Talk:Zoroastrianism/Archive 2

message: Well so far the evidence for a link appears to be in the form of a data dredge. No matter. Lets see what google throws up for the other side. First http://www.tektonics.org/copycat/zoroaster.html a string of subjective arugements athough they do ok for the particlar case. I does however show quite neatly that the case for a link is largely subjective.Geni 12:53, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: so let see about the argument that there isn't much infulance

message: Why exactly is the factual accuracy of this article in dispute? Skimming through the discussion above it seems to me that an editor believes the article to not be NPOV and asking for sources, i.e. quoting scholars directly as regards certain sentences or sections. As Paul has noted, plenty of sources are available but to provide enough quotations and such to back up the idea that there are "many" and/or "some" scholars who believe this and that, would ruin the flow of the article. IMHO, considering the weight of scholarly opinion in this area, there is no need to dispute the factual accuracy of this article since these theories are presented as theories, not facts. For this reason I would also argue that the article is indeed NPOV, but if clarification and expansion is necessary, then so be it.
If I may make a suggestion, what about creating a separate article dealing specifically with these ideas, i.e. theories regarding Zoroastrian influence on Judaism? That way all the relevant scholarly sources can be listed in their entirety, without affecting the flow of the main article. Also POV's from opposing scholars can also be presented. At any rate, the issue is rather complex and I believe it justifies a new article to explain these theories. Thoughts? SouthernComfort 17:23, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see any POV in this article either. The fact is that most scholars acknowledge the strong influence of Zoroastrianism on Judaism, and later on Christianity. I'm a Christian myself, but I'm not bothered by the fact Judaism & Christianity (and Islam) were heavily influenced by Zoroastrianism. It doesn't negate anything. Alexander 007 04:44, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: I've read through the Old Testament, and the fact that certain key concepts only appear & are emphasized in the OT after the Persian period is conclusive proof. Alexander 007 04:46, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Okay I may be new to this discussion (and thank goodness), but hope to collaberate and offer any help I can. I've had an interest in Zoroastrianism since High School. Besides the obligatory sources like Boyce and Zaehner, I've read everything on Avesta.org not added within the last year (yes, I do mean everything) in addition to many miscellaneous sources. I don't wish to reiterate what others have said, but anyone who knows Zoroastrianism well and has read the Bible or is even remotely familiar with comparative religion can come to these conclusions by themselves IMHO. It was a pretty universal opinion, or so I had thought, (sic!) that Zoroastrianism has had a profound effect on all the things mentioned above including soteriology and eschatology (and I'll be happy to discuss these points with anyone who does not feel they are NPOV). Even the Catholic Church has reconciled this fact to a certain extent along with evolution, etc. For edification perhaps it would be a good, nay, an excellent idea to create a seperate thread. Not only its influence on Judeo-Christian-Islamic religion but Buddhism, Manichaeism, Mithraism, etc. Especially since Manichaeism and the cult of Mithras had their own impact through Gnosticism as well as Manichaeism rivaling Christianity in popularity directly within Rome - though this is where it does actually get truly theoretical and speculative of how much influence these had... In any case truly a case for a seperate thread if ever there was one. Instead of arguing, such precious effort could be made in other articles, such as prophet where Zarathushtra isn't even mentioned (!), and the Book of Daniel, etc. I hope I haven't come off patronizing, I have a keen interest on the subject that's all. Btw, is it just me or is the Farsi Zartosht misspelled (I have no problems with reading non-Roman languages on other Wiki pages), I didn't want to start a new discussion on it (though I probably should) or adding the Gujarati, I was just wondering before correcting it... a pity unicode doesn't cover Avestan! Khirad 17:24, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's usually spelt Zardosht, but it is transliteration of a sound roughly between t and d, so it is a matter of choice as to the spelling, in the same way that Abu Grabe is also Abu Grape (although this is avoided due to similarity with Grape), when it is really somewhere in-between. ~~~~ 17:57, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe Emilyzilch was referring to the name being misspelled in the Persian (Farsi) script, not the transliteration (Zartosht, which is correct). SouthernComfort 01:04, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I was talking about the Perso-Arabic script being 'backwards' apart from 'ze'. Plus I'd use 'gh' to represent ghain in abu ghraib, but that's a whole other topic. :-)  The Greek could be added. Khirad 05:01, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You know, this whole time I thought it was another user who brought up this point (based on a comment in the history), while you had pointed it out right there beforehand, which is why I referred to the other user (Emilyzilch, who I also thought the user above was referring to). My mistake. SouthernComfort 07:26, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Influence on Judaism: Wording, Sources and Separate Article

