the exact same quotes from them that you do.
Sorry, I cannot read the wiki page for Yves Bomati as it's in French. But I assume you're referring to the French sources above that I also cannot read. I am afraid that, for all I know, they could be croissant recipes. Sorry. The same goes for Jean Kellens. Though this source also seems to be very old as he began his career around WW2. George Foot Moore is even older. He died eight years before WW2, in 1931. Granted, they may have things to tell us - but I have to ask why all your sources are older than me, and in French? Would it be interpretation for me to translate them?
As to why "all these prominent experts of this topic disagree with you", I would first have to ask how prominent they are if they're all retired or dead. And I would secondly have to ask if they really disagree, because I can't read what most of them say. And I would thirdly have to say that I don't know why they would disagree with me, but maybe you can point me to their exact methodology for determining that a religion with multiple gods is monotheistic. Incidentally, I notice you completely ignored my arguments. What do you think of the accepted definitions of monotheism vs polytheism? Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 09:58, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
@TiggyTheTerrible: The fact that you cannot read French sources is not relevant, many of the best sources about Iran are in French. One of the sources, George Foot Moore is a bit old, but you may want to take it at WP:RSN to check its reliability. Again, I am not a historian of religions, I cannot explain their methodology, read them and you will probably understand. The Boyd and Donald source was cited by me, yes, but they cannot challenge stronger sources from Iranologists or historians of Avestan studies, like Bomati and Kellens (recipe of croissant ? really ?). ---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 10:53, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
@Thinker78: You better read carefully what people say and desist from throwing baseless accusations as this behavior clearly qualifies as personal attacks (read the point number 6 :"Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence.").
I'm not here for Wikilawyering, my only purpose is to improve this article with the best sources, you should try to calm down and do the same instead of attacking me like you do.
I'll resume once more my position. Tiggy and you asked for sources and sources have been provided from some of the best experts of this topic. From that point on, refusing to get the point and trying to challenge those strong sources with weaker ones qualifies as disruption and I quoted the relevant part of our guidelines for you above, just read it.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 10:37, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
@Wikaviani You simply seem to be overly hostile and what I stated is based on my observations of this discussion that I have followed since a request for a third opinion was made. Also, I have not taken a position in favor or against what editors in the discussion are saying about the topic. My suggestion is to focus on the content of the topic and avoid accusations. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 01:11, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
@Wikaviani I believe it is wiki policy that the person making the argument to provide sources that are recent, or at least readable. By challenging your own sources, you confuse this conversation quite a lot. If you want to show me the sources that lay out the reasoning for the claim to monotheism, I will happily read them. Especially the parts dealing with Mithra. However, it is becoming very hard to have this conversation when you declare your own quotes to be inadmissible the moment I use them. This was a problem with Reasercher1988 too. Whenever I start quoting from one of your sources, it (or the section in question within the source) becomes inadmissible. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 13:31, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
I think you misunderstand Wiki guidelines, what are sources that are "readable" ? there is no problem with the use of sources in foreign languages. I took the time to quote the sources and translate them in English for you, just take the time to read what said sources say.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 13:49, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
I quote again, with the translations in English (again ...) :
Yves Bomati, a well-known French historian of religions says "Zarathoustra, le réformateur monothéiste", i. e. "Zarathustra, the monotheistic reformer" [8], Jean Kellens, another prominent expert of this topic says : "Les accusations de dualisme ne sont pas sans fondement mais elles sont sans portée. Le dualisme du fondateur n'est pas de nature religieuse mais philosophique et cette philosophie est imprégnée de morale. Elle fonde une éthique du comportement qui exige le discernement entre le bien et le mal et est soumise à une rétribution posthume." i.e."Accusations of dualism are not unfounded, but they are irrelevant. The founder's dualism is not religious, but philosophical in nature, and this philosophy is imbued with morality. It is based on a behavioral ethics that require discernment between good and evil, and is subject to posthumous retribution." [9]. George Foot Moore, a prominent American historian of religions says : "The religion whose adherents call themselves "whorshippers of Mazda", the wise God, and which we commonly name after its founder Zoroastrianism, is in many ways of peculiar interest. It is the only Monotheistic religion of Indo-European origin as Judaism is the one independent Semitic Monotheism." [10].
