Talk:Zoroastrianism

GA Reassessment

Zoroastrianism

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delisted, 24 citation needed tags (t · c) buidhe 00:42, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

The prose for this article is not always clear and concise, and large chunks of this article are left uncited. Therefore, I believe delisting this article should be considered. 777burger ^{user talk contribs} 03:31, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Zoroastrianism is monolatrous, not monotheistic.

There are many deities in Zoroastrianism so it cannot be considered monotheistic. HonestAnglo44 (talk) 19:19, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

There are multiple deities indeed, and Mazdaism is known more as a dualistic religion rather than a monotheistic one. However, one may argue and say it’s monotheistic because Ahura Mazda (aka Ashura) is the supreme being with no equivalent evil force or deity.

If you’d like, you can provide some sources that can attest to your statement and an editor may include it somewhere in the article! :)

WikiAmerican1 (talk) 05:14, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Zoroastrianism passed through both a monotheistic and a more dualistic phase. It succeeded a prior Iranian pantheon, many of whose entities were internalized within Zoroastrianism as angels and demons, from where they influenced the Abrahamic tradition. I'm not aware of it ever being a monolatry though. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:28, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Zoroastrianism is Monotheistic, not Monolatric. There is Only one Single Uncreated Deity in Zoroastrianism. The Angels should Not be Confused With Deities. Researcher1988 (talk) 10:40, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

I believe there may be various levels of understanding due to how Zoroastrianism changed / was perceived over time. Ahura Mazda, the creator of the universe, and Angra Mainyu, the opposing force to Ahura Mazda. This is why it’s seen as a dualistic religion. WikiAmerican1 (talk) 14:41, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Judging by this source, it may actually be polytheistic. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 11:18, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Scholars note that the Zor faith changed over time

I've added a scholarly work that explains that Zoroastrian has morphed over the centuries. I feel this justifies adding a note to a later section on influence towards other faiths, as it seems credible that this can go in either direction. I feel that the main lead should be broken up into explanatory sections so that people can find what they are looking for more easily. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 09:08, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Hey Researcher1988. Could you explain more about why you removed the line? The entire paragraph is uncited, so it's very hard to see why. I added it to increase neutrality, and I think it fits based on what we know of the Zor faith changing over time. Tiggy The Terrible (talk)

@TiggyTheterrible , We know for certain that Zoroastrianism has influenced other religions and philosophies, But we don't know how it was influenced by other faiths and religions. adding a claim for increasing neutrality is not accepted. we should provide sources for every claim or important change. Researcher1988 (talk) 15:18, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Researcher1988 If that is the case, then we should remove that entire section as there are no citations. I notice you have already shunted my main edit down into the weeds. I feel this is a bit of a 'rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic' sort of move, since the leed is already as long as the rest of the article and features many other (uncited) claims that could well fit your same criteria. If you have no objections, I will proceed to create a section on the influences to and from that religion tomorrow. I think there is good reason to believe Zor has been influenced by other religions. Likely much more so than it has influenced others. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 20:09, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Zoroastrianism had influenced other religions such as Judaism, Christianity and Islam. But Those religions had no influence over Zoroastrianism. Because they were created centuries after Zoroastrianism and there is no evidence for your claim. Researcher1988 (talk) 19:08, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Researcher198 Zor being older doesn;t mean a lot to be honest. The Zor faith was entirely oral for most of that time, and wasn't written down until the 6th century. The oldest copy of their book is nearly 14th, and we know Zor has also changed radically over time, but Christianity/Judaism have not. There is no evidence that Zor influenced Judaism, etc, but plenty pointing to Zor being influenced by other faiths. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 13:15, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

In addition, I've found sources that seem to counter a lot of the claims in the article. For example this Analysis found no influence on Judaism by the Zor faith. And, indeed: "Chapter four found that Zoroastrianism has a unique theistic doctrine which combines dualism, polytheism and pantheism. Therefore, Zoroastrianism should stop being referred to as the oldest monotheistic religion. Chapters five and nine surprisingly revealed how little influence orthodox Zoroastrianism had within Achaemenid Persia. The implication of this is that a reflection may be needed in Achaemenid Studies regarding what this discovery means for other aspects of Achaemenid history". Tiggy The Terrible (talk) Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 14:09, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Shortening the Lead

According to Wikipedia the Lead section should be short and to the point. I think the current section has gotten out of hand, and needs to be divided and trimmed. I will move a section or two and see if there is consensus. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 15:42, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Bad decision. Because that section is in fact a short review of Zoroastrian history and its better to be in the lead, not history section which discusses Zoroastrian history in detail. and it was in the introduction for a long time. your change is unnecessary. Researcher1988 (talk) 18:39, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

@TiggyTheTerrible

That Section is a very important part of the Introduction and a short review of Zoroastrianism's history. It must be in the lead, in order for introduction section to remain complete. Researcher1988 (talk) 19:04, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Researcher1988 Not really sure how it's a bad idea. Even without it, that section is a bit of an essay. Wiki style guide makes it seem like the lead should be a about a paragraph or so, and as assessable as possible. Essentially just defining what the thing is. Even after my edit, it goes far too deep in the weeds and mentions academic theories that are spoeculation at best. Tiggy The Terrible (talk)

"Wiki style guide makes it seem like the lead should be a about a paragraph or so". Hmmmm. Not sure where you got that idea from. According to the Manual of Style: Lead section length,

As a general guideline—but not absolute rule—the lead should usually be no longer than four paragraphs.

Most featured articles have a lead length of about three paragraphs, containing 10 to 18 sentences, or 250 to 400 words.

There is a table there you can check out for more guidance. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 05:06, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Okay thank you, and that is fair enough. Though I do think that claim that it "may have influenced other religious and philosophical systems" needs to be cited or removed as it's controversial. If not, I'd say it needs the addendum "or been influenced by them". Since the other citation there says the Zor faith has radically changed over time, and the text itself is uncited, it seems more reasonable than not. Especially as the faith was entirely oral until about the 6th centaury. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 20:09, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Per Manual of Style/Lead section citations,

The verifiability policy states that all quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports it.

Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 21:58, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Thinker78 Would that not mean that the statement that Zor has influenced other religions needs a citation, or to be removed, since it doesn't have an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports it and it is being challenged? Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 11:24, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Aren't you challenging it? Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 20:42, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Thinker78 I'm a little confused here. It needs a citation, regardless of if I'm challenging it. But I can say I'm challenging that section if that is what is required for wiki protocol. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 13:17, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

No, info in the lead does not necessarily need citations because it is basically a summary of the contents of the body of the article, which should contain said citations. I cited the relevant policy, I don't know if you read it. But given that you reasonably challenged some of the info then it needs citation per said policy.

You would need to provide reasons for your other challenge though (as you did before), because just trying to bypass policy and challenging any lead to force editors to place citations in the leads is not how things work and would be kindda negatively disruptive. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 22:01, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Thinker78 I do think such a controversial claim does need to be cited, and I thank Researcher1988 for adding one. Though, reading it, I feel it could be stronger as the authors seem to assume Zor influenced other religions simply because it claims to be older. Which assumes it has remained unchanged, which we know it has not. However, I've added a contrary source as well for balance, and I believe I have more perspectives I can offer on this. With a little looking, I may find one that says the influence is bidirectional. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 11:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I think this user should add his link in the section: "Relation with other religions," and leave the lead alone. lead is perfect in its current form. but there is a whole section which discusses Zoroastrianism influence on other religions, and these Subjects belong to that section. Researcher1988 (talk) 13:28, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Researcher1988 While I agree the section about Abrahamic faiths should include a section indicating other academics disagree, it's well known most people only read the lead. That means the lead must also be modified to reflect the facts in that source in order to prevent the spread of misinformation, rather than only giving one side. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 15:29, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

The lead was in this form for a long time, and there is no reason to change it to other forms. the Zoroastrian influence on other religions and philosophical systems is well stablished and there is a consensus among scholars that Zoroastrianism had influenced major religions of the world, so it is not misinformation.

there is a whole section about "Zoroastrian relation with other religions," which is dedicated to this subject. Researcher1988 (talk) 15:38, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Researcher1988 There are quite a few sources in that section that throw doubt on the claim. I have added some content there, including quotes from existing sources. I hope it is to your liking. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 16:39, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I'd also like to note that one of your primary sources literally calls the evidence "circumstantial". Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 16:46, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Researcher1988, the consensus policy states,

Consensus is Wikipedia's fundamental method of decision making, and involves an effort to address editors' legitimate concerns through a process of compromise while following Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 21:15, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Researcher1988 I'm very confused by your editing. You said the lead was "perfect", but now you've added a large section of text to it that contradicts one of the primary claims of the article. I.e. that the Zor faith is dualistic. It would help if you spoke to us directly about what you're trying to do, otherwise I will have to assume you are merely territorial about the lead and are simply trying to push a particular angle on it. I am going to have to insist that we modify the section about influence on other religions to take into account scepticism in your own sources, and other sources on the page. As of yet, I've seen nothing that actually shows proof the influence is in the direction described, and several items that cast doubt. The claims about monotheism seem directed at me spesifically, and seem argumentative. The entire angle is very strange as we have sources showing that monotheism is merely one strain of the Zor faith, and not the oldest. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 12:58, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I did not add anything new to the lead. I added a Text to "Theology" Section, which is supported by the source a cited.

I think this user @TiggyTheTerrible, is violating the Wikipedia's Rules. Researcher1988 (talk) 14:10, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

How? Thinker78 (talk) 22:59, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

he is using talk page for expressing his personal views. Researcher1988 (talk) 23:34, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

@Researcher1988, @TiggyTheTerrible it is most useful to try to not lobe accusations against each other because it derails the discussion, which should focus objectively and collegially on the content—even if there is disagreement or opposing positions. I advise reading the consensus policy. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 23:40, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Researcher1988 Apologies. I checked the history of the page to see what you did, and it looked like you had edited the lead so I was confused. You are right. Sorry. You edited Theology. However, I think the edit needs to be changed as there are multiple strains of Zor, and many of the historical ones are not monotheistic. We at least need to note that your own source says "Zoroastrianism started as an Indo-Iranian polytheistic religion" Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 09:09, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Guys, I don't want to sound overbearing but why don't you try to sort out your dispute in the lead before jumping to other issues? Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 18:01, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Thinker78 Don't worry you're not being overbearing at all, and I like having a voice of moderation here. Your idea seems to be a good plan. I was editing the main article as I thought it made for a good compromise with Researcher1988 and avoid an edit war. However, it seems not to have gone over well despite my attempts to quote directly from their own sources. I'm not really sure what to do about this, and I don't want to come across as being the bad guy here. Without knowing what they think is wrong with what I wrote, I'm not entirely sure how to proceed. However, I will try to make my edits as small as possible and see if that helps. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 20:03, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I suggest, instead of changing the whole paragraphs and distorting the meaning and purpose of the texts, create your own paragraph. Researcher1988 (talk) 20:06, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Happy to help moderating. I suggest suspending edition and instead discussing to try reach a compromise. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 20:08, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you @Thinker78. I've made a very small and mostly aesthetic edit to see if that works. @Researcher1988, thank you for your suggestion. I am not trying to distort any of the text here. Only to quote the sources, which seem to agree that Zor is polytheistic. I take it you have no issues if I re-add sections I wrote myself? Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 20:16, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

There is a consensus that Zoroastrianism is Monotheistic. so, in general, the article should express that view.

if you believe otherwise, you should create your own paragraph and discuss that issue. Researcher1988 (talk) 20:22, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Very well. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 20:28, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Researcher1988, why do you suggest creating a paragraph outright if you have opposite views? Wouldn't you revert the paragraph if you don't find it to your liking? Are you suggesting to create the paragraph in this talk page instead? Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 20:33, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I feel that the article could be so much more interesting if it were to be written in a back-and-forth style that shows off the breadth of scholarly thought on this subject; but it seems like everything I write is removed, neutered, or pushed to the bottom of the article. Even if I'm directly citing from @Researcher1988's own sources. I don't think I'm being unfair in wheat I've tried to add at all, but it seems even dividing the article into subsections is controversial. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 17:14, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Which is why I suggested suspending editing and discussing instead. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 22:46, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Minor Edits

I moved a link to an article which challenged Zoroastrian Influence on Judaism to the Original section about "influence on other religions," which actually discusses this subject, and reverted the lead to its original form, because the added text from the user @tiggytheterrible was not in accordance with the Article, the article does not mention that Zoroastrianism is not "monotheistic," and I think header is perfect in this current form. Researcher1988 (talk) 13:16, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow, @Researcher1988. The source is quite clear. "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." Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 16:52, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Given that there is a revert, I advise reading about the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 21:18, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

warning against vandalism

I think there is a vandalism attempt on this page for some time. some user is trying to change former edits according to their personal views. I suggest greater care must be taken in protecting the page. Researcher1988 (talk) 17:53, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

@Researcher1988 I have to point out that if the page is protected then you may be the one going to be left out from editing because of how many edits you have. Also, please read the vandalism policy to know what constitutes vandalism and what is not vandalism. Finally, we have an assume good faith guideline. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 18:05, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I just try to protect the page from pointless edits that alter the purpose of paragraphs and concepts. Researcher1988 (talk) 18:11, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

According to the editing policy, I can point out to be cautious with major changes: discuss.