message: I have no problem with saying "Most scholars..." if a source is cited.  A BBC web article which doesn't even use the words "most" or "majority" is a massive scholarly stretch for such a source.  Cite a decent source...then make the claim.  That's simply proper.  KHM03 00:30, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The point is exactly that. The BBC quotes it as a fact and not as a theory. I.e. it is their opinion that the situation isn't even remotely in question. The BBC is well known for putting Caveats in even the least disputed issue, and yet they don't here, the sources they have all point to it being a fact and in no dispute whatsoever amongst relevant academics. ~~~~ 18:03, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

text: The BBC is the largest news organisation in the world, and it is widely considered amongst the most neutral (indeed to the extent that on many controversies both sides frequently claim the BBC is biased towards the other side, such is its adherance to neutrality). The BBC (news) does not publish information as factual unless it is absolutely certain even beyond a measure of doubt, because the entire world is listening, and a single mistake would do vast damage to it. Indeed it frequently waits until things are confirmed for so long that many other news sources break the story first, sometimes by days - the BBC is more concerned with accuracy than being fast, which is why it maintains such a large audience, it isn't about popularity, but about trust. When asked by an american reporter how he first knew of the coup against him, Gorbechov said that he had heard it on the BBC. ~~~~ 19:09, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You are speaking of accuracy with current events. This is a historical subject. These are two very different things. It's a bit like me saying that because I know lots of information about Windows 2000 then I also know lots of information about the situation in Iraq. That does not compute. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:26, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Do you mean acute scholar? ~~~~ 07:00, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I meant "actual scholar". Jayjg (talk) 17:37, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

text: The detail of the text will come from the BBC's vast research arm. I should point out at this time that the BBC is a major component of the Open University (an official University). ~~~~ 07:00, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "Vast research arm".  That has a nice authoritative ring to it, doesn't it?  You have no idea where that information came from, or who wrote it.  Please find me some evidence (beyond your claims) that news organizations are scholarly sources. Jayjg (talk) 17:37, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Does the BBC make a claim for itself as a scholarly or academic source?  I really don't know for sure, being an American.  In America, a news organization using itself as a scholarly source is a BIG no-no (news anchor Dan Rather basically lost his job over this issue after the 2004 elections).  Maybe that's common practice in Europe or Britain.  If that's the case, then please cite another reliable academic source for those of us across the pond who ethically cannot abide the apparent dual nature of the BBC.  KHM03 13:03, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Influence on Judaism etc. re-visited

message: I have done some editing and -Ril- has reverted them, so let me explain:
For the tolerance passage see the preceeding section.
There is a wide range of possible dates for Zoroaster and one study I have read (though unfortunately I don't have it at hand, but I'll try to post it later) calculated his death at ca. 522. Hence, to call him "pre-historical" does fit only some of his possible dates.
-Ril- referred to Cyrus as having "carved zoroastrian symbols into huge rock carvings". What carvings are these? Are you referring to Behistun? If so, these were made by Darius?
Is there actual proof that Cyrus was a Zoroastrian? I know Darius is usually considered one, but the study in question doubted this, despite his constant reference to Ahura Mazda, and rather connected his opponents the Magi with Zoroastrianism. Later on at least Magi and Zoroastrianism are connected.
Can someone provide a basis for this: "the pre-Zoroastrian priests rule with an iron fist through theocracy."
In the following passage, I consider the words in brackets as unnecessary and already interpreting additions. Shouldn't we stick to the actual text?
:Which savior will free us from the old (conservative understanding of) scripture, Who with the wisdom, simplicity (of teaching), who with the enlightenment?''
IMHO the header "Struggle to establish his ideas" is superfluous, since what follows is part of Z.'s preaching activity.
How is the next sentence "It becomes clear that Zoroaster had accomplished the complete devotion to Ahura Mazda" connected to the preceding and following text. And how does it become clear? And what does the sentence actually mean? 
As a zoroastrian, i can tell you we are very tolerant!
Please consider these issues.
Str1977 21:14, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverts by -Ril- 

message: I am Hindu and I was struck by the phonetic similarity of the words ahuras/daevas to the hindu words. In Hinduism, "asuras" are the bad guys and "devas" are the good guys. any info on the origin of these words, in parsi/iranian? or am I just way off?
:See Proto-Indo-European language, Indo-Iranian languages, Vedic religion, and Proto-Indo-European religion ~~~~ 21:36, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  ahuras/daevas 

message: A truce in the revert war over BC/BCE date styles had been holding, remarkably, wikiwide. In this article, an anon changed the date style, and that prompted two reverts from other editors. I put it back to the way it was just before the anon's edit. Please, please, do not let another revert battle start. I think most editors are quite tired of that. Let the truce hold. Jonathunder 15:52, 2005 August 14 (UTC)
:Most editors are indeed tired of it. Jayjg (talk) 20:46, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears someone is up to it again; can you please clarify what the result of the truce was, or provide a reference?  Perhaps this will discourage people from changing it. Peyna 16:55:00, 2005-08-16 (UTC)
I am just dismayed that the revert war has continued. I will not revert this page over date styles, but if it continues, I will ask for help in opening a request for comment. Please stop. Jonathunder 15:02, 2005 August 21 (UTC)
To clarify: the official policy is that date format should remain in the style of the original entry. The original entry in this case was BCE/CE. So please don't change it to BC/AD. --Spudtater 14:16, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date style truce 

message: Can someone add a section about contemporary Zoroastrian/Parsi religious practices?  One example would be the Navjote initiation ceremony, and other ceremonies or rituals.  I have friends who are Parsi, and attended the Navjote for one of them when we were children.  I have the impression that this ceremony is rather important to the community.  TMS63112 19:59, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Practices 

message: I discovered the article Soushiant while zipping through some random articles.  I don't know enough about Zoroastrianism to judge its validity or potential for expansion, but I noticed that that particular name didn't seem to be mentioned in this article.  I'd be good if someone with the appropriate background could take a look and figure out if it's a valid stub or an AfD candidate. --Clay Collier 09:11, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be merged with Saoshyant. Paul B 09:58, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for Input 

message: Brisvegas and I have been creating portals for various significant religions, with your religion being one of the portals. The portals still need work, but most of the groundwork has been done. We need to find people who would like to take responsibility for their faith's portal. Brisvega looks after the Christianity portal, and I look after the Islam portal. You can find your religion's portal by looking at the Religion & Spirituality section on the portal template at Template:Portals. I've been notified that your faith's portal can possibly be deleted if no one looks after the portal. --JuanMuslim  1m 17:55, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New portal on religion 

message: Forgive me if I missed something, but the only mention I saw of holidays was this:  "new year on the first day of spring, the water festival in summer, the autumn festival at the end of the season, and the mid-winter fire festival."  Could someone add information (possibly in the form of a subpage)?  I know there are names for these holidays but I'm having trouble locating info.--Hraefen 06:18, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Holidays

message: Does the name or term "Yyrt" have any meaning to this religion? I ask because an article was created fairly recently, and it claimed to be part of a "Zorastrian" religion (a typo for this religion I suspect). The article was AfD'd, but if it had some meaning or value, someone may want to work at getting it undeleted to see what, if anything, of value can be merged into this article. The AfD nomination is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yyrt (note: it is closed; article was deleted). The article was Yyrt. You can view the deleted history at Special:Undelete/Yyrt. —Locke Cole 01:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it means anything - I've never heard of it. Whatever it is, it certainly doesn't merit an article, the Google test proved that. If we ever find out what it is and think it's relevant, we could add a section here. Izehar (talk) 01:44, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I just wanted to make sure. =) I'm not sure how obscure this religion is, so I was worried that maybe Google wasn't the right source to try. (Afterall, just because it's never been discussed on the internet doesn't mean it's never existed, heh). Anyhow thanks for chiming in. —Locke Cole 04:21, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Yyrt?

message: I would have to disagree about Mithra, Anahita, etc. being merely the equivalent of "angels." They were certainly considered gods, being objects of worship themselves (many temples of the two deities I mentioned throughout Armenia and other places), rather than simply agents of the supreme god Ahura Mazda. Ahura Mazda has a significantly greater emphasis, yes, but the existance of these other deities makes this an hierarchical polytheism, not a monotheism as the article states.
*With the same reasoning you could say that Catholics worship the Virgian Mary as a goddess, but adccording to 'official' theology this isn't the case.  I know some Zororastrians and they claim to have one god.  As far as being the equivalet of angels etc. ... I can't really comment.--Hraefen 07:57, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Monotheistic religion? 

message: Does anyone know if arabic diin ("faith", "religion") is a loan from Persian daena? Lucius Domitius 14:38, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Din and Daena 

message: The intro to this article seems unecessarily long.  It seems like it covers topics such as word origin and geographic dispersement.  Would anyone mind if I tried to break it down? I don't know much about the topic, but i might be able to help in this way.  -Schwael 21:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shorter Intro