There is nothing "inadmissible" with quoting Boyd & Donald, I quoted them too, but stronger sources have been cited next (especially Bomati and Kellens), and you keep speaking about Boyd and Ferrero (the economist guy).---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 14:07, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
@Wikaviani Thank you. Can you give me their reasoning for saying this, also? And can you explain Mithra's presence in the text? In particular, sources saying outright that he was a god in Zoroastrianism? As well as other sources saying there are multiple Zoroastrian gods? Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 14:40, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
No, as I told you several times, I am not an expert for this matter and, again, my opinion is that other "Gods" from the older polytheistic religion are stil respected in Zoroastrianism but this is only my humble opinion and I may be mistaken. Since our best sources acknowledge this religion as monotheistic, this is how it has to be presented in the article. Sorry, but if you don't have any other argument than "give me the reasoning of the sources", then I think we're done here. Best.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 14:58, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
@Wikaviani, I would like to hear the reasoning. How many gods does a monotheistic religion typically have, and worship, in your opinion? Would you be open to the article saying "Zoroastrianism is a monotheistic religion with several main gods"? Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 16:22, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
My opinion does not matter, what reliable sources say does. If the sentence you are proposing is explicitly supported by our best sources, then I have no problem with that.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 19:14, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
Do you mind if I quote directly from the Avesta itself? Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 19:49, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
Avesta is not a secondary source, better if reliable secondary source is quoted.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 20:04, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
Your feelings are your business. I took a look at your editing history, and the least I can say, is that you should apply your "advices" to yourself too. We almost reached a consensus here, Tiggy and me, that means that we dealt with content, not users. Since you constantly share your "feelings" with me, let me say that I can also say that you've been overly hostile towards me, with your personal attacks and baseless accustions. I'm done here with you.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 07:58, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
@Wikaviani That's frustrating as the Avesta has a lot to say about gods in the plural. However, I am very confused about your sudden twist into attacking me there. It's not my 'feeling' that the Avesta says things like "under the mighty light of the heavens by the light of the stars made by the gods" and "I invoke Mithra, the lord of the rolling countryside, a god armed with beautiful weapons".and "above the Chinwad bridge she places it in the presence of the heavenly gods themselves". And I don't recall attacking you. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 08:30, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
My above response was for Thinker, not you.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 09:34, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
Oh okay, fair enough. I thought it was weird, and retract what I said. I suppose I should have wondered more about why you referred to me in the third person, but I had just woken up! Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 11:46, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Refresher on copyvio

Researcher1988 the reason that one Ferrero quote you keep inserting keeps getting deleted is because you can't just whole-cloth copy that much of an author's work into Wikipedia. It's copyright violation. It also likely a violation of WP:DUE - which gets at the other thing you might have noticed in some of my tweaks. I do contend that Ferrero is a reliable source. But it is not the authoritative reliable source. It's appropriate to include mention of the Ferrero article but, where possible, especially when making a controversial claim, it should be attributed to him. And the source should not be over-used relative its relevance. Simonm223 (talk) 19:33, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

New Section

I've been thinking about adding a new section to the page and thought that we should probably discuss it beforehand. I have put the new section I am proposing in my Sandbox, and I hope it is to your approval. I have tried to cite it as fully and frequently as I can, though I have more citations to add to it. Please do tell me what you think. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 13:16, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I haven't heard back yet so I'm going to leave this until tomorrow morning to see if you guys have any feedback. If not, I'll start slowly adding things and waiting to see if there are any objections. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 20:07, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
I checked your sandbox, you want to use Alessia Zubani, who is a doctoral student, and Frantz Grenet who is an expert source on pre islamic Central Asia, but with no specific expertise for Zoroastrianism, why not quote Jean Kellens and Yves Bomati i tead of these sources ? Kellens and Bomati are much stronger sources for this topic.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 09:03, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
Thank you, @Wikaviani. Would you be able to link me to some of their work in particular that you think can be used? I can't find any that aren't buried in print books or behind paywalls. I can remove Alessia if you like, but I think the research by Frantz Grenet looks very solid. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 09:40, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
@Wikaviani Do you think it's nearly ready to add, or should I track down more names to fill it out a bit? Or add more details about their domains etc? Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 19:55, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
Okay, I've not heard back so I'm just going to add it as I'm not hearing any major criticisms. Please do add the sources you've mentioned if you think they will help. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 15:29, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
Zoroastrianism has only one god, Ahura Mazda.
what you did is a misrepresentation of Zoroastrianism based on false interpretations.
Yazatas are not "Gods." Researcher1988 (talk) 16:16, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
@Researcher1988 It literally calls them gods in the Zend Avesta, and a great number of other sources call them gods. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 19:09, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
no. it literally calls them "Yazatas" in all sources.
Yazatas are not gods.