Prevent edit warring by discussing such edits first on the article's talk page. One editor's idea of what is not major or what is an improvement may be another editor's idea of a desecration.

Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 18:42, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

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)

• Disagree Modern Zoroastrians may be more inclined to Henotheism or perhaps Monolatry, but Zoroastrianism is not strictly Monotheistic and has changed radically over its existence. Older versions of holy book are polytheist, and Zoroastrians have long believed in multiple gods. Including beings seen as gods by other religions, such as Mithra. Yazats being created or subordinate beings does not stop them from being gods. Nor does them lacking creation abilities. Many gods are like this. My view is We should treat the question as one whose answer changes over time. Your third claim sounds very much like propaganda, and would require we to strip out all contradictory sources that mention polytheism or dualism. Which would be most of them. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 07:09, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  according to all sources Zoroastrianism was/is monotheistic.

  this discussion must end here. Researcher1988 (talk) 08:25, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  @Researcher1988 Your inability to not sully your own vote by starting yet another debate in the middle of it is frankly astonishing. This is clearly an issue of emotions and ideology for you. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 09:32, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  It is exactly you who are acting emotional.

  you were proven wrong, time after time. but for some reason you don't want to accept your false opinions.

  this discussion is running out of hand. Researcher1988 (talk) 09:37, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  @Researcher1988 I will not ruin this vote by participating in yet another debate when you have not even responded to the other two. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 09:41, 9 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.
• Modern Zoroastrians may be more inclined to Henotheism or perhaps Monolatry

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)

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:

• "Later Zoroastrian priests apparently reintroduced many aspects of the ancient Iranian polytheistic religion which Zoroaster himself had opposed." I'm a little sceptical of the idea he opposed it because we honestly don't know much about the guy, but still.
• "many of the ideas that had Zoroastrianism straddling the fence between polytheism and monotheism have been gradually watered down as its adherents have been exposed to the Abrahamic faiths."
• This piece from Harvard describes it, at least twice, and dubs Zoroastrianism's brand of "monotheism" as a "monarchical type" of polytheism.

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)

Reliable sources

@Wikaviani

an editor is deleting two of the sources I used in this article claiming they are "Thesis" and not reliable sources.

one of them: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s41412-021-00113-4

is a research paper, not a thesis and the other:

https://digitalcommons.winthrop.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1151&context=graduatetheses

the other has been published in many sites and had significant scholarly influence. thus it can be considered reliable.

please review if these are reliable sources and if the actions of these user is acceptable. Researcher1988 (talk) 13:44, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

All the places the latter was cited also have other citations. Masters theses do not break new ground, therefore there will always be better sources than a thesis. Its use is completely unnecessary. We don't cite sources just for the sake of citing sources! If materail is already sourced, it doesn't need two more sources! Skyerise (talk) 15:19, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, you added those sources to support some content that is already sourced, thus no need for additional references that are weaker than those already cited for the same content. Best.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:29, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Just a note, but if we accept the first one we have to accept the following lines:

• "Zoroaster carried out a “reform” of Iranian polytheism, asking his followers to change their ways and beliefs but not to throw away all they had. Consequently, lesser divine beings or “gods” and many old rituals remained, to the dismay of modern European Christian scholars who were looking for a “pure” monotheism."
• "Accordingly, Varuna (known in the Avesta only by its byname Apam Napat, “Son of the Waters”) and Mithra became associated with these elements and became gods of the waters and of fire (and of the greatest of all fires, the sun) respectively, and received the exalted title of ahura (lord). By logical extension, Mithra became further worshiped as a war god, fighting on behalf of the righteous, and as god of justice itself; and since it was believed that a just moral order brought prosperity to a realm, he was also invoked as bringer of rain and good crops and protector of rich pastures, i.e. a god of material plenty."
• "Other amoral, warlike divinities were associated with Indra, and would be collectively designated as daevas and rejected under Zoroastrianism. We will see how important this contrast was for Zoroaster’s reforms. A key feature of this pantheon is common to the Vedic and Greek pantheons: through processes of logical association, personification of abstractions, and myth-making, most gods came to be seen as wielding broad powers affecting multiple, apparently distant areas, so each god could and would be petitioned for very diverse benefits."
• "The Zoroastrian pantheon, by contrast, is asymmetric"
• "the six divine beings of Zoroaster’s visions, forming a heptad with the Lord Wisdom himself. This evocation is described in Zoroastrian works in ways that suggest the essential unity of beneficent deity; in one text Ahura Mazda’s creation of them is likened to the lighting of torches from a torch (Boyce, 1979, 21). 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, Mithra and Apam Napat; these are collectively known as yazatas (beings worthy of worship)."
• "The Avesta—the corpus of Zoroastrian holy scriptures—was transmitted orally by rote memorization in the priesthood for millennia before it was committed to writing in the Sasanian period (probably as late as the 6th century CE)."

Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 09:10, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

The first appears acceptable for inclusion. The second, per prior discussion at WP:RS/N should not be considered a reliable source. Being hosted on multiple websites is not equivalent to being published. Simonm223 (talk) 12:56, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

If "the first" means Mario Ferrero, then that sources does not appear reliable.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:56, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Homo Oeconomicus is a peer reviewed journal with a strong impact factor and a high H-index. I'm failing to see how it's unreliable. Simonm223 (talk) 18:50, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Per its Wikipedia page, Homo Oeconomicus covers "studies in classical and neoclassical economics, public and social choice theory, law and economics, and philosophy of economics." That's not the place you'd go to find experts or information on a near-Eastern religion. The sources here should be from historians or scholars of religion with expertise on Zoroastrianism or the near East, commenting on Zoroastrianism directly. Some of the sourcing in the article right now appears to be really poor in places (e.g. citing coursework someone appears to have uploaded online, academics that specialize in other fields for core statements that also appear controversial, etc). GretLomborg (talk) 19:36, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Honestly I'm kind of happy to see economics returning to a closer relationship to the arts and humanities. It never should have segmented itself off to become so narrowly focused as it was. And Ferrero has written a lot in a broad variety of journals and seems a prolific and highly cited scholar on fields that do, in fact, dip pretty close to Anthropology pretty regularly. I'd be happy to raise the issue at WP:RS/N if you insist - but my personal assessment, as a person who reads a lot of journal articles in a lot of disciplines, is that it would be a mistake to discount it simply because of the overarching mission of the journal in such a case.

With that being said I do think that it's being leaned on a little hard to push the POV that Zoroastrianism is unambiguously monotheistic and that's problematic. But it's also something of a mis-read of the material. Simonm223 (talk) 19:41, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

You will note that this isn't Ferrero's first kick at the can of using political economy as a lens to examining theology. The Marxist in me can only appreciate. The Political Economy of Polytheism: the Indian Versus the Greco-Roman Religions Simonm223 (talk) 19:44, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Here's Ferrero's publication history with Springer. As you can see he regularly works with religions as a subject: link to a list of publications. Simonm223 (talk) 19:46, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

But, yeah, Ferrero's point is to problematize the idea of a transition from polytheism to monotheism via describing it as being one of optimizing sacrifice and community benefit through a careful segmentation of divine duty. Which is a fascinating approach and worth at least small note. Simonm223 (talk) 19:57, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't think it would be unacceptable to use that Ferrero article in ways related to its topic with due weight (i.e. a proposed mechanism for its evolution); but I don't think it should be used to support descriptions of its practices and beliefs of Zoroastrianism, because surely there has to be something out there that's more on point for that (even Ferrero's sources). It's not like we've just come out of a dark age and the Ferrero text is the only thing that survived on Zoroastrianism. I'd rather source someone who's in the thick of the study of Zoroastrianism and its related controversties (or something it's supposedly influenced) than someone who's core specialty is elsewhere. - GretLomborg (talk) 20:05, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

I would entirely agree with this sentiment. I also think that it's important to not misinterpret Ferrero's point about polytheism / monotheism transitions, which the current use largely does. It's a good article. I had a long chat with a relative who is an anthropology prof about it last night. I enjoyed reading it. But it should be used more consistently with what it said. Simonm223 (talk) 09:51, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with the source. Maybe there is a misunderstanding. This happens sometimes when you deal with too many vandalisms daily, so you errorneously mistake a reliable source for a bad one and get too focused on that issue to not see that you made a mistake. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 13:22, 6 April 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)

Wiki-voice

@Researcher1988 it's critical, when including a controversial statement, that you attribute it to the researcher who made the statement in order to reflect that it doesn't represent a concrete fact but rather an academic's opinion. Furthermore we should not give WP:UNDUE weight to one researcher, even one who passes WP:RS guidelines. Please address these points here, at article talk, and achieve consensus for an inclusion rather than edit warring. Simonm223 (talk) 13:40, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

@Simonm223

we've addressed these issues here and I thought it was settled. Researcher1988 (talk) 13:43, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

No. We confirmed that Ferrero is a WP:RS but your treatment of Ferrero is not in line with WP:NPOV and WP:DUE. In other words you are using Ferrero more than you should and you are using Ferrero in a way that appears to shift the neutrality of the article toward treating as fact something which should be seen as opinion vis whether Zoroastrianism is unambiguously monotheistic. Saying this source is reliable does not give you a carte-blanche to insert whole paragraphs sole-sourced to that source, particularly if it is a controversial statement within the academy. Simonm223 (talk) 13:46, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

So, in the beginning I will add "according to some Ferrero." is that ok? Researcher1988 (talk) 13:48, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

No. It's still far too long for a single source and WP:UNDUE. Furthermore I am concerned that Ferrero's article actually problematizes the divide between monotheism and polytheism through its demonstration of the semi-polytheistic character of saint worship in Catholicism - as such I find it a mis-read of the article to use it to make the claim that any religion is unambiguously monotheistic. In fact, Ferrero's political-economic interpretation of polytheistic-monotheistic transitions effectively eliminates any clear theological boundary between the two categories. Simonm223 (talk) 13:51, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

you are making things too complicated. there is a consensus among scholars that Zoroastrianism is a monotheistic religion.

the official term for Zoroastrianism in the Avesta is "Mazdayasna" which means "Mazda-worshiper." Ahura Mazda is the Only creator god which has created the entire existence and has no equals. yazatas are holy divinities, the emanations of the creator and lack any "Godly" power. the only difference is that they are considered worthy of worship. so, while Zoroastrianism believes in one single creator god, it also has a polytheistic "appearance," which is not in contrast with its monotheistic nature.

this article is a confirmation of an accepted fact and just serves as a mean to dispel doubts about Zoroastrianism's theological nature. Researcher1988 (talk) 14:00, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

No - I am not making things too complicated. And I would suggest you slow down, review the guidance I've given you regarding WP:DUE and WP:NPOV and then bring proposed text for inclusion here, first, so that consensus for the inclusion can be built. I'm being patient with you here because you are clearly a new editor but I would also ask you avoid making this too personal. I am simply trying to inform you of how Wikipedia works for these issues. Your references to me as unreasonable, and your statements that what I did was unacceptable is walking a dangerous line with regard to WP:CIVIL. Please be careful. Simonm223 (talk) 14:17, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

I suggest we cut the reference to Judeo-Christian angels etc, in that section. Researcher1988 (talk) 14:22, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Please provide the text you would like to include. Simonm223 (talk) 14:23, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

this is the text based on Ferrero's article:

"Though Zoroastrianism is credited with being the first monotheistic religion in history, there are two issues that has caused misconception among some and led them to believe that Zoroastrianism is not a true monotheistic religion: Dualism and the presence of Yazatas or lesser divinities. Zoroastrianism’s dualism is an attempt to describe the nature of evil as a separate hostile entity alien to Ahura Mazda; an entity which in the end of the world will finally be destroyed and thus with it, the dualism will also perish. As for the presence of the Yazatas, it should be said that they are divinities created by Ahura Mazda as helpers and agents of creation, and specialized protectors of realms of the world. These divinities, like the angels in Judaism and Christianity or the saints and the Virgin Mary in several Christian churches, represent an attempt to connect the realm of the Holy Creator with the material world of mankind. What is essential to know here is that these holy beings are subordinate to the will of god, do not pursue different interests other than the will of Ahura Mazda and their worship is not conducted separately from that of the creator. So although their nature differs from that of Judeo-Christian angels, yet they should not be and cannot be considered “Gods.” " Researcher1988 (talk) 14:35, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Ok I'm going to take a shot at revising it to something usable:

According to Ferrero, Zoroastrianism’s dualism is an attempt to describe the nature of evil as the product of a separate entity from Ahura Mazda: an entity which will be destroyed at the end of the world, resolving the dualism. He interprets Yazatas as being roughly analogous to angels in Judaism or to the saints within Christianity, pointing out that these holy beings are subordinate to godhead. (insert ref)

This could be included within, but not at the top of, a relevant sub-section regarding dualism. I would suggest that other recent editors be given a chance to weigh in with their suggestions before inclusion of this para. Simonm223 (talk) 14:45, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

I've included the other paragraphs in the text too, so to make a new one:

"Though Zoroastrianism is credited with being the first monotheistic religion in history (insert ref), yet Scholars and theologians have long debated how best to characterise Zoroastrianism theism. In general, Monotheism and Dualism have historically been the most frequently used terms for the religion.(insert ref) According to Ferrero, Zoroastrianism’s dualism is an attempt to describe the nature of evil as the product of a separate entity from Ahura Mazda: an entity which will be destroyed at the end of the world, resolving the dualism. In addition to this, He interprets Yazatas as being roughly analogous to angels in Judaism or to the saints within Christianity, pointing out that these holy beings are subordinate to godhead. (insert ref) Shernaz Cama suggests that the definition of dualism lends credence to the monotheism of the Zoroastrian faith. A basic definition of dualism is “a doctrine that the universe is under the dominion of two opposing principles one of which is good and the other evil.” But Cama contends Zoroastrians believe in the supremacy of Ahura Mazda, for Zoroastrians, Ahura Mazda is the only God." (insert ref) Researcher1988 (talk) 15:00, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

I think the para is a little long and would prefer a break immediately before "According to Ferrero" but also I still think it's necessary to get input that isn't just the two of us. Simonm223 (talk) 15:01, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

@Simonm223

so, can I add the text? editors can further discuss it here. Researcher1988 (talk) 20:45, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Please wait and give other editors a chance to weigh in

It's not even been a day yet. Simonm223 (talk) 21:51, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

I think this section wasn't matter of much debate. Researcher1988 (talk) 21:57, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

@Simonm223

I think we waited enough. should I add the text? Researcher1988 (talk) 22:00, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

@Wikaviani

what do you think about this text? Researcher1988 (talk) 22:06, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Sounds ok for me, however, as I said above, the Ferreiro source is not an expert source for this topic and I cited and quoted some better sources.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:09, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

@Wikaviani

can you send their links here? Researcher1988 (talk) 00:20, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Adding a section on gods of Zoroastrianism

I will soon be adding the section on gods mentioned in the Zoroastrian holy book. If you would like to provide feedback, you can find the section on my sandbox. Because it is controversial, I will be avoiding use of the word 'pantheon' unless it is directly quotable from the text being cited. As far as I'm aware this is justified, even under the label of 'monotheism', unless there is a source claiming consensus that they do not have a pantheon. I say this as one of the sources claims that a monotheistic god can have a pantheon. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 19:29, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Your sandbox copy looks very good. Simonm223 (talk) 19:46, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

In Zoroastrianism there is only one god, Ahura Mazda.

Your section will be removed because it is a misrepresentation of the religion. Researcher1988 (talk) 21:58, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

besides, there is already a sub-section dedicated to Yazatas, which includes all 26 important Yazatas.

creating another section which is about the same topic is unnecessary. Researcher1988 (talk) 00:43, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

@Simonm223 Thank you! :)

@Researcher1988 Then what's with all the Hindu gods in their holy book? And why is it so easy to cite evidence they are there? You NEVER reply to me when I ask this. Will you fight me if I edit the Yazatas section to indicate which ones are considered gods by the Avesta? Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 07:24, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

1- Zoroastrianism has only one god, Ahura Mazda.

2-there are no "Hindu" gods in the Avesta.

2-Yazatas are not gods.

3-if you continue your behavior I will report you.

what you are doing is called "subtle vandalism." you are trying to spreading misinformation in this article and you are persistent in your attempts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism#Subtle_vandalism Researcher1988 (talk) 09:12, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

No that isn't vandalism. When appropriate reliable sources disagree we cite abd attribute. Tiggy the Terrible is using very reliable sources. They do not constitute vandalism. However it should be integrated into the existing section on the Yazatas, properly attributed. Simonm223 (talk) 10:00, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

the yazatas sub-section is complete and has all 26 important yazatas. there remains nothing important to add to that list. if he tries to label "Yazatas" as "gods" and spread misinformation about the religion, I will revert his edits and report him as a vandal. Researcher1988 (talk) 10:07, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

@Wikaviani

this editor @TiggyTheTerrible is still continuing his attempts to edit the article without a consensus.

what is your thoughts on this issue? Researcher1988 (talk) 10:10, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Please do not tag third parties into discussion threads on talk pages. Also please remember nobody is the owner of this page. Consensus does not mean unanimity and, frankly, I find your response here kind of alarming. I recommend you take a more collegial approach. Simonm223 (talk) 10:54, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

if you read the talk page, you will see that, there is an ongoing discussion for about 4 month. one editor wants to edit the article as to represent it as a non-monotheistic religion. we disagree and presented proof against his claims. we decided to end the problem in the talk page. the problem still continues. Researcher1988 (talk) 11:05, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Can you please point me to the relevant discussion? Simonm223 (talk) 11:21, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

basically the majority of topics in the talk page such as:

"Scholars note..."

"shortening the lead"

"Monotheism, Polytheism..."

"Consensus on monotheism"

"conversation about the vote"

"New section," Researcher1988 (talk) 11:28, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

@Researcher1988 The reason that the topic has not been dropped is because you have not provided an explanation for the Hindu and Iranian gods in the Avesta, or the sources and commentary that describe them being there. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 10:58, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

I have been involved in this thread before the ping, this does not constitute "tagging third parties".---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:12, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

That was, perhaps, inelegantly phrased. I'm not concerned about your involvement in any way. Simonm223 (talk) 19:18, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

again, I must say, that all the information you want to add is already present in the "Yazata" sub-section. literally all the "gods" you want to add are present in that section. so, what is the point? Researcher1988 (talk) 11:08, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

@Researcher1988 The Avesta itself calls them gods, and so does the commentary. Hindu gods are mentioned by name. Including Surya, whose name literally means 'sun god'. As well as Mithra, who is well known as a Hindu god and one of the 33 Adityas. I can list far more, but you never try to refute me. Only to contradict me. And that isn't good enough. The consensus of even people who say Zor is monotheistic is that these they were considered gods before Zoroaster came along. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 11:15, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

wrong. Avesta does not call them gods. I've read Avesta several times. there is only one god in Zoroastrianism: Ahura Mazda. Avesta calls them Yazatas. Yazata means "Worthy of worship," not "God." In Zoroastrianism every good and useful creation is called "Yazata" and thus, worthy of worship. it has nothing to do with "Polytheism"

a "God" is an omnipotent, omnipresent, independent deity, while "Yazatas" are created by Ahura Mazda. they are neither Omnipotent nor omnipresent, nor independent. they obey the will of creator and are considered his agents.

I've tried to refute you time after time. but you continue your claims. Researcher1988 (talk) 11:22, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

ok folks please remember we go with what reliable secondary sources say. Nobody should be interpreting scripture to determine page content. Simonm223 (talk) 11:29, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Dr. Erhard Gerstenberger:

"In Zoroastrianism 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) 11:36, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

@Simonm223I was going on the commentary, which is secondary.

@Researcher1988 What do you think of the mentions of Hindu gods like Ahura Mitra/Mithra? Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 11:36, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Also, @Researcher1988, do you view the Yazatas as divine beings? Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 11:39, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Researcher1988's personal beliefs shpuld be entirely irrelevant. The source they linked appears to be reliable. When reliable sources conflict we commununicate and describe the conflict with reliable sourcing and attribution. Simonm223 (talk) 11:42, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

From Dr. Shernaz Cama:

"For Zoroastrians, Ahura Mazda is the only one God. All good is comprehended within Him. Division and evil only appeared because of the hostile Spirit Ahriman. Evil is the disruption of the fundamental unity of Asha and because it negates, it destroys. Evil is the antithesis of good but the conflict between the two will end with the triumph of Asha, when evil shall ultimately perish."

https://www.academia.edu/100018445/The_Dawn_of_History_Zoroastrianism_Ideas_and_Impact Researcher1988 (talk) 12:03, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Yazatas are divinities. they are holy beings. Researcher1988 (talk) 11:42, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

1- Commentary? what do you mean? you mean Zand? if you mean Zand, I must say In Zand too they are called Yazatas, Not Gods.

2- Mithra is a Zoroastrian Yazata. it was an old Indo-Iranian god. but Zoroaster turned it into a "Yazata," an angel created by and subordinate to god Ahura Mazda.

anyway, Zoroastrianism does not have any "Hindu" God. Researcher1988 (talk) 11:41, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Okay, @Researcher1988. And do the Zoroastrians offer sacrifice to the Yazatas? "Mithra is a Zoroastrian Yazata. it was an old Indo-Iranian god. but Zoroaster turned it into a "Yazata," an angel created by and subordinate to god Ahura Mazda." Surely this is you agreeing with me in spirit? Should we not, then, have a section on Hindu gods who became Yazata? And they certainly are Hindu gods, because they are on the wiki page for Hindu gods. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 12:17, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Again I repeat:

There are no Hindu god in Zoroastrianism religion. According to what source you are calling them Hindu gods? Researcher1988 (talk) 12:28, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

@Researcher1988 Wikipedia, for one. Several of them are listed on the Hindu gods page. Including Ahura Mithra, who is a god of multiple religions. I have also cited multiple other sources, and I refer you back to them. Including: I will also mention this. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 11:10, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

again, there are no Hindu gods in Zoroastrianism.

Mithra is an old Indo-Iranian god, and a Zoroastrian Yazata Researcher1988 (talk) 11:17, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

@Researcher1988 He is on the [Hindu Gods] page. But okay. He's an Iranian god who is in the Avesta. 12:40, 13 April 2024 (UTC) Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 12:40, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

"He is on hindu gods page" !

You don't even know the difference between Ancient Indo-Iranian pantheon and Hinduism. Researcher1988 (talk) 12:46, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

@Researcher1988 Again: He is on the Hindu Gods page, and has his own page as a god. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 08:19, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

RFC time?

If this edit conflict is so long-standing and entrenched as it apparently is I wonder if we should, perhaps, get the sources on the table and create an RfC. Simonm223 (talk) 11:46, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

I do not think such a measure is needed. One side of the conflict is that certain user, and the other side is me and the user I tagged. anyway, the discussion is not something complicated. what that user want to prove is that Zoroastrianism is not Monotheistic. while according to 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."

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Zoroastrianism

Ancient Zoroastrians considered themselves "Monotheistic", modern Zoroastrians Consider themselves "Monotheistic", the scholars generally believe that Zoroastrianism is monotheistic.

Wikipedia is not a place to prove something right or wrong. but it must represent the general consensus about a topic. representing Zoroastrianism (who consider themselves monotheistic) other than that, on the Zoroastrianism page, is a misrepresentation of the religion. Researcher1988 (talk) 12:15, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

A 2:1 conflict among three people is not a stable consensus. This could lead to... well... the problem we see here. This already escalated to the noticeboards; hence my presence. I think a broader sounding would be good here. Simonm223 (talk) 12:16, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

I think we can mention the many gods of Zoroastrianism by name without saying anything about monotheism or lack thereof. Certainly we can mention that the Yaz evolved from Hindu and Iranian gods. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 12:20, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Assuming you have reliable sources to support the assertion. Simonm223 (talk) 12:22, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

The problem is Zoroastrianism has not "Many Gods"

Dr. Shernaz Cama (A Zoroastrian herself):

""For Zoroastrians, Ahura Mazda is the only one God. All good is comprehended within Him. Division and evil only appeared because of the hostile Spirit Ahriman. Evil is the disruption of the fundamental unity of Asha and because it negates, it destroys. Evil is the antithesis of good but the conflict between the two will end with the triumph of Asha, when evil shall ultimately perish."

https://www.academia.edu/100018445/The_Dawn_of_History_Zoroastrianism_Ideas_and_Impact Researcher1988 (talk) 12:26, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

We do not provide special weight to members of a faith within our discussions of their structures. Ideally we should be looking at their credentials as theologians, anthropologists or historians as the key factor. I am relatively generous with cross-disciplinary work such as Ferrero, who is an economist, but the faith of the experts is something we should not be worrying about. Simonm223 (talk) 12:31, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

In fact you'll find if you look at some of the other noticeboards right now that there's quite a lot of controversy over articles about Mormonism over-using sources from Brigham Young University because of the ties of that institution to Mormonism. Simonm223 (talk) 12:32, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

from Dorothea Luddeckens

"Zoroastrianism is a global religious tradition whose boundaries and ritual practices are challenged by changes in modern societies. As a religious tradition, Zoroastrianism traces itself back to the ancient Iranian Prophet Zarathushtra and identifies him as the origin of the authoritative Zoroastrian scriptures, liturgies, rituals, beliefs, and ethics. Zoroastrians call their religion Zarathushti Din or Mazdayasna Daena referring to Ahura Mazda (“Wise Lord”) as the creator of the world and their only God. While several kinds of positive spiritual beings, known as Yazatas, “[beings] worthy of worship,” support humanity…”

https://www.academia.edu/42395885/Zoroastrianism Researcher1988 (talk) 12:43, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

I suggest we wait a bit longer. the user we are dealing with (I don't want to be offensive) lacks some necessary knowledge about the subject of discussion (lack of knowledge about Historical topics such as Indo-European and Indo-Iranian religions, or Zoroastrianism in general) as is evident from some of his answers in the comments. I suggest if we represent more sources, maybe the problem gets solved. Researcher1988 (talk) 12:23, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

OK Tiggy the Terrible could you please provide the references you want to use that call the Yazatas gods? This might be a good place to start. Let's forget about article copy for a moment and look at the citations. I have been critical of Researcher1988's tendency to cherry-pick from sources in the past but they have made a compelling argument via the Gernstenberger and Cama citations above. I am a neutral party here. I'm interested in theology and well versed in the humanities but have no strong opinions on Zoroastrianism in particular. So, please, show me what you have. Simonm223 (talk) 12:27, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Sure thing, @Simonm223. I've linked to several on my Sandbox. Some others include:

• "The Deity Mihryazd in Manichaeism and His Relations with God Mithra in Zoroastrianism"
• "O Wise One and You Other Ahuras": The Flawed Application of Monotheism Towards Zoroastrianism
• Rashn described as a deity in Zoroastrian religion
• "In the Rig Veda, asura denotes the “older gods,” such as the “Father Asura” (10.124.3), Varuṇa, and Mitra (Mithras), who originally ruled over the primeval undifferentiated Chaos. The emergence of the dualistic cosmos was a process of polarization in which some of the asuras, such as Agni (Fire), Soma, Varuṇa, and Mitra, went over to the “younger gods,” the devas. The other asuras were driven away from the earth and remained as exiles in the nether world.""
• This book refers to the Yazata being gods.

Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 11:27, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

1- the first source does not prove that Yazatas are "Gods"

2-the second source is an essay and not a reliable source.

3-the third source again, does not prove that Yazatas are gods.

4-the fourth source is irrelevant. it has nothing to do with Zoroastrianism

5-the fifth source again does not describe that Yazatas are gods.\

some writers may call Yazatas, "Gods." that doesn't mean that Yazatas are gods in essence. these are all translation problems.

you should provide sources that prove Yazatas are "Gods" in essence and function. Researcher1988 (talk) 11:46, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

"Prove" is not necessary. I would concur the third source is not reliable. I believe the second source meets reliable source standards but will double-check. Simonm223 (talk) 12:16, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

actually got them backwards. 3rd source reliable, second not reliable. Simonm223 (talk) 12:20, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

The fourth source literally starts with AHURA, designation of a type of deity inherited by Zoroastrianism from the prehistoric Indo-Iranian religion so I question how it could be unrelated to Zoroastrianism. Simonm223 (talk) 12:22, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

I would caution Researcher1988 that individual editors critiquing the translation of individual texts absent third party published critiques constitutes WP:OR. Simonm223 (talk) 12:24, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

And, of course, the first source is obviously and evidently reliable. Remember, when there is a dispute among reliable sources we describe the dispute and attribute the views. We should include the views both that Zoroastrianism contains multiple deities and that it contains subordinate non-deific divinities, attributing these views. Simonm223 (talk) 12:28, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

anyway, those sources reliable or not, simply refer to "Yazata" as gods which is not the case here. we are discussing the nature of "Yazatas" here, not their naming. Researcher1988 (talk) 12:57, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

@Researcher1988 I think this is very silly. The sources outright say that several of the "Yazatas" are gods. The sources make explicit reference to several Zoroastrian "divinities" and call them gods. The article on the Ahuras is about Zoroastrianism. @Simonm223 I think your approach is sensible. Especially in light of the wiki page featuring multiple sources that refer to the "Yazatas" as gods. And to the polytheistic past of Zoroastrianism. Though it neglects the Islamic and Christian influence. Particularly in translating their holy book. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 17:27, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Yazatas are not gods and the sources does not say that at all.

also you are using offensive language now. Researcher1988 (talk) 17:30, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

@Researcher1988 Offensive how? My sources label them as gods. You've called them "angels", but nobody worships or offers sacrifices to angels the way Zoroastrians do to the Yazata. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 12:42, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

your argument is irrelavant. Researcher1988 (talk) 12:44, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

@Researcher1988 Please explain why? Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 08:23, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Too much hanging up on words

Since there are multiple sections about the term "Monotheism", I make a new section just to discus this term in paticular.

The term "Monotheism" is not well-defined and often used uncritically comparable to "Abrahamic" religion. Some sources use it to refer to any religion with one deity in contrast to multiple deities. This definition, especially compared with other belief-system, falls short. Deism is not monotheism despite only one deity. Another is translating "tawhid" as "strict monotheism" and then being surprised that most Muslim scholars are fine with calling upon jinn, devils and angels, within Classical Islam's understanding of "monotheism". Similarly, a Yazata can be a deity, an angel, or completely else, depending on interpretation. Also, belief-systems are not necessarily exclusive, depending on how the words are defined. The strictest sense however, when we talk about cosmology or ontology, monotheism is a belief-system with 1) One God 2) Separate from the World 3) who intervenes in the World. Dualism is a religion with two opposing principles. Christianity (and some forms of Judaism and Islam as well) are mitigated dualism (yet monotheistic). The difference is, that their concept of evil originated in God, whereas in dualistic religions (such as Manichaeism) evil has no roots in good. Dualism does not mean that both forces are equal in power, since no religion holds that (maybe Taism but here "evil" can hardly be called evil).

Please consider this when participating in the debate VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 13:27, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Your points are well received and, frankly, supported by a lot of sources that I've reviewed on this topic that, as I have said before, problematize the boundary between pantheism and monotheism rather than allowing for clear categorization. I do, however, think that much of the dispute here seems to come from editors who have preconceived notions and who are trying to shape sources to fit those. As such I kind of think a best path forward is to review the sources and see where commonality is and where contradiction is. Simonm223 (talk) 13:31, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

between pantheism and monotheism rather than allowing for clear categorization

I do not see any issues if one is not deceived by etymology. Pantheism is 1) one God 2) this God is equal to the universe. In contrast, monotheism is 1) one God 2) this God is distinct (or external) to the universe. Due to the equation of God with the universe, often the pantheistic God lacks consciousness or intention, but not necesarily. This question is then tied to science for the pantheist. However, I agree that otherwise reliable sources are sometimes confusing on that matter. It is recommanded to remember that one term can have multiple meanings depending on context and we as Wikipedians need to understand what the source says. For example, in Islam (where I mostly edit) the term "demon" can be used for divs, shayatin, jinn, ifrit, and all are different thing, and not always translated as "demon".

" think that much of the dispute here seems to come from editors who have preconceived notions and who are trying to shape sources to fit those"

I agree with that. There is consensus in general that Zorastrianism worshipped only one God and it is generally assumed that the old Persians departed from Hinduism, worshipping only one deva/asura as opposed to the multiple deities in Indian culture. Therefore, it is monotheistic. Egypt also had monotheistic beliefs. Monotheism is not a triumph of civilizations nor is it something unique throughout history. However, the categorization of Zorastrianism as "monotheistic" applies in the rejection of polytheism not of dualism. This should be kept in mind. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 23:32, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

@VenusFeuerFalle

Can you explain why you removed "Monotheism" from the lead and replaced it with "Dualism?"

the general consensus is that Zoroastrianism is a Monotheistic religion"

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." Researcher1988 (talk) 14:05, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Can you explain why you removed "Monotheism" from the lead and replaced it with "Dualism?"

Yes, I did this in the paragraph above.

the general consensus is that Zoroastrianism is a Monotheistic religion"

I see this question as separate, since I think I already explained that above. However, I would narrrow it down since there seems to be a very specific concern: Zorastrianism is "monotheistic" in the sense that it contrasts with polytheism. Zorastrianism is indeed the worship of only one deity. However, this does not contrast with being dualistic.Just because it is called "monotheistic" in one specific source, does not contradict that there is a broad consensus that Zorastrianism is dualistic. It is even, along with Manichaeism, a prime example of dualistic religions. Since the term "dualism" is better in explanatory power, I changed it. We cannot do the same with Christianity, because there are different cosmological systems within Christianity (same is true for Islam by the way). In a certain sense, the designation "monotheism" is weaker, since it implies that the cosmology is only losely defined. Zorastrianism is more consequent in what it tries to be in a certain sense. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 23:24, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Here some quotes to sketch out a few points I made. It disappoints me that this is literally the first few results on Google Scholar on that matter, and it seems, simply overlooked. This makes me think, users increasinly search for the desired result explicitly instead of the topic and then go with what they find. For the protocol: 1) finding a topic->researching it-> going with the results. Not 1) Having a result in mind -> entering the desired outcome in google until you find a source confirming your statement -> adding this statement and claiming people need to accept it cause "reliable source".

"The hagiographical lives and preachings of Zarathushtra, or Zoroaster, and biblical figures from Moses to Jesus consciously came to parallel each other ex post facto and were regarded as representing different aspects of monotheism. The Zoroastrian dualistic worldview did not exclude monotheism, although it did postulate a separate source of evil." by JAMSHEED K. CHOKSY (2010)

"At any rate, there is little evidence to show that the debate ran along the lines of monotheism versus dualism; it was really an argument of Christian monotheists against what they regarded as Zoroastrian polytheism. This comes up very forcefully, for example, in the account of the martyrdom of Qardagh" by Shaked, Shaul. "Dualists against Monotheists: Zoroastrian Debates with Other Religions." by Shaked, Shaul (2018)

Boyd, James W., and A. Donald. (1979) is rather an essay than using scientific labels for research purpose. claims such as "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. " are worthless from an academic perspective, since it is an intra-religious analysis not an extra-religious one. What happens within the religion is up for the believers to decide and not the matters of an encyclopedia.

Feel free to consider these sources as well. Thinking about it, it might be possible to add section about the historical development of the term "monotheism" and also why it might be important for believers of Zraostrianism or not. (I do not plan on doing that though.) VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 00:07, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for providing these sources. I totally agree with your points. but Zoroastrian Dualism does not contrast with it being Monotheistic. religions are either "Monotheistic" or "Polytheistic." But Dualism has nothing to do with "Number of Deities worshipped." so naturally it can't be against the Monotheism (or Polytheism) of a religion. Religious dualism is just another form of Monotheism. excluding the "Monotheism" from the lead is not necessary. there is absolutely no need to exclude "Monotheism" from the lead.

According to Britannica:

"Some religions are in the main dualistic: they view the universe as comprising two basic and usually opposed principles, such as good and evil or spirit and matter. Insofar as the conception of a god and an antigod rather than that of two gods is encountered, this kind of religion can be considered another variation of monotheism."

https://www.britannica.com/topic/monotheism/The-spectrum-of-views-monotheisms-and-quasi-monotheisms

On Wikipedia we go with the sources. I will edit the lead again, based on these source. Researcher1988 (talk) 02:42, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

We generally don't prefer tertiary sources except in specific cases on Wikipedia, and especially over a secondary source making a specific point. And like VFF said, Britannica in particular is showing its age in several places. Remsense诉 03:21, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

@Remsense

But that doesn't make them unreliable. exactly the same argument can be used against many reliable sources on Wikipedia, in general. because many of the sources that are being used on this Encyclopedia are decades old.

any way, I will present other sources for that matter.

needless to say, the editor VFF edited the lead without first seeking consensus here. his edit is a controversial edit. Researcher1988 (talk) 05:34, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

No, because tertiary sources are different from secondary sources here, in that the former less transparently show their age.

Friend, every other editor that has posted to this talk page seems to have significant concerns with your editing of this article so far, though your enthusiasm is appreciated. I say that to follow with a request that you do not invoke a nebulous consensus to justify your changes, because it's clear you don't automatically decide it. Consensus with whom? Remsense诉 11:17, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

I am not a "he" VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 12:58, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Religious dualism is just another form of Monotheism.

correct.

excluding the "Monotheism" from the lead is not necessary. there is absolutely no need to exclude "Monotheism" from the lead.

I explained above why I think it does. It is more percise and I would, if religions such as Christianity and Islam be uniformly in their cosmological doctrines, also suggest to use terms as "mitigated dualism" or "monism". However, this is not possible for the reasons mentioned above.

Since you repeatedly say, we should include "monotheism" because Britannica said so, I advise you to consider the importance of context for evaluating sources. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 12:57, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

@VenusFeuerFalle

Zoroastrianism is certainly Monotheistic and "dualism" doesn't contradict with it being monotheistic:

Shernaz Cama on Zoroastrian Monotheism and the dualism problem:

"For Zoroastrians, Ahura Mazda is the only one God. All good is comprehended within Him. Division and evil only appeared because of the hostile Spirit Ahriman. Evil is the disruption of the fundamental unity of Asha and because it negates, it destroys. Evil is the antithesis of good but the conflict between the two will end with the triumph of Asha, when evil shall ultimately perish."

Dorothea Luddeckens:

"Zoroastrianism is a global religious tradition whose boundaries and ritual practices are challenged by changes in modern societies. As a religious tradition, Zoroastrianism traces itself back to the ancient Iranian Prophet Zarathushtra and identifies him as the origin of the authoritative Zoroastrian scriptures, liturgies, rituals, beliefs, and ethics. Zoroastrians call their religion Zarathushti Din or Mazdayasna Daena referring to Ahura Mazda (“Wise Lord”) as the creator of the world and their only God. While several kinds of positive spiritual beings, known as Yazatas, “[beings] worthy of worship,” support humanity"

https://www.academia.edu/42395885/Zoroastrianism Researcher1988 (talk) 04:01, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

@VenusFeuerFalle

1-George foot moore:

https://www.jstor.org/stable/1507426?seq=1

"The religion whose adherents call themselves "Worshippers of Mazda," the Wise God, and which we commonly name after its founder Zoroastrianism, is in many ways of peculiar interest. is the only monotheistic religion of Indo-European origin, Judaism is the one independent Semitic monotheism."

"By the side of these nature powers, the Immortal Ones become personal deities and receive divine worship... Ahura Mazda is the father and creator of them all; he brought them that they might be his ministers, and what he does is mainly done through their instrumentality. Each of them presides over a province of nature: Vohu Mano over animals, Asha Vahishta over fire, Khshatra Vairya metals, Spenta Armaiti is the goddess of earth; Ameretat are the genii of waters and plants respectively. the ecclesiastical calendar of later times each of these Amshaspands is regent of a certain month of the year and of a certain day of the month. All these divinities (Yazatas, modern Persian Izeds) are subordinate to Ahura Mazda; the theology is so far forth consistently monotheistic."

2-James W.Boyd, states that Zoroastrianism combines Cosmogonic dualism and eschatological monotheism in a manner unique to itself:

https://academic.oup.com/jaar/article-abstract/XLVII/4/557/744081

"In brief, the interpretation we favor is that Zoroastrianism combines cosmogonic dualism and eschatological monotheism in a manner unique to itself among the major religions of the world. This combination results in a religious outlook which cannot be categorized as either straightforward dualism or straightforward monotheism, meaning that the question in the title of this paper poses a false dichotomy. The dichotomy arises, we contend, from a failure to take seriously enough the central role played by time in Zoroastrian theology. 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. But in the meantime there is vital truth to dualism, the neglect of which can only lead to a distortion of the religion's essential teachings. We develop this interpretation in the last part of our paper and argue for its satisfaction of the four criteria." Researcher1988 (talk) 06:03, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

@Researcher1988 And yet, Mithra and several other Hindu gods are fully present in the Avesta. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 11:33, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

There are no hindu gods in the avesta Researcher1988 (talk) 11:37, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

It does not matter if gods of other religions appaer or not, since the terms "god", "spirits", "demons" are largely interchangable. It is more a quantifier rather than refering to an entity. A god can also be a demon, and a titan a daemon etc. It is about what the terms "monotheism", "polytheism", "dualism" etc. actually mean, and "dualism" refers to a religion in which one god is worshippedbut his powers are complemented by a secondary entity (which is not God). Thus, it does not matter, if Mithra, Yahweh, or even Loki is mentioned, it is still dualistic (not polytheistic). VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 12:47, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

For Zoroastrians, Ahura Mazda is the only one God

thats what I (and the sources) say, yes.

Division and evil only appeared because of the hostile Spirit Ahriman

hence "dualism". VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 12:45, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

@VenusFeuerFalle

religious Dualism is another variant of Monotheism.

you said you believe Zoroastrianism is Monotheistic, but it has Dualistic undertones. so it is unnecessary to call it "Dualistic" while its Dualism is another form of Monotheism.

hence "Monotheism" Researcher1988 (talk) 13:01, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

I do not believe anything here. I conclude from academic consensus. A rreason for calling it dualistic rather than monotheistic has been given above multiple times by now. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 13:28, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

@VenusFeuerFalle

I insist on calling it Monotheism, because it is a Monotheistic religion. Zoroastrians consider themselves monotheistic, they never saw themselves as Dualistic or anything other than monotheistic.

calling this religion dualistic is a misrepresentation of Zoroastrianism. Wikipedia is not the place of debate. it must reflect the Consensus. Zoroastrianism is officially a Monotheistic religion, not Dualistic. editors personal perception is irrelevant here.

hence it should be "Monotheistic"

if you insist on your opinion, I will take the matter to Administrators and let them decide the fate of this page. because I consider this as a direct attack on Zoroastrianism Researcher1988 (talk) 13:09, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

"I insist on calling it Monotheism, because it is a Monotheistic religion."

And personal religious beliefs are not more important than academic consensus, just as you state below your revelation of your personal preferences (and you did afterwards again). If you want to consult to consult an admin, please go ahead, you will save a lot of trouble for others. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 13:30, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

@VenusFeuerFalle

There is another source which discusses the dualism problem:

"Dualism is one way for a religion to address the problem of evil which is inherent in monotheism—how can a God who is thought to be all-powerful, all-knowing, and wholly good tolerate evil? Zoroaster’s answer is a radical, unbridgeable separation between the two principles: God did not create evil, nor does he tolerate it; rather, evil has always existed from before time, uncreated and personified as the Hostile Spirit, but will meet its end at Frasho-kereti someday; and it is God’s purpose and unceasing work to fight it to its extinction with the help of all the divine and worldly creatures. So one could say that while God is not quite the One and Only so long as the present time of Mixture lasts, he will indeed “become” such at the End, as the final victory of the good over evil is not to be doubted; and with the disappearance of Angra Mainyu and his cohorts, dualism will leave the field to unqualified monotheism. Other monotheistic religions which, like Judaism, Christianity and Islam, posit that God is the creator of everything, including evil, were driven to explain evil by resort to fallen angels (like Satan) or inferior supernatural beings who vie with God for man’s soul, thus replacing a philosophical conundrum with another (Boyce, 1982, 195; Cohn, 2001, 182 ff.; Pagels, 1996)."

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s41412-021-00113-4 Researcher1988 (talk) 13:19, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

I am glad you are finally doing your research. If you lay the personal matter aside (you confesed above), you might contribute something not resulting in repeating reverts. Congratulations! VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 13:33, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

I added several sources before, here. and I proved it to you why Zoroastrianism is Monotheistic and should be called Monotheistic, Not Dualistic.

1-There is a Scholarly consensus that Zoroastrianism is Monotheistic.

2-Religios Dualism is another form of monotheism, so there is no reason to exclude Monotheism, at least it can be called Dualistic Monotheism. not "Dualism"

besides, are you trying to tease me? is such a language here accepted? Researcher1988 (talk) 13:45, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't the right place for proofs. We care about reliable secondary sources - we compile reliable information produced elsewhere rather than creating it. Simonm223 (talk) 13:59, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

@VenusFeuerFalle

I presented enough reliable sources here. the majority of them believe Zoroastrianism is a Monotheistic Religion. the user VFF himself believes so that Dualism is just another form of monotheism.

I put several reliable sources in the lead, but the user VFF persistently removes my edits. I believe that user wants to create an edit war with me. Researcher1988 (talk) 14:19, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

@Simonm223

Interestingly contrary to sources I provided, the User VFF didn't provide any sources. he just insists on his personal opinions which are irrelevant. Researcher1988 (talk) 14:24, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

You will recall I warned you, rather explicitly, that, even if I was OK with how you phrased your inclusion there was a risk that other editors disagreed and that it would be wise to wait to build consensus on talk. There is also a reason why, when you asked me to make a statement here to the effect that consensus had been reached, I refused despite having no personal objection to the inclusion. Please review WP:BRD and WP:ONUS - simply put, when an addition is made to a page and that addition is removed the onus lies on the person who originally added the inclusion to justify it to any engaged editors. It does not lie on the person who removed it. Simonm223 (talk) 15:02, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

@Simonm223

the lead was in this form for a long time. I didn't add anything to it. User VFF suddenly Edited the lead according to his opinion. it is he who is adding new material (Dualism) to the lead, not me. Researcher1988 (talk) 15:39, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

That does not appear to be an accurate account of the recent edit history. Simonm223 (talk) 15:43, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

It is. VFF changed the "Monotheism" in the lead to "Dualism," first. without seeking consensus, or presenting any source for this action. I just wanted to return the lead to its old form. ask them yourself. Researcher1988 (talk) 16:13, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

@Simonm223

this edit:

13:20, 10 April 2024‎ VenusFeuerFalle talk contribs‎ 153,605 bytes −82‎ thats not what monotheism means. undothank Researcher1988 (talk) 16:17, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

All I have to add here, is that @Researcher1988 is both impolite (as I already said, I am not a "he") and lying, since none of these claims is true. However, the user seem to spam this talkpage so much, noone will be able to follow through. I opine we go to ignore them. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 18:54, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

@VenusFeuerFalle

It is exactly what you did. edit history tells the true story. you removed "Monotheism" from the lead without any reason and providing any source for your claims. I just wanted to restore the page to Its former state. now, here you are lying about what you did, and calling me, who am posting facts and sources, spamming the talk page! indeed there are spammers here, but it is not me.

You have turned this talk page into a personal debate based on your feelings. Researcher1988 (talk) 03:24, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Consensus on Monotheism (2)

@venusfeuerfalle

Ok. lets present our sources in order to reach a consensus: I claim Zoroastrianism is Monotheistic, religious Dualism is another form of Monotheism and the religion should be labeled as "Monotheistic."

these are my sources:

1-George Foot Moore:

"The religion whose adherents call themselves "Worshippers of Mazda," the Wise God, and which we commonly name after its founder Zoroastrianism, is in many ways of peculiar interest. is the only monotheistic religion of Indo-European origin, Judaism is the one independent Semitic monotheism."

"By the side of these nature powers, the Immortal Ones become personal deities and receive divine worship... Ahura Mazda is the father and creator of them all; he brought them that they might be his ministers, and what he does is mainly done through their instrumentality. Each of them presides over a province of nature: Vohu Mano over animals, Asha Vahishta over fire, Khshatra Vairya metals, Spenta Armaiti is the goddess of earth; Ameretat are the genii of waters and plants respectively. the ecclesiastical calendar of later times each of these Amshaspands is regent of a certain month of the year and of a certain day of the month. All these divinities (Yazatas, modern Persian Izeds) are subordinate to Ahura Mazda; the theology is so far forth consistently monotheistic."

https://www.jstor.org/stable/1507426?seq=1

2-Shernaz Cama:

"For Zoroastrians, Ahura Mazda is the only one God. All good is comprehended within Him. Division and evil only appeared because of the hostile Spirit Ahriman. Evil is the disruption of the fundamental unity of Asha and because it negates, it destroys. Evil is the antithesis of good but the conflict between the two will end with the triumph of Asha, when evil shall ultimately perish."

https://www.academia.edu/100018445/The_Dawn_of_History_Zoroastrianism_Ideas_and_Impact

3-Dorothea Ludekens:

"Zoroastrianism is a global religious tradition whose boundaries and ritual practices are challenged by changes in modern societies. As a religious tradition, Zoroastrianism traces itself back to the ancient Iranian Prophet Zarathushtra and identifies him as the origin of the authoritative Zoroastrian scriptures, liturgies, rituals, beliefs, and ethics. Zoroastrians call their religion Zarathushti Din or Mazdayasna Daena referring to Ahura Mazda (“Wise Lord”) as the creator of the world and their only God. While several kinds of positive spiritual beings, known as Yazatas, “[beings] worthy of worship,” support humanity…”

https://www.academia.edu/42395885/Zoroastrianism

4-Erhard Gerstenberger:

"In Zoroastrianism 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

5-Mario Ferrero:

"Dualism is one way for a religion to address the problem of evil which is inherent in monotheism—how can a God who is thought to be all-powerful, all-knowing, and wholly good tolerate evil? Zoroaster’s answer is a radical, unbridgeable separation between the two principles: God did not create evil, nor does he tolerate it; rather, evil has always existed from before time, uncreated and personified as the Hostile Spirit, but will meet its end at Frasho-kereti someday; and it is God’s purpose and unceasing work to fight it to its extinction with the help of all the divine and worldly creatures. So one could say that while God is not quite the One and Only so long as the present time of Mixture lasts, he will indeed “become” such at the End, as the final victory of the good over evil is not to be doubted; and with the disappearance of Angra Mainyu and his cohorts, dualism will leave the field to unqualified monotheism. Other monotheistic religions which, like Judaism, Christianity and Islam, posit that God is the creator of everything, including evil, were driven to explain evil by resort to fallen angels (like Satan) or inferior supernatural beings who vie with God for man’s soul, thus replacing a philosophical conundrum with another (Boyce, 1982, 195; Cohn, 2001, 182 ff.; Pagels, 1996)."

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s41412-021-00113-4

6-James Boyd:

"In brief, the interpretation we favor is that Zoroastrianism combines cosmogonic dualism and eschatological monotheism in a manner unique to itself among the major religions of the world. This combination results in a religious outlook which cannot be categorized as either straightforward dualism or straightforward monotheism, meaning that the question in the title of this paper poses a false dichotomy. The dichotomy arises, we contend, from a failure to take seriously enough the central role played by time in Zoroastrian theology. 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. But in the meantime there is vital truth to dualism, the neglect of which can only lead to a distortion of the religion's essential teachings. We develop this interpretation in the last part of our paper and argue for its satisfaction of the four criteria."

https://academic.oup.com/jaar/article-abstract/XLVII/4/557/744081 Researcher1988 (talk) 16:10, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

• Objection On the basis of the numerous sources showing that Zoroastrianism contains, and has always contained multiple gods. At the very least we need to explain on the page how the old gods became, as you claim, angels.
• "The Deity Mihryazd in Manichaeism and His Relations with God Mithra in Zoroastrianism"
• "O Wise One and You Other Ahuras": The Flawed Application of Monotheism Towards Zoroastrianism
• Rashn described as a deity in Zoroastrian religion
• "In the Rig Veda, asura denotes the “older gods,” such as the “Father Asura” (10.124.3), Varuṇa, and Mitra (Mithras), who originally ruled over the primeval undifferentiated Chaos. The emergence of the dualistic cosmos was a process of polarization in which some of the asuras, such as Agni (Fire), Soma, Varuṇa, and Mitra, went over to the “younger gods,” the devas. The other asuras were driven away from the earth and remained as exiles in the nether world.""
• This book refers to the Yazata being gods.

Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 17:23, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

@TiggyTheTerrible

why you replied to this? I made this topic exclusively for @VenusFeuerFalle to settle the debate. Researcher1988 (talk) 17:33, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Anyone is allowed to participate and comment. Don't delete other's comments. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:44, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Seconded - you do not refactor other people's comments in any way. Nor is it an appropriate use of an article talk page to target one specific editor and insist they answer your questions. These aren't how Wikipedia works. Simonm223 (talk) 18:05, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

TBh I'm confused here. They titled it like it was meant to be a vote, like the one they did before. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 10:08, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Worrisome conduct from top to bottom. I think you need to take a step back from the pretence that you are steering the discussion or where consensus lands on it if there is this level of unfamiliarity with Wikipedia's behavioral guidelines. Remsense诉 18:18, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

@TiggyTheTerrible: Here we go, again, let's see who your "sources" are ...

• Jaan Lahe : a historian of religions specialized in the religions of the Roman Empire, irrelevant here, as the Roman Empire was not Zoroastrian as far as I know, can this source challenge Bomati or Kellens, who are both expert sources about Zoroastrianism ? No.
• Pablo Vasquez ? a student ...
• zohre zarshenas : professor of Iranian laguages, nothing to do with Zoroastrianism ...
• Maryam Rashno : who is she ? a strategic studies expert (seriously ??)
• Iranica : a reliable source, but does not support explicitly that Zoroastrianism is polytheistic or even dualistic ...
• Jenny Rose : an expert source (at last ...) but does not support the claim either ...

Let's now see who are Bomati and Kellens, two of the sources I added to the article and who explicitly support that this religion is Monotheistic.

Yves Bomati : Historian of religions specialized in the history of Iran.

Jean Kellens : an Iranologist who specialises in Avestan studies.

Both sound quite relevant here ...

Letting Iranica and Jenny Rose out (they do not support the claim) none of the other sources can challenge the ones I just cited in the article, I invite everybody to check this.

I already told you months ago that you had to find expert sources supporting explicitly the polytheistic claim, in order to avoid WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, you failed to do so, this is quite deterring and time sinking to be forced to repeat again and again the same things to an editor who clearly fails to get the point.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:54, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

@Wikaviani I was told the economist source would be perfectly valid, so why not?

• A historian of religions is perfectly fine. This is likely more qualified than what we cite when we cite Britannica, the BBC, and other such sources.
• Pablo Vasquez is graduate from SOAS University of London, which makes him qualified.
• Isn't a professor of languages writing a paper on linguistic derivation a great source when talking about translating languages?
• Where are you getting the strategic studies from?
• Iranica is cited on the page. I'm not using the source to claim that it's polytheistic, but to show it has multiple gods. Which the page does. But if you like Iranica then we should perhaps include this quote: "It is important to stress here that the notions of “monotheism,” “dualism,” and “polytheism” belong to pre-modern Europe (with evident precursors in Jewish, Christian, and Muslim texts, which differ sharply among themselves) and do not correspond in any meaningful way to self-identifications of Zoroastrianism before the Islamic period. It has been possible, as a consequence, to present “standard” Zoroastrianism with each of these labels simultaneously, which is a sure indication that the labels do not fit. Much ink has been spilled on sorting out if the myth of Zurvan was a “reworking” (or even “betrayal”) of classical Zoroastrianism in the face of a growing “monotheism” in the Near East in Late Antiquity, but since there is nothing to indicate that this was even noticed by any Zoroastrian of the period, most of this debate has been pointless."
• I seem to recall she says it on page 150, with the phrase "gods, presumably Zoroastrian yazatas"? Granted, I may be remembering wrong. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 10:32, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

I would like to further note to @Researcher1988 that George Foot Moore says things like:

• "the names of Aryan gods, Mitra and Varuna, Indra and Nasatya, have been found in Mitannian documents dating from the beginning of the 14th century" These are gods in the Avesta
• "When Mazdaism prevailed, it took back much which in its first zeal it had discarded - Iranian gods, forms of worship, and superstitions. It is necessary, therefore, to premise somewhat about the race and its old religion".

Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 10:46, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

• A graduate student of SOAS University of London cannot challenge top level experts of Iranian and Avestan studies.
• "A historian of religions is perfectly fine" : No, not when said historian of religions challenges the views of several historians specialized in Zoroastrianism, which the case here.
• "Where are you getting the strategic studies from?" Just Googling her name will provide you an answer ...
• Show me where Iranica explicitly says that this religion is polytheistic or not monotheistic.
• "Isn't a professor of languages writing a paper on linguistic derivation a great source when talking about translating languages?" Irrelevant here, it's about a religion, not languages.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:17, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

  • He doesn't seem to be challenging anything. HE's just calling them gods as if this were accepted.
  • I think the issue here is not the credentials, but that they object. I've seen you two cite students.
  • I couldn't find her, sorry.
  • This is the 'exact words' fallacy. If it says Mithra and Mazda are both gods, that is pertinent information that should be cited in the wiki.
  • The question is one of languages describing religions. What about the economics source? Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 12:58, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

    • We should not be narrowly excluding people from different fields in social sciences and the humanities when the research is apropos and published in reliable journals. Academia is not as siloed and narrow as that.
    • This means both the source from the linguist and from the economist are apropos and reliable. Excluding one but not the other would be a violation of WP:NPOV. Excluding both would be silly, plain and simple.
    • Nobody should be citing student work. Doctoral theses are on shaky ground. Masters theses are right out. Anything less shouldn't be considered in the first place.

    Simonm223 (talk) 13:03, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

    With all due respect, your above claims are a direct breach of what our guidelines. When our best sources say something, we should not include bias and undue weight from weaker and/or unreliable sources. I quote, from WP:BESTSOURCES : "When writing about a topic, basing content on the best respected and most authoritative reliable sources helps to prevent bias, undue weight, and other NPOV disagreements."---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:16, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

    Our dispute is over what constitutes best sources. I say that best sources are academic publications in the humanities and social sciences relatively broadly construed. This argument is on the basis that humanities and social sciences have a tradition of inter-disciplinary work. I mean Graeber is an anthropologist who wrote about economies. You seem to contend that best sources are specifically theological. I dispute that as being too narrow in this context. Simonm223 (talk) 16:19, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

    So you are claiming that an academic publications in the humanities and social sciences can challenge historians specialized in Iranian history and Avestan studies for this specific topic ??---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:26, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

    For what Zoroastrianism, as a social phenomenon, currently is? Certainly! Simonm223 (talk) 16:30, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

    This is about a religion, not a social phenomenon.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:35, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

    Religions are social phenomena and not just historical objects or bodies of theological work. Simonm223 (talk) 16:41, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

    Based on this, then any random source could be reliable for any topic. Religions are firstly religions, not a social phenomenon. Labelling Zoroastrianism as monotheistic or polytheistic is a religious matter above all.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:48, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

    No it is simply not, it is matter of Religious Studies intervened with Social Studies. Theology has no place in such discussions at all. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 00:42, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

    @VenusFeuerFalle What about word usage? Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 11:29, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

    I have put forth diverse guidlines and the Reseacher User ignored them. Maybe you go first to check if the User who invited you was not lying to you (except you two are one and the same, this would explain your sudden bias however). VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 00:43, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

    • I already said several times that Ferreiro is not reliable for this topic, why do you always mention that guy ??
    • "I couldn't find her, sorry." : Not a good sign for someone supposed to be a relable source, isn't it ...?
    • "I think the issue here is not the credentials, but that they object. I've seen you two cite students." Bomati and Kellens are all but students. Also random sources objecting what expert ones say does not make said random sources reliable.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:21, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

      @Wikaviani If we must rely on our best and most reliable sources, how about Harvard's commentary on the Avesta? Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 12:46, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

• No consensus that Zoroastrianism should be labeled as unambiguously monotheistic. The situation is at least a complicated one, and I do not think there is an academic consensus. Repeated calls for a particular consensus, nor cites from one side of an academic debate change that. Also some of the meta aspects of the recent discussion here on this topic are cause for concern. - GretLomborg (talk) 21:21, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

  There is an academic consensus, since the majority of sources says so, and Zoroastrians considered and still consider their religion to be Monotheistic. however, there are some sources who believe Zoroastrianism has its own form of Monotheism, or combines elements of dualism with monotheism. but there are very few scholars who believe Zoroastrianism is not monotheistic at all. Monotheism has a broad sense and should not be restricted to beliefs and practices of a particular religion. Researcher1988 (talk) 22:35, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

  @GretLomborg: If you have time (because that's a very long issue with many long sections), please check by yourself if you find a single expert source here that explicitly says Zoroastrianism is not monotheistic or polytheistic (none of the sources that say something even close to that can challenge Yves Bomati of Jean Kellens views about Zoroastrianism ...), yet I provided 3 expert sources that explicitly say Zoroastrianism is Monotheistic. Best.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:07, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

  Are we going to split off this debate into endless fractal threads? @Researcher1988 @Wikaviani? I thought the point of a vote was to hold the vote, rather than start another debate. In any case, please see my other rebuttals regarding this. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 10:34, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

  NO, we won't, if you endorse what our best sources say instead of trying to challenge them with weaker ones.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:33, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

  Then go ahead and please read the sources. @Researcher1988 is not the most reliable person as it has been seen, they have a personal agenda. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 00:41, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

  The situation is at least a complicated one

  Sorry, but just because one user vehemently presents their case does not mean it is complicated. The point is clear, it has been clarified multiple times, the other user just choose to ignore it and already confessed, they are motivated by religious bias, since they think it is offensive to call it "dualism". There is really no arguement. Dualism is a form of monotheism in which one God is worshipped but a second power is assumed, this is consensus. There is nothing complicated about it. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 18:50, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

  Indeed. It's also very strange to call this monotheism when the Zoroastrians worship and offer sacrifice to the Yazata Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 12:47, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

No, I will not make a "source contest" with you. If you have a good point to make, one would be enough. However, you even failed to object to any of the points I made, so I am not gonna read another awfully long list of point-missing "arguements". VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 18:48, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Consensus Updates

Because people keep starting debates with the voters, I am going to summarise the votes without the explanations in the hope that this will make things readable Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 10:38, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

• Objection to calling Zoroastrianism monotheistic. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 17:23, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

  Zoroastrian is monotheistic whether you agree with it or not:

  "Zoroastrianism is a global religious tradition whose boundaries and ritual practices are challenged by changes in modern societies. As a religious tradition, Zoroastrianism traces itself back to the ancient Iranian Prophet Zarathushtra and identifies him as the origin of the authoritative Zoroastrian scriptures, liturgies, rituals, beliefs, and ethics. Zoroastrians call their religion Zarathushti Din or Mazdayasna Daena referring to Ahura Mazda (“Wise Lord”) as the creator of the world and their only God. While several kinds of positive spiritual beings, known as Yazatas, “[beings] worthy of worship,” support humanity…”

  https://www.academia.edu/42395885/Zoroastrianism Researcher1988 (talk) 11:09, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

  Please stop trying to turn votes into fresh debates by repeating debunked points @Researcher1988. 12:49, 13 April 2024 (UTC) Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 12:49, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

• No consensus that Zoroastrianism should be labeled as unambiguously monotheistic. GretLomborg (talk) 21:21, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
• No consensus that Zoroastrianism is monotheistic - the academic literature variously describes it as monotheistic, dualistic or a hybrid of polytheistic and monotheistic elements. It would seem reasonable to describe it as monolatrous in wiki voice. Other statements should be attributed. Simonm223 (talk) 11:45, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
• Support Monotheistic view As per the compelling sources I provided before. I would like to remind everybody that "votes" should be argumented with legit rationale and sources in this kind of situation, since the burden is on you to achieve consensus for inclusion.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:21, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

  My response is based on the reliable sources shared by other editors on this page. Simonm223 (talk) 12:46, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

  All the problem here is that none of you guy provided a single expert source that explicitly supports Zoroastrianism to be polytheistic, not a single one, while we have several of the best sources available for this topic saying that this religion is monotheistic. You are on shaky ground, for the least.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:31, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

  Noone said it is poltheistic lol VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 19:03, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

  You will note that I did not, once, suggest that Zoroastrianism is explicitly polytheistic. Rather I said the academic literature variously describes it as monotheistic, dualistic or a hybrid of polytheistic and monotheistic elements. Furthermore your argument that expert sources don't exist to support this depends on a particularly narrow view of expert sources that treat the religion solely in historical terms. Simonm223 (talk) 19:58, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

  If you would actually read the source, you would know they do not support the claim. It is strange that you want to support someone without even going into that matter. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 00:41, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

• Support Monotheistic view As sources which I have provided and provide enough compelling evidence to support this claim. Zoroastrians view themselves as Monotheistic, An the Academic Consensus is that they are Monotheistic:

"The prophet Zoroaster is credited with the founding of the first monotheistic religion in history sometime around the middle of the second millennium BCE..."

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s41412-021-00113-4 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Researcher1988 (talk • contribs) 01:38, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

• Objection to call it monotheistic: As showed above multiple times, the general consensus is that Zorastrianism is dualistic, which is a sub-type of monotheism. All sources saying that Zorastrianism is "monotheistic" are also covered by the sources saying that Zorastrianism is "dualistic". Also, the definition of Cosmological Dualism applies to Zorastrianism while the term "Monotheism" does not (see the definitions in the source provided, those who say Zorastrianism is monotheistic never offered a definition of the term but cherry picked what they liked).

VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 19:02, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Dualism as showed above is just another form of Monotheism. Being Dualistic does not contrast with bein Monotheistic at the same time. totally disagree. you should provide sources that it is Not Monotheistic and instead, Dualistic. but you have not provided any source for that. you are just insisting on your personal opinions. Researcher1988 (talk) 01:19, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

• The balance of the sources seem to support Dualism. I might reconsider this position if there is a scriptural source that states that Ahura Mazda created Angra Mainyu. But it appears that most of the scriptural sources for the creation of the world says the two created it together. If there are sources that say that it became more monotheistic over time, then those views should be balanced against sources with other opinions. A source that summarizes the various polarized opinions seems to be what is needed here. That avoids the cherry-picking of one opinion vs another. Skyerise (talk) 10:01, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

@Researcher1988: Summarizing this, we have 1 2 editors supporting monotheistic, 2 editors objecting to calling it monotheistic, 2 editors noting there is no consensus to call it monotheistic, and 1 editor (myself), supporting dualistic. That's 1 2 for monotheism against 5 saying no or not now, so any edits changing it to monotheistic are against consensus and disruptive editing. Continuing to make disruptive edits against consensus will earn escalating warnings followed by a block. Skyerise (talk) 01:28, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

@Skyerise

I support It being Monotheistic too, and @Wikaviani

There are 2 Researcher1988 (talk) 01:31, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Nonetheless, the clear consensus is against calling it monotheistic at this time. I've indicated what could be done to change this. If you want to convince me to change my mind, you will write a section including such facts as: what was the first academic work considered to have started the field of Zoraastrian studies? What position did that writer take? Did his contemporaries agree? Was there a majority consensus? During the next century, did different opinions arise? Was there a change in consensus? In the 21st century, what is the current consensus - because the latter is what we will use on the article: not the 19th century opinion, not the 20th century opinion. Without the history of Zoroastrian Studies laid out clearly, I don't have the data necessary to change my mind, and neither do the other editors. Skyerise (talk) 01:37, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Ok, I will write that. but Dualism doesn't have enough support, so why should we call it Dualistic now? Researcher1988 (talk) 01:40, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

I see no opposition to dualism. As you yourself have indicated, there is such a thing as dualistic monotheism, so a !vote for monotheism can't be read as an oppostion to dualism. Skyerise (talk) 01:43, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

ok, But according to Britannica, Religious dualism itself is considered another form of Monotheism, so a vote for Dualism can be read as confirmation of Monotheism too:

"Some religions are in the main dualistic: they view the universe as comprising two basic and usually opposed principles, such as good and evil or spirit and matter. Insofar as the conception of a god and an antigod rather than that of two gods is encountered, this kind of religion can be considered another variation of monotheism..."

https://www.britannica.com/topic/monotheism/Monotheism-in-world-religions Researcher1988 (talk) 02:15, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

And this is exactly why we need to know the history of Zoroastrian studies and the evolution of opinions on the matter. You are again engaging in original research: not all dualism is considered monotheistic, and using synthesis of sources isn't permitted either. The only relevant sources are those directly discussing Zorostrianism. Skyerise (talk) 02:31, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

@Skyerise Agreed. Part of the problem is that a large chunk of the sources on the page admit that the religion was polytheistic in a historical sense. However, certain editors here are keen to keep its evolution out of the article. Especially in the top part that people might read. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 08:27, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

not a single source admits that. stop with this misinformation. Researcher1988 (talk) 08:41, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

@Skyerise: A 3 vs 2 is now a consensus ?? the more I interact with you, the more I'm baffled by what you say and your behaviour ...---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:00, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

@Wikaviani: but it is not 3 vs 2, it is 5 vs 2. The "no consensus for monotheism" also count as against votes. Skyerise (talk) 19:47, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

@Skyerise: I don't see a 5 vs 2 but still, even 5 vs 2 is not a consensus, thus the stable version of the article before dispute should stand, especially when the 2 have provided several high quality sources for their claim while the 5 have not been capable to provide a single one (or at least a single expert source to challenge the others). Anyway, as I said I'm out, go ahead and label this religion as you want (that's already what you did before ...).

And for your information, "no consensus" is not a valid "vote", as the Burden is on you guys to achieve consensus for inclusion, not on me and Researcher1988. I'm tired of discussing this matter for 4 months with some editors who don't know what they're talking about and refuse to ackowledge our guidelines to focibly impose their prefered version against what our best sources say. So far we have one who gives his own interpretation of Avesta, another who says that 'humanities sources" are ok for this topic no matter if they are contradicted by stronger expert sources, you who reverts back to a non-consensual version of the article, and so on ... enough with this. You guys want to own this article ? granted.20:08, 15 April 2024 (UTC)---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} ---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:08, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

I believe the consensus is broadly for neutrality on the issue, since there is no agreement. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 17:07, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Call for civility

WIth current heated discussion I would like to call all participants to calm down. It is not helpful to accuse people on other user's talkpages of "wanting to create an edit-war", or ignore what people said, or enter bad faith in any other way. I do not want to call names, but I am sure the user knows what they are meant. If this does not improve, we should consider blocking the user entirely or at least give them a temporary break from editing. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 19:06, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

I concur that civility is necessary here. Simonm223 (talk) 22:15, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

I would also like to withdraw from the discussion, since in my opinion everything was said. I am just afraid that constantly new participants join and, given the lenght of these escalating discussions, only read the last reply, which often consist of untruths about what has been said before, combined with constant reverts in favor of those who ignore the replies. I observed similar misconduct recently in increasing rate and it is worrying me. On the other hand, the possibility of sockpupettry is not out of possibilities either. Whatever the matter might be, I think important points has been made and User should adress the points properly before opening polls or new discussions to avoid the subject, or even revert the edits. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 23:32, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

After checking the sources, I withdraw my decision. THe situation is even worse than expected. The sources given do not even support the User's claims! VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 00:44, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Edit Summary

The reasons for these edits are too vast to be summarized in the edit summary, since sources seem to be misrepresented (as adressed in recent discussions on this talkpage anyways). So, I want to use the talkpage for transparency reasons.

The claim

"Scholars and theologians have long debated how best to characterise Zoroastrianism theism; dualism and monotheism have historically been the most frequently used terms for the religion."

was supported by "Ferrero, Mario (2021)", Boyd, James W. (1979), and Hintze, Almut (2013) in the following only referred by their publishing dates. (2021) mentions that Zorastrianism has been called "dualistic" and "monotheistic" over time, which is only partly true. The source states

"Schwartz, with regard to the oldest texts of the Zoroastrian tradition, the

Gathas, defines the religion as a “monotheistic dualism”4and Gnoli, who considers dualism to be incompatible with polytheism, as a “dualistic monotheism”5while Panaino considers Mazd¯ aism to be synonymous with monotheism because of Ahura Mazd¯ a’s sovereign role in the religious system.6By contrast, Skjærvø admits both dualism and polytheism but excludes

monotheism.7"

omitting polytheism entirely and gives undie weight to a minor opinion. All the others call it (monotheistic) dualism (note that "dualism" in this context is always monotheistic). The author cited who denotes it as monotheism does so only by pointing add Ahura Mazda as the venerated deity, which is not what "monotheism" means. Overall, the source itself seems improper to decide the classification of the belief-system, since it argues from within a theistic framework, not an external perspective, as seen here:

"the difficulties arises from the fact that the notions of monotheism, polytheism

and dualism are defined not on the basis of Zoroastrianism but on that of other religions, in particular the Judeo–Christian tradition. Denoting the worship of ‘false’ gods in contrast to that of the one God of the Jews and Christians, the term ‘polytheism’ has had negative

connotations from its earliest attestations onwards."

For clarification, "polytheism" is by no means viewed in a negative light, but an academic term (you might agree with or not), except it goes against your own personal beliefs (which do not matter here). The source continues to hang on the idea that "non-monotheism" is a degaratory term (which it is not):

In other words, the emic self-perception of the Judeo-Christian tradition

has provided value-laden parameters for the etic scholarly discourse on monotheism and

polytheism.12 In recent decades the suitability of such a monotheism – polytheism dichotom

Until now, the source appears to be a mere essay without historical value. This, however changes later drastically, and the quality of the source improves. I would like to skip the details (everyone can read it freely online), but point at the conclusion. <blockqote>"Each of the monotheistic,

dualistic and polytheistic features, mentioned at the beginning of this article and which Zoroastrianism presents to the observer, thus represents an essential constituent of the whole system. Taken together, their sum makes a self-contained theology with a remarkable degree of coherence and consistency. Notions of monotheism, dualism and polytheism are so closely intertwined in the Zoroastrian religion that it is difficult, if not impossible to separate them

from each other without causing the whole system to collaps" Here it becomes clear, that the source was not even about the question if it is monotheism or dualism, but how the view on Zorastrianism (including potentially polytheism) has changed over time. Now, it also makes sense that the author referred to the implied negative connotation of "polytheism". This is not the author's own interpretation (which would turn the paper into an essay and would very likely not be accepted for publication in the first place), but an overview of the terminology surrounding Zorastrianism. THe conclusion is that all these terms are a product of Western religious study discourse (not theology!) and none of them are appropriate. Since this source is about the usage of such terms and effectively a criticism on religious sciences and not about depicting Zorastrian cosmology, this can hadrly be used as a source to support Zorastian's qualification of being "monotheistic". (1979) defines its aim in the abstract as follows:

"I. DUALISTIC INTERPRETATIONS 1. The View That Angra Mainyu Is Primordial But Lacks Omnipo- tence And Omniscience (Dhalla, Henning) 2. The View That Angra Mainyu Is Primordial But Lacks A Physical Nature (Shaked, Boyce) II. MONOTHEISTIC INTERPRETATIONS 1. The Created Spirits View (Zaehner, Fox, Gershevitch) 2. The Transformationist (Maskhiyya) View 3. The Zurvinite View 4. The View That Good And Evil Are Coeternal Only In A Logical Sense (Moulton, Bode and Nanavutty, Duchesne-G" (...) "In brief, the interpretation we favor is that Zoroastrianism combines cosmogonic dualism and eschatological monotheism in a manner unique to itself among the major religions of the world. This combination results in a religious outlook which cannot be categorized as either straightforward dualism or "

After extensively elaborating why this cosmology is "dualistic" (including Zorastrian scripture), the paper continues with elaborating on the "monotheistic" view. Here, there is finally mentioning of scholars who proprosed "monotheism" in contrast to "dualism" properly forumalted:

"thodox. This historical judgment is made not only by Zaehner, Gershevitch, and Fox, but also by Rustom Masani, Jacques Duchesne-Guillemin, H. S. Nyberg, and others" (Zaehner, 1961:179; Fox:132; Masani:69; Duchesne- Guillemin

These scholars can be accepted as evidence for a monotheistic proposal throughout history. Their main point is supposed to be that there is a high God above Ahura Mazda who is God, and he created the spirit of good and evil:

"32). Gershevitch also interprets Yasna 44:7 as clearly meaning that Ahura Mazda is the sole creator of everything (13), and Zaehner is confident that Zoroaster proclaimed a doctrine of the creation that was in no way dualistic, but instead thoroughly monotheistic"

It has been, however, also pointed out, that they rely heavily on the Gathas:

"Fox admits as much when he says that "to reach any conclusion" about Zoro- aster's "view we must take widely separated utterances into account. In no single coherent statement does the prophet unambiguously proclaim mono- theism" (132). Moreover, the texts admit of other interpretations. The Yasna reference to "twins" is ambiguous, as is shown by the variety of interpreta- tions being discussed in this paper. It need not be taken to imply a common father, but can imply rather a coeval status of the two principles of good and evil"

It is further pointed out that even those who advocate for a "monotheism" label, are critizized in this paper:

"then we have a kind of ontological dualism lurking behind the monotheism of Zaehner, Gershevitch, and Fox, a dualism which strikes more deeply into the nature of things than monotheism. This would bring us back to a position not all that different from the dualistic views discussed"

The source does mention that the author defended the "monotheistic" interpretation the same way Christianity (usually) does by stating "ty? Fox says that it is because the actualization of evil can be made to serve Ahura Mazda's "ultimate purpose: the creation of free but loyal persons" (137). This answer has some philosophical plausibility and provides some religious satisfaction, but Fox cites no texts", thus the author of the paper makes clear, this is the personal opinion, not what we actually find in Zorastrian beliefs. The next passage, which is the second interpretation in favor of monotheism, can be skipped entirely, because it is said to suffer from the same deficits as the previous one. The third one might be indeed monotheistic (and has been accepted as such by many academics), but is its own separate article (Zurvanism) and its mythology is also described as "recounted in various non-Zoroastrian sources, is as follows.". Additionally, it is critizized for not qualifying as a religion at all. The fourth monotheistic hypothesis faces several issues as the previous ones again. In the conclusion, while the author makes clear they do not want to make final claims for the sake of not upsetting anyone, there are pretty strong remarks not to be ignored:

"To see why this is so, we can consider each of the four criteria in turn, as it applies to this interpretation. To take first the criterion of historical continuity, it is evident that this interpretation shares with dualism an ability to uphold the continuity of the Zoroastrian religion through time. For it need not posit a sharp break between an alleged monotheism of the early Avestan period and the undisputed dualistic cosmogony of the later Avestan and Sasanian periods. According to this

The paper continues with pointing out how Zorastrianism never managed to leave dualistic cosmology behind, and can only be interpreted as "Monotheistic" in very specific circumstances and by relying on philosophical arguements outside of what we actually have textual evidence for.

2021 sumamrizes how Persian religion moved from polytheism to Dualism. Here, it is critizized that Zorastrian dualism has been kinda frowned upon. However, the issue is not solved (contrarily to what the author inserted claims), by proposing that Zorastrianism is monotheistic, but rather that other "monotheistic" religions are actually dualsitic as well (it is known as mitigated dualism in Religious Studies btw).

Now I want to add that not only are the sources not in support of the claims, but there are good sources supporting the contrary view. According to "Skjærvø, Prods Oktor (2005)" in their "Introduction to Zorastrianism" states "Zoroastrianism is therefore a dualistic and polytheistic religion, but with one supreme god, 1 who is the father of the ordered cosmos"

Given that a basic work such as a simple introduction denotes it as Dualistic (or even polytheistic) while there is no source stating it is monotheistic (except to critize it or being critizized for doing so), there is no reason to call it "monotheistic" and definately no way to speak of "scholarly conensus". VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 00:34, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

I would like to invite @Simonm223 @TiggyTheTerrible, @Remsense to have a view over this and tell me their opinion on the sumamry of what @Wikaviani and @Researcher1988 have to say in defense that the advocated sources do not even support their claims. Maybe there should also be consequences for wasting the time of other editors, deceit to push their own agenda, and additionally the misconduct towards other Users during the related dispute. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 00:40, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

@VenusFeuerFalle

You do not have any sources for your claims. your personal Opinions are irrelevant. you have to present sources that Zoroastrianism is dualistic and not Monotheistic. else, stop editing the page. there is no need for these long and meaningless talk page comments. just sources. thanks. Researcher1988 (talk) 01:22, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

What personal opinions did they even state? Their entire post was going through your and other sources. Remsense诉 01:54, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

This is not my area of expertise at all and I really want to get it right, so I'm presently going through the sources myself to triple-check and get an idea of what it should say instead, but nonetheless it's clear from what I've checked so far + VFF's survey that the passage in question simply does not reflect the sources it cites.

From what I've read so far, a summary would seem to be, "Only one deity (Ahura Mazda) is worthy of worship. They are the creator deity, and more important than any other entity. However, they are not the cosmological source of evil; Ahriman is."

With this rudimentary working understanding on my part, the scholarly descriptions as dualism make sense to me, and the descriptions as monotheism have to account for this in a different and narrower way than with Christianity or Islam. Further claims of a consensus scholarly characterization being simply "monotheism" would seem to be either bad faith or a competence issue on any given editor's part, I'm afraid. I'll let everyone know if I come across anything that changes my mind on this, but it's hard to ignore the obvious body of opposing material when characterizing the opposing as consensus. Remsense诉 01:53, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

He is interpreting the sources to his own satisfaction.

The main issue here is that Dualism does not stand against Monotheism. Religious Dualism is just another form of Monotheism. so that's why Zoroastrianism is Monotheistic or at least has a dualistic Monotheism. this is exactly what the VFF's own sources state too. (James Boyd) Researcher1988 (talk) 02:01, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Please stop referring to VFF as 'he'.

You are leaning on a broad definition that is even more obviously not the case. Since you cited Britannica earlier, I hope you won't mind my doing the same:

In religion, dualism means the belief in two supreme opposed powers or gods, or sets of divine or demonic beings, that caused the world to exist. It may conveniently be contrasted with monism, which sees the world as consisting of one principle such as mind (spirit) or matter; with monotheism; or with various pluralisms and polytheisms, which see a multiplicity of principles or powers at work. As is indicated below, however, the situation is not always clear and simple, a matter of one or two or many, for there are monotheistic, monistic, and polytheistic religions with dualistic aspects.

Remsense诉 02:10, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

From Britannica:

"Some religions are in the main dualistic: they view the universe as comprising two basic and usually opposed principles, such as good and evil or spirit and matter. Insofar as the conception of a god and an antigod rather than that of two gods is encountered, this kind of religion can be considered another variation of monotheism."

"Some gnostic systems (ancient philosophical and religious movements based on esoteric knowledge and the dualism of matter and spirit and deemed heretical by orthodox Christians) came near to this idea: the demiurge who created the world and humanity is considered an evil being and contrasted with the good god. The most important instance of dualism within a religion is the Iranian religion Zoroastrianism, which emerged out of the teachings of the prophet and priest Zarathustra (also known by his Greek name, Zoroaster; died c. 551 BCE), in which Ahura Mazdā (the “Wise Lord,” or the good, supreme god) and Ahriman (Angra Manyu, the destructive spirit) are each other’s opposite and implacable enemy; at the end of time, Ahura Mazdā will defeat Ahriman. Dualism, the existence of two contrary and, as a rule, mutually inimical principles, must not be confused with the notion of polarity, in which both principles are mutually dependent so that the one cannot exist without the other. Within Zoroastrianism, this notion is also found. In Zurvanism, a movement that arose within Zoroastrianism and profoundly influenced its cosmology even though it was considered heretical, Ahura Mazdā and Ahriman both proceed from Zurvān Akarana (Limitless Time) and in the end..."

https://www.britannica.com/topic/monotheism/The-spectrum-of-views-monotheisms-and-quasi-monotheisms Researcher1988 (talk) 02:18, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Which sources do no not even support their claim" ?---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:48, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

1- George foot moore:

""The religion whose adherents call themselves "Worshippers of Mazda," the Wise God, and which we commonly name after its founder Zoroastrianism, is in many ways of peculiar interest. is the only monotheistic religion of Indo-European origin, Judaism is the one independent Semitic monotheism."

""By the side of these nature powers, the Immortal Ones become personal deities and receive divine worship... Ahura Mazda is the father and creator of them all; he brought them that they might be his ministers, and what he does is mainly done through their instrumentality. Each of them presides over a province of nature: Vohu Mano over animals, Asha Vahishta over fire, Khshatra Vairya metals, Spenta Armaiti is the goddess of earth; Ameretat are the genii of waters and plants respectively. the ecclesiastical calendar of later times each of these Amshaspands is regent of a certain month of the year and of a certain day of the month. All these divinities (Yazatas, modern Persian Izeds) are subordinate to Ahura Mazda; the theology is so far forth consistently monotheistic."

https://www.jstor.org/stable/1507426?seq=1

2- Shernaz Cama:

""For Zoroastrians, Ahura Mazda is the only one God. All good is comprehended within Him. Division and evil only appeared because of the hostile Spirit Ahriman. Evil is the disruption of the fundamental unity of Asha and because it negates, it destroys. Evil is the antithesis of good but the conflict between the two will end with the triumph of Asha, when evil shall ultimately perish."

3-Dorothea Ludekens:

""Zoroastrianism is a global religious tradition whose boundaries and ritual practices are challenged by changes in modern societies. As a religious tradition, Zoroastrianism traces itself back to the ancient Iranian Prophet Zarathushtra and identifies him as the origin of the authoritative Zoroastrian scriptures, liturgies, rituals, beliefs, and ethics. Zoroastrians call their religion Zarathushti Din or Mazdayasna Daena referring to Ahura Mazda (“Wise Lord”) as the creator of the world and their only God. While several kinds of positive spiritual beings, known as Yazatas, “[beings] worthy of worship,” support humanity…”

https://www.academia.edu/42395885/Zoroastrianism

4-Erhard Gerstenberger:

""In Zoroastrianism 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

5-Mario Ferrero:

"The prophet Zoroaster is credited with the founding of the first monotheistic religion in history sometime around the middle of the second millennium BCE, antedating the Israelites and leaving a lasting imprint on Second Temple Judaism and, through it, on later monotheistic religions."

"Dualism is one way for a religion to address the problem of evil which is inherent in monotheism—how can a God who is thought to be all-powerful, all-knowing, and wholly good tolerate evil? Zoroaster’s answer is a radical, unbridgeable separation between the two principles: God did not create evil, nor does he tolerate it; rather, evil has always existed from before time, uncreated and personified as the Hostile Spirit, but will meet its end at Frasho-kereti someday; and it is God’s purpose and unceasing work to fight it to its extinction with the help of all the divine and worldly creatures. So one could say that while God is not quite the One and Only so long as the present time of Mixture lasts, he will indeed “become” such at the End, as the final victory of the good over evil is not to be doubted; and with the disappearance of Angra Mainyu and his cohorts, dualism will leave the field to unqualified monotheism. Other monotheistