Talk:Zoroaster/Archive 1

message: Although this article in its current form contains much valuable information, it seems to me to be wordy and biased.  I believe the size limit is 32K, and this one weighs in at around 38K.  A few recent edits contained pertinent information, but the article was reverted to an earlier version, because the person who did the reversion felt that the edits had not improved the article. Additional information, clarification and removal of bias by inclusion of multiple points of view are desireable in general, and certainly by Wikipedia standards, so I would like to take a shot at rewriting this article, being careful to maintain all of the information that the original author included, minus the bias and some of the length, and including some of the information that was lost in the reversion, minus the bias and argumentative tone.  This topic is of great interest to me, and I've spent considerable time researching when Zarathustra lived and the evolution of Zoroastrianism after his death.
--dave c
:: Is IS wordy and biased, as well as outdated. I'm having a hand at cleaning it up but it's a major piece of work to deal with. I would suggest accessing current scolarship on the subject including Mary Boyce and FEZANA. Zosodada 16:18, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite? 

message: The word "ZajpodtTTpi/s" is presumably a scanning error from attempting to scan Greek letters as English text. Could anyone fix this with the correct spelling (in the Greek alphabet) of the Greek version of the name?
I can guess at something like 
Ζοροαστερ (???)
but it's a pure guess based on phonetics: I don't know Greek at all.
:Some googling turned up a few instances of Ζωροαστρη in what looks like the genitive. --Brion 11:32 Oct 27, 2002 (UTC)
In that case, the best guess so far is Ζωροαστρ ?
I'll put it in the article, as it is at least better than what's there at the moment....
:Aha! Ζωροάστρης. --Brion 13:04 Oct 27, 2002 (UTC)
Yes! I can now also see how that might OCR as ZajpodtTTpi/s. The Anome
There are other OCR mangles in here: I guess they will have to wait for someone to go back to a paper or scanned copy of the 1911 EB and type them in. -- The Anome 17:48 20 Jul 2003 (UTC)
----
"Zoroastres" does not seem really "corrupt Greek", rather an attempt to translate the "ushtra" (star) into Greek. Is that so? Jorge Stolfi 01:57, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Greek 

message: "He [Zoroaster] purified it [Persian religion] I from the grossly sensual elements of daëva worship, and uplifted the idea of religion to a higher and purer sphere. The motley body of Aryan folk-belief, when subjected to the unifying thought of a speculative brain, was transformed to a selfcontained theory of the universe and a logical dualistic principle."
any talk of a religion 'purifying' a prior culture does kinda seem a little odd.
:: Yes, it's odd and biased. "Reforming", however, might be acceptable. I'll attempt to make note of specific reforms if I'm not completely overwhelmed. Zosodada 16:21, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV? 

message: Some historians believe than in Zoroaster’s original religion, God (Ahuramezd) is the only creator and the Devil (Ahreman) is also a creation of God, who later turned against God. As proof of this some similarities between Islam (and other Abrahamic religions) and Zoroasterism can be mentioned. Among these are 101 names for God (close to 99 in Islam), 4 angles (same as Islam), 5 times prayer (same as Islam) and the description of Heaven and Hell. In fact, the word Jaheem (hell in Farsi) is used as is in the Holy Quran and some orientalists believe Islam is a mixture of Zoroasterism and Judaism, which is of course untrue and the similarities are due to all three (Islam, Judaism and Zoroasterism) coming from the same divine source.
:: What is a "mouthiest"?
I think he meant to say "monotheist". The claim is flawed though.--Khodadad 09:02, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Because information about his exact beliefs is limited and because devotion to a single god does not necessarily mean belief in the existence of only one god, expecially since his system appears to have dualist elements. Paul B 15:43, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zoroaster is the first mouthiest of written history 

message: Unlike what is suggested, the Ushtra in Zarathushtra does not mean "star". Iranian is not a Semitic language and Ishtar does not play a role in the name of Zarathushtra.
Zara- is the Old Iranian form of Modern Persian "zal" meaning 'old, aged'. Ushtra- is the genetive form of Ushtr- (syllabic r), meaning 'camel'! 
Zarathushtra means "the one who owns old camels".
:Even though you are right about "star" not existing in Zarathustra's name, you are making a mistake in thinking that "star" comes from semitic "ishtra-". In fact mid-Persian for "star" is "starak" and in modern persian it is "stara" (corrupted in Tehrani vernacular as "setareh").
sure. but zarat is not from "golden". You are thinking of zaray (Sanskrit hari) "golden/yellow/green". dab (ᛏ) 12:28, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meaning of Zarathushtra 

message: The article says he's probably the founder of the oldest monotheistic religion, but in "Zoroastrianism", his religion is defined as polytheistic. They're kinda opposite, so...? --Menchi 02:46, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: it's henotheistic, like all early monotheistic religians (including Genesis). But it's not the earliest one anyway. see this  diff, where Zosodada changed the essentially correct statement to what is basically fantasy. I would be glad if someone fixed it. dab (ᛏ) 09:35, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  The primitive doctrine (Paoiryōţkaeṣa) was polytheistic, and thus the later lapses back into Mithra and Anahita worship and the icon worship, before the Sassanid orthodoxy. If anything Zarathushtra was a co-founder with Abraham. And if we are to scrutinize monotheism, Christianity itself falls short. As to Zoroastrianism being polytheistic, the concept of daevas and followers of the Druj epitomizes the emphatic stress against polytheism, though it would be accurate to characterize the Amesha Spentas as henotheism, and perhaps the  daeva worshipers can be interpreted the same way as the First Commandment. And let's not even talk about the Zurvanite heresy...! Khirad 09:28, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "founder of the oldest monotheistic religion." 

message: I cut the following essay from the article. Have you ever looked at the Gathas? They are very opaque. Every statement you want to make about Zoroaster's views will need some serious backing up and qualification or attribution. dab (ᛏ) 08:18, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: essay cut from article

message: AFAIK the name Zarathushtra (Avestan Iranian) and Zartosht (Modern Persian) mean "Having Many Yellow Camels". It is a Bahuvrihi, but I don't know where the bit about "Old" came in. I don't want to change it without confirmation, but that's all I see in my resources on those languages... the Indic cognate words translate as "yellow" and "camel", too. em zilch
:no, you are confusing two words, check an Avestan dictionary and see above, Talk:Zoroaster#Meaning_of_Zarathushtra. Also, if we're going to use Avestan transliteration on the name, it will be Zaraθuštra, not Zarathuštra. I opt for Zarathushtra (Avestan language Zaraθuštra). dab (ᛏ) 17:03, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: okay, that's why I asked... I didn't write Zaraθuštra because I hadn't yet located the coding for the θ character ("theta"), and then once I had, Wikipedia was down. em zilch
Basically, the word Zara- in Avestan (cognates with Persian Zal) means Old. --Khodadad 09:08, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

text: The correct name for this article should Zathushtra. Why is it Zoroaster? Can anyone explain....? I have read all relevant Talk. freestylefrappe 00:07, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

text: See the sections below this one.  Paul B 01:53, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zarathushtra's Name? 

message: I'm aware that Iranian and Persian are complex terms with a lot of history and multiple meanings (see Talk:Persia), and I've certainly been known to use them incorrectly. That said, use of these terms in this article seems very inconsistent, and I think that someone who's really familiar with proper use of the two, both as descriptors of ethnicity/nationality and of language, might want to check over any appearances of either word and possibly standardize. --Shotput 20:25, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iranian/Persian 

message: IMHO, I think the idea presented by others to convert instances of Zoroaster to Zarathushtra, as well as a move to that article name, is a wise one. And I see that Jguk has been here before, converting any instances of BCE to BC. I suggest that BCE/CE makes much more sense given the subject matter. Thoughts? SouthernComfort 11:36, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There does not seem to be any consistency about this here, but afik the general rule is that the most common English-language form of the name is to be used. Pace Nietzsche, that's still "Zoroaster". Obviously no-one would seriously propose changing Jesus to "Yehoshua" (or whatever). However, there clearly are more ambiguous cases. I see that Confucius appears under the traditional latinate form of his name, not as "Kung-fu-tzu" or any other transliteration. There is also the fact that the name of the religion is firmly established in English as "Zoroastrianism", not as "Zarathushrianism". The Britannica also uses "Zoroaster". I much prefer the name Zarathushtra, but the balance of argument seems to favour "Zoroaster". Paul B 13:12, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: addendum: I also see that other ancient Iranian luminaries retain the traditional Western forms of their names. Cyrus does not appear as Khorvash, nor Xerxes as Khshayārsha. I'm sympathetic to your point of view, but I still think we should keep things as they are. However, I agree about BCE/CE.Paul B 19:59, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

text: Why does this mean we should refer to Zoroaster? The name is always shown as Zarathusthra. Zoroaster is GREEK. That's where it comes from! The correct nomenclature is most definitely Zarathusthra. freestylefrappe 01:07, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: We all know it's Greek. That's not the point. "Jesus" is Greek too. It's not "correct nomenclature" for an Aramaic speaker. "Confucius" is Latin . It's not "correct nomenclature" for a Chinese guy. But those are the versions we use in article titles in accordance with Wikipedia naming policy, and also with the practice of other encyclopedias. If the name were "always shown" as Zarathushtra, that's what we'd use, but it isn't. Paul B 01:40, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

text: But that still doesnt justify the name. It's almost always seen as Zarathushtra. freestylefrappe 22:44, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Naming and dating convention

message: I will admit to not being familiar with the specialist literature here, but in general texts I have never heard such an early date given for Zoroaster.  I've usually heard 7th or 6th century BC.  The earlier date seems odd, given that, so far as I am aware, we don't know anything about the Iranian peoples at such an early date. john k 03:05, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: My World Book Encyclopedia has 1400-1000. I was surprised, I haven't looked up that teeny, tiny, little article forever. Read the Date of Zoroaster thing below I guess. If you are sceptical of the date, than prove the dating of the Vedas wrong. To be honest I'd like to know how those are dated, but to sum it up: Gathic, or Younger Avestan is apart from a few consonantal differences h/s, z/j etc. is practically identical to the Vedas. Otherwise the article below is real good and much more clear and concise than an essay written by me would be! Khiradtalk 17:59, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  1000 BC? 

message: I removed all of it because, apart from being dated and pov, it's only marginally topical, and the entry is quite long. The good parts of it could perhaps be incorporated into Zoroastrianism.
Davidweman 21:22, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed History and later development

message: The date of Zoroaster is certainly before 1000 BCE.  The 6th/7th century date that is often mentioned is based on some quite older material, mainly on "traditional" datings such as those accepted by the late W.B. Henning.
Current scholarship, however, now almost universally opts for the earlier date based in linguistics and comparative evidence.  Encyclopaedias might still be reflecting the older scholarship probably either due to the fact that they are much slower to change and also because the Date of Zoroaster is not exactly the hottest topic around. For more info and bibliography see my article: http://www.iranologie.com/history/zarathushtra.html
: Just a week ago I picked up a book written in 1967 that said matter-of-factly that Zarathushtra was walking around and converting Jews during the captivity with disciples and everything. I think "its not the hottest topic" hits it on the head. The very thing that makes it interesting to me, makes it frustrating to discuss with others, who often by no fault of their own, but because of the dearth of reliable information out there, think that he divined by staring into the fire, and other such junk. On the other side is the, erm, to coin a term, "Darwin factor," if people catch my meaning. In any case, you're preachin' to the choir! Its always refreshing and uplifting to read someone who knows what they're talking about. Khiradtalk16:39, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date of Zoroaster 

message: There's mention of "Arda Wiraf" in the text.  A google search pops that string up many times, but always, I 
think, in connection with the article.  Maybe the person who posted it was German, but couldn't they have
meant "Arda Viraf"?
:Well whenever there is a w/v issue its usually due to the fact that its neither, but in between in Iranian and Indian languages. I looked at the manuscript picture I know of at the Farvardyn gallery and was able to make out اردا ويراف though I'm no expert. In any case, its a matter of transliteration. I have seen it a few ways though. If only I had the Pahlavi ms.! Mary Boyce has Ardā Virāz Nāmag. This sounds more Pahlavi to me, simply because 'f' is a foreign sound. In any case, I always go with 'v' over 'w', as in English it represents the sound a little better, and is usually the more standard usage. Khiradtalk 15:48, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I've changed it to the more familiar version and created a page on the book of Arda Viraf. Paul B 21:48, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arda Wiraf or Arda Viraf? 

message: --220.238.248.148 10:06, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: How white does Jesus look? The image used is a modern one popular amongst Parsees. Obviously there are no authentic images of the man. Paul B 12:55, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is interesting to note, that while Zoroastrianism gave so much to Christianity, the Parsis were infact influenced by icons of Jesus, that is why he is painted in that style - plus the fact that halo's and pastoral symbolism were already familiar perhaps? Here is the oldest surviving depiction of him. However the present versions like this use imagery and symbolism, which is seen more in other Zoroastrian 'icons' as well, like the one with Shah Lohrasp. Besides, Zarathushtra, may have very well been lighter skinned than the real Jesus. And remember that this picture and other examples such as these vary slightly - just like paintings of Jesus. I have never been sure about the copyright issues concerning these, as many are de facto icons used in Fire Temples and homes alike, yet when detailed information concerning such status is hard to come by (like everything Zian is) I err on  the side of caution. Khiradtalk 14:14, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why does he look whiter than [[Jesus]]? 

message: I find this very interesting and hope it to be a work in progress. I think Zarathushtra's, though albeit minor, significance in the Bahá'í Faith should be mentioned as well. Shah Pehlavi and Khatami have made positive remarks too. Oh yeah, I just found out while driving through Arizona that there's a peak in the Grand Canyon called Zoroaster Temple (in addition to all the other religiously named "temples"). I dunno, fun fact?! Khiradtalk 15:29, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contemporary Views, etc 

message: I've deleted the following paragraph;
:Zoroaster was born in the northwestern part of Iran, in the city of Urmehr, modern day Orumiyeh in West Azarbaijan province. There is also a tradition that his father came from Ragai, moden day Ray, near Tehran.
Over the past months we've had assertions that he was born in Balkh in Afghanistan, and in other locations. The fact is that we don't know, so surely such assertions should not be presented in this confident way. as far as I know, the east of Iran is the most likely location, but even that is speculative. Paul B 00:54, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, I've seen his place of birth put at many places. The Raghā/Ray one though is W.B. Henning's theory cited by R.C. Zaehner. Thus it has perhaps a little more respectability, but still, no one can say for sure where he came from. Although there is, more or less, agreement that Vishtāspa's kingdom in which he found asylum is roughly the area of Chorasmia. That does not necessarily mean he was born there though. Khiradtalk 19:42, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: place of birth

message: For convenience's sake, wouldn't it be a good idea to link to the book's title in a more relevant place, or at least in the disambiguations, given Nietzsche's book undeniable importance? Just my two cents. Alkaine 18:38, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On that note why the Italian band's disambiguation but not Nietzsche's? I would complain about the absence of others whom I've come across using one form or another of the Prophet's name in albums, etc., but they probably don't have an article to link to anyway. The Googoosh site doesn't even have her discography! Khiradtalk 19:53, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Uhh. Thats Nietzsche's sister quoting Nietzsche. I know the original for that is in Ecce Homo, but I can't find it atm. -- Fullstop (talk) 03:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. -- Fullstop (talk) 06:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nietzsche 

message: Is the Kurdish necessary? I put in the Gujarati. Although the source here puts it as જરતેાશ્ત. From the little info I've been able to find on Parsi Gujarati before, their vowels do tend to fall in odd places, but I standardized it to be safe (for the record the Hindi is ज़रतुश्त). I've also seen it transliterated from Avestan into Gujarati like here, thus: ઝરથુશ્ત્ર, but this seems to be more liturgical, if I may use that word in this context. In any case, the Kurdish, like if I were to add the Hindi, seems to be superfluous. And are we ever going to transliterate the Persian and Gujarati, or even Greek? E.g. Zartošt, Zartośt (or Jardośt technically), and Zōroástrēs respectively. Khiradtalk 20:35, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I think Kurdish is not necessary. We shoud add the Avestan  script.  Bidabadi 02:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: someone seems to have added that Zoroaster was Kurdish (sigh). We can list the Gujarati as far as I am concerned, but make sure that you provide a proper transliteration along with the Unicoded Gujarati abugida. dab (ᛏ) 08:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kurdish? 

message: There are no reasons to believe that Achaemenids were Zoroastrians, as the article suggests. It is certain that the founder (Cyrus) was not. Why are we including this?--Khodadad 08:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How do you know Cyrus was not Zoroastrian? I don't think we have clear evidence. The article used to say that Zism probably played a role in the Achaemenid era. Someone much have recently changed it. Paul B 09:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Significant sculptures etc have been found dating from the achaemenid period of ahura mazda etc thus there was at least some form of zoroastrianism prevalent in the court - thus it's relevant Danlibbo 01:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mention of Ahura Mazda is not proof of specifically Zoroastrian belief, since there is no reason to believe that Zoroaster invented Ahura Mazda. Paul B 08:53, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: good point - but it's still a fairly sizable 'probably' - while we can never prove what cyrus himself believed, it's likely that there was a significant following in iran - i was just thinking this is more of a reply to khodadad's point than yours Danlibbo 10:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: Why does someone believe that Zarathushtra was an Iranian Person ? 
Yes it is correct that he lived in Persia, but as all of you know was Persia a great empire at that time and he lived in the Western part of Persia, and thats where the kurds lived. 
Zarathushtras religion is still practicized by some kurds, and Zarathushtra is a Male kurdish name, while Avesta is a female name.
:see Iranian peoples. "Persian" and "Kurdish" are both subsets of "Iranian". This is not about his passport, but about his membership in a socio-linguistic community. Furthermore, if Zoroaster had been Kurdish, the Gathas would be written in Old Kurdish, wouldn't they? Avestan is not even in the same major subdivision of  Iranian as Kurdish. If anything, Zoroaster was a Khwarezmian or a Bactrian, or if you insist, a Yaghnobi. But it would be anachronistic to call him that. Please exert a little bit of common sense before spilling your mind, even if this is only Wikipedia. dab (ᛏ) 16:56, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: it's one thing to be ignorant. It's another thing to condescendingly display your ignorance like you do. Indo-Iranian is the term used by convention. If there was no Afghanistan in 1000 BC, there was no Persia either. The article is fine, don't bother. dab (ᛏ) 12:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: that makes no sense - afghanistan was not a wholly separate region in 1000bce, persia was more distinct as encompassing large portions of afghanistan Danlibbo 01:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zarathushtras Nationality ?  

message: I love Bahais and the Bahai religion, but this article is not the place to discuss what a DIFFERENT religion thinks of the founder of this religion.  It is no more appropriate than having Bahai theology on the Christianity Page and so on.  It just does not belong.  --64.178.145.150 05:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not the article on Zoroastrianism, but on Zoroaster himself. Check the articles on Jesus and Muhammad, in which you will see the same multi-faith perspective. Paul B 07:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I found the Baha'i pages eerily clinical, and free from controversy. While I appreciate their enthusiasm. I do think that it should belong on the baha'i faith page, or else edit it down. which I may well do.--Water Stirs 19:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bahai Discussion 

message: What's with the "Name" section as currently written?  It defends two opposing arguments at the same time  O.o  I'd fix it, but this is really a topic I have no idea about.  (Looking at past talks I can understand the discussion, but really, the current text needs to be written consistently at least, even if it says "it might be this or it may be that".)--LaloMartins 02:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, someone added nonsense, which was even contradicted by their own reference. Paul B 04:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name section 

message: I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information.  I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list.  Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article.  Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this approach as a model for the editors here.  Regards, Durova 18:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Cultural depictions of Zoroaster]] 

message: "Persian mythological dates are very early indeed, reaching into what is today known as the Neolithic." Can anyone explain what the author was trying to say here, in relation to the rest of the facts written? It doesn't seem to bear any relevance to the rest of the article, as it stands.
:I think, if that sentence is rephrased and put in the context, it makes sense. It should actually begin that section. It is always interesting to relate mythological and traditional dating in contrast to scientific dating. I will try to rephrase, if I find time.Shabdiz 07:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dating of Zoroaster 

message: Suggest picking a name to use - the article swaps between each of the above options, seemingly on a whim - it should be cleaned up and have the one used as the title used consistently and the alternative provided as another spelling - so what should be the primary name? Danlibbo 01:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zoroaster, Zarathustra what's the difference? 

message: Maybe change the name so the correct one appears both in the beginning and somewhere in the middle. -Slash- 05:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Avestan

message: I removed this as, at the very least it needs to be completely rewritten and have a citation.
"It is very complex to tell the source of this, but read on:
Zoroaster's name comes from Avestian, the only representative language of the old Avestian is the Kirmancki(Zaza-Susa-Elam) and the Gorani (Kermanshah) Kurdish-Dialects.
Let me explain it: Zoroaster comes from: "Zere Xo Tij Ra" (His Heart Is Made Of Light) - this is also a common description for dervishes (sufism) in the Kirmancki and Gorani Kurdish regions.'
Zere ... Heart
Xo ... His
Tij ... Light
Ra ... OfFirst of all there should be told, that the Kirmancki and Gorani People aren't that common "Kurdish" everybody thinks of, but they are so old in tradition and believe, that there next neighbours the Kurds assimilated them by a higher population and by wars. (see Sorani-language and origins)"
--Danlibbo 21:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  naming 

message: I find the category "Bahai prophet" very difficult in this context. I understand that Zarathushtra is viewed as one of the Bahai prophets, but he was not a Bahai prophet as such. I will remove that tag for now. Please discuss it here. Shabdiz | Talk 20:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand the context. An encyclopedia is about academic information not faith views. Moslems regard Jesus as a prophet too and regard Bahais as heretics. Should we include that too? The category of Bahai prophet is in academic context wrong. Please do not add that category here, unless it contains academic information. Shabdiz | Talk 21:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I do not want to make any generalisation. Please consider the following case: If someone not otherwise informed about Zoroaster and Zoroastrianism reads this article, she or he will be mislead to believe that Zoroaster was a Bahai prophet. But in reality Zoroaster didn't have anything to do with the Bahai religion. He is the founder of Zoroastrianism. It is correct to say that Bahais consider Zoroaster as one of their prophets. And I encourage you to add a section on this. But simply adding a category which enforces a faith view without any further information, is not good academic practice. Please let me know what you think! Shabdiz | Talk 11:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The role of Zoroaster in Bahai is explained in the relevant section. I see no reason why it should be removed. Paul B 11:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because the category, IMHO, promotes POV and not academic information. The category does not make clear the difference between facts and opinions. In my opinion it is important to make that difference. Shabdiz | Talk 11:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

text: My usage of the word "opinion" goes back to the Wiki guide for neutral POV. In that context the category is an opinion, as I have explained above. The guideline suggests that one uses statements such as: "Baha'is regard Zoroaster as a prophet". This makes a fact out of an opinion. And this is how you have correctly phrased it above. The category, as it is now, is promoting POV and not an academic fact. Also imagine how offended Zoroastrians could be, if they see their prophet "mis-represented", either as a Baha'i prophet or as a manifestation of god. Shabdiz | Talk 13:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's kind of ridiculous, and completly missing the point. Lots of people are in categories for Prophets of more than one religion and nobody's been offended. Zazaban 04:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What is so ridiculous? The distinction between opinion and fact, as I have used it, is a Wiki distinction. And again, I do not think we should generalise here. What other people feel is not my business. Fact is Zoroastrians do not regard their prophet and founder as a Baha'i prophet and it is wrong academically too. Shabdiz | Talk 10:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether or not prophet is the correct term is a side issue. The Manifestation of God [page actually says that the term "refers to what are commonly called prophets". The issue is whether or not Zoroaster has this role, however we label it, in Baha'i. There is no difference between this and the listing of Biblical characters as prophets in several distinct religions. As another example we have a category, "Priory of Sion hoax" in which the supposed grand masters of the POS are listed, even though almost every historian thinks this is completely made up. Paul B 10:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually Baha'is don't view Zoroaster as a prophet, but a Manifestation of God (which has a different station) and thus the categorization is just wrong. -- Jeff3000 21:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yet another thought at another level suggesting the category could be wrong. Shabdiz | Talk 13:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bahai prophet 

message: I have reverted the latest edits by  71.109.67.90. They were misplaced in the article and were not very well written. The point was also unclear. All in all they were closer to original research than anything else. Please have a look here at Wikipedia:No_original_research. Please clarify your point and post again if necessary. Thanks. Shabdiz | Talk 11:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They were nonsense, but not original research. They represented Helena Blavatsky's view of Zoroaster. Paul B 11:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was careful not to call it "nonsense" :), and thanks for the Helena link. Shabdiz | Talk 12:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The latest edits 

message: The article states: 
*Zoroaster was known as a sage, magician, and miracle-worker in post-Classical Western culture. Though almost nothing was known of his ideas until the late 18th century, by that time his name was already associated with lost ancient wisdom and had been appropriated by Freemasons and other groups who claimed access to such knowledge. Zoroaster appears as “Sarastro” in Mozart's opera Die Zauberflöte, which has been noted for its Masonic elements, where he represents moral order in opposition to the "Queen of the Night."
I have an issue with the idea that Zoroaster's name is associated with Freemasonry... it isn't.  Yes, Mozart's opera is noted for containing masonic elements, but he hides these elements in his own pseudo-Masonic creation.  Zoroaster himself does not play any part in Masonic rituals or philosophy.  Furthermore Freemasonry does not "claim access" to lost ancient wisdom or any such knowledge.  This is clearly the POV of the editor who added this line and as such constitutes original research. I have added a citation request, and will remove the relevant text should one not be forthcoming in a reasonable time. Blueboar 21:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Text removed. Blueboar 14:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zoroaster in the west... Freemasonry 

message: The most extensive biography of Z is given by Zarthusht Bahram Pezhdo in his poetic masterpiece Zarthusht-nama around the mongol era.  Bahram Pezhdo was a Zoroastrian himself and well familiar with lots of sources that might have been lost today.  It is in Persian.  His name comes up more in Persian texts than Greek texts (Shahnameh-e Daqiqi and etc.), so the Parsi-Dari name should stay.  --alidoostzadeh 23:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: name

message: Some other places on internet say Zoraster was supposed to be of virgin birth.  Is this accurate?  http://www.religioustolerance.org/virgin_b1.htm says "Also in Persia, Zoroaster was also born of a virgin."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.183.217.250 (talk) 21:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: virgin birth?

message: I thought some sentences are not properly written in the last paragraph of the Philosophy section.
For example: "According to linguistically analysis of ..."
and: "Scientists presume that Genesis it is written ..."
Overall, it looks like it was written by a believer that wants to teach something. It's not neutral at all.
The paragraph starts loaded with strong emotional words: "It is not emphasized enough the importance and influence of Zoroaster philosophy to ..."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gonello (talk • contribs) 10:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Philosophy section - bad written! 

message: I don't understand the current consensus among modern scholars to discard the traditional date for a second millenium B.C. date. The traditional date seems to be a response to the Macedonian
conquerors establishing an "Age of Alexander" date. The traditional date was instituted during the reign of the Seleucids. Establishing an "Age of Zoroaster" date, I guess. You would think the Zoroastrian priests of the time would know whether Zoroaster was born around 300 years earlier or a 1000 years earlier. After all there seems to be no record of Zoroastrians between the second millenium B.C. and the traditional date. Zoroastrianism seems to arrive on the scene about the time of Cyrus the Great and the traditional date. If the earlier date is correct, where were all the Zoroastrians? Basing an early date for Zoroaster on the fact that the Gathas are written in Old Avestan is like dating a document by the Pope written in the twentieth century to 1000-1500 years earlier because its written in Latin. There is no reason why Old Avestan couldn't have been the priestly language at the time of the traditional date. Likewise, there is no reason why Zoroaster couldn't have lived in a rural climate not reflective of living in an empire. I think the strongest evidence for the traditional date is that there is no evidence of Zoroastrians before then. Barney Hill (talk) 00:34, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date of Zoroaster