Gods are omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, while yazatas have limited power, and are not omniscient and omnipresent.
this section is a misrepresentation of the religion and will be changed soon. Researcher1988 (talk) 19:49, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
@Researcher1988 I thank you for not changing it yet, and instead speaking with me. Here is the Avesta, which you should see calls them gods multiple times. The head god of Zoroastrianism doesn't fit the description you give, and neither do most lower-case gods., Mithra is omniscient in terms of his hearing, according to the text. He is described as thousand-eared. I think you should probably read up on the capabilities of most gods, because most do not fit that description at all. Balder was killed by a mistletoe arrow. Osiris was tricked into a coffin, which was sealed shut, He was then drowned. How did they not see that coming AND get out of it if they were omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient? Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 20:27, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
In Avesta, they are called Yazatas, not gods. I don't care what words the western translators had used:
"but they are usually not called “gods” either in the Avesta. So they represent a concept unique to Zoroastrianism and their Avestan appellation, yazatas, is best left untranslated (Boyce, 1975, 195–196). The pagan origin of the yazatas is important because it must have made conversion relatively easy for the Iranian peoples, as it did not involve a complete turnaround of beliefs."
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s41412-021-00113-4
Yazatas are not gods, because they don't have the qualities of gods:
1-they were created by Ahura Mazda.
2-they have limited powers and are obedient to him.
3-Ahura Mazda is the only god and creator in Zoroastrianism.
and thats why the religion is called: "Mazda-yasna" that is, "Mazda-worshiping" religion. all the other Yazatas and divinities are considered Ahura Mazda's emanations, not separate independent entities. Researcher1988 (talk) 20:42, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
"Okay, I've not heard back so I'm just going to add it as I'm not hearing any major criticisms." : uh ? you wait barely one day and you start editing the article with zero consensus ??
"Please do add the sources you've mentioned if you think they will help" : That's impossible as the sources contradict your edit ...
"Would you be able to link me to some of their work in particular that you think can be used? I can't find any that aren't buried in print books or behind paywalls." : Already linked and cited Bomati and Kellens twice ...
We have multiple top quality sources calling Zoroastrianism a Monotheistic religion while untill now you have zero top quality source calling that religion polytheistic.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 01:49, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
@Researcher1988 Your economics source speaks a lot about the many gods of Zoroastrianism is you read past the abstract. If being called Yazatas, means they cannot be labelled 'gods' then they cannot be labelled as angels instead. Surely? If you remove the word 'gods' you must also remove the word 'angels' because that's a far more western understanding than 'gods'.
Why do you think that economics paper mentioning "gods" is valid, but not the Zend Avesta? Which other gods meet your criteria for a god, bearing in mind I have listed many created gods who were limited?
Sorry @Wikaviani I waited two days, and nobody really responded or told me they disagreed so I followed {{WP:BOLD}}. You didn't seem to have any big issues in your responses. Sorry that I didn't recognise your sources by name, and could not find them online. I'm a little confused about all this because, on one hand, I'm given economists who claim Zoroastrianism had multiple gods. And on the other, I'm given dead people I can't read. I've quoted the Zend Avesta, and its commentary. I'm not sure why you two disagree with it.. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 07:52, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
Wrong. it clearly says Yazatas are not gods and the word "Yazata" should not be translated as "God."
this is a misconception.
Yazatas are divinities created by god. the word for "God" in the Avesta is "Ahura" which is exclusively used for Ahura Mazda. Zoroastrianism only recognizes one god:
"Ahura Mazda, the ‘Lord of Wisdom’ is considered a superior, all-encompassing deity, the only existing one, who may be venerated in all other god-manifestations. This certainly is a monotheistic concept."
https://www.academia.edu/27409859/Zoroastrianism_and_the_Bible_Monotheism_by_Coincidence Researcher1988 (talk) 08:05, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
@Researcher1988 Your economics source has some interesting quotes. "Zoroaster introduced three radical innovations into the framework of the old religion: he established a hierarchy in the pantheon, thus producing a supreme god" "In turn, these six proceeded to evoke other divinities who are nothing but the beneficent gods of the old pantheon, including in particular the other two ahuras, including in particular the other two ahuras, Mithra and Apam Napat; these are collectively known as yazatas (beings worthy of worship)..... Thus the new theology was cast in the mold of the old cosmogony. Zoroaster’s theological reform did not stop at the reordering of the old pantheon" "Zoroaster’s theological reform amounts in effect to introducing specialization and hierarchy into the traditional pantheon—as well as chasing some “bad” gods from it. The daevas that were thus rejected can be thought of as gods who, by their very nature and attributes, would not submit to the hierarchy presided over by Ahura Mazda."
Is this really Monotheism? Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 08:09, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
Also "Ahura" is also used for Mithra. There were, in fact, three. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 08:10, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
Yes. if you red the entire article you'll know it is. there is only one god in Zoroastrianism: "Ahura Mazda", and thats why the religion is called "Mazdayasn" or "Mazda Worshiping." Researcher1988 (talk) 08:15, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
What about Ahura Mithra? This is a phrase that appears in the original Persian version of the Avesta. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 08:29, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
@Researcher1988 Why does your own source refer to the Zoroastrian pantheon? Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 12:01, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
I think we have a problem here, you refuse to accept sources from "dead peoples" while this is nowhere said in our guidelines and keep interpreting what sources say to conclude that Zoroastrianism is, according to you, polytheistic, which is a clear case of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH.
  • Firstly Yves Bomati and Jean Kellens are not dead.
  • Secondly, even if they were dead, that would not be a problem, we have many prominent expert sources about Iranian history who are dead, see Clifford Edmund Bosworth, Richard N. Frye, Henry Corbin etc ... who are thoroughly used on Wikipedia as expert sources.
  • Thirdly you keep interpreting what sources say, I have provided 3 expert sources that support Zoroastrianism is monotheistic, you need to provide comparable sources that explicitly says that this religion is polytheistic, since your interpretation is irrelevant.
  • Last but not least, stop speaking about that economic source I wrongly cited above, I already told you that it was a mistake.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 14:56, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
@Wikaviani I have no problem with accepting sources I am able to read, though the most modern sources are to be proffered. Unfortunately, I cannot read French. If you would like a source that explicitly says the religion is polytheistic, I recommend:
  • "I will begin with an exploration of conceptions of the faith historically, arguing that Zoroastrians perceived themselves as what we would consider polytheistic. .... This will include insights from the oldest sections of the Avesta onwards, historical inscriptions, neighboring accounts, and various other sources to make clear that monotheism is inadmissible and irresponsible as a descriptive term for historical Zoroastrianism." (SOURCE)
  • "By the side of these nature powers the Immortal Beneficent Ones become personal deities and receive divine worship. .... Spenta Armaiti is the goddess of earth...... and from the practical side the religion may be described as a monarchical polytheism with a somewhat numerous and varied pantheon." (SOURCE)
  • https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-97943-0_6
  • The economics paper, which I only referenced because Researcher brought it up.
Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 16:26, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, your first source is a student, the second is the source I cited myself and that supports the monotheistic claim, the third is the economist guy, have I missed something ?---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 22:00, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

@Wikaviani Yes, you did cite one. But did you read the part I mentioned? And how about the other two? You see, what I'm getting at here, is that your own sources often call this religion explicitly polytheist. I also have others, and I confess that was a quick list. For example:
Though I really don't need to insert that word, or use it, to talk about the gods of Zoroastrianism. I can cite the Avesta itself saying they are gods. "To that meeting came Ahura Mazda, of high renown in the Airyana Va~g6, by the good river D~tya ; he came together with the celestial gods." "along the path made by Mazda, along the way made by the gods, the watery way they opened." "above the Kinvad bridge she places it in the presence of the heavenly gods themselves." "and thou shalt lay down Vohu-man6 under the mighty structure of the bright heavens, by the light of the stars made by the gods, until nine nights have passed away" Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 19:50, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
No, the sources I provided describe Zoroastrianism as monotheistic, the one you cited, Foot Moore, discusses the matter and his conclusion is that this religion is monotheistic. And again, having some aspects of polytheism does not mean polytheistic. I'm a bit tired of explaining again and again the same point, since you have failed to provide strong enough sources that explicitly support the polytheistic claim, I think we're done here.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 08:54, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
Apart from their holy book being explicitly full of gods like Mithra and the Hindu gods? Surely I don't have to prove it was polytheistic to add a section talking about the various gods of Zoroastrianism? I just have source information about those gods. "Zoroastrianism: An Introduction By Jenny Rose" notes the polytheistic nature and talks about Islamic influence pushing the Zoroastrians towards monotheism. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 17:59, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
Jenny rose does not say explicitly that Zoroastrianism is polytheistic.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 21:10, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
@Wikaviani That's not what I remember, but it doesn't really matter as long as I don't use that word. I can just cite commentary from the Avesta itself talking about the various gods for a section about them. I think this is quite reasonable. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 18:34, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
@Wikaviani Wika? Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 11:57, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
@Wikaviani If you have no objections, I'll remove any references to polytheism and add the section on gods in Zoroastrianism. It's a topic that needs to be covered. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 08:38, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Zoroastrianism/Archive_8&oldid=1222023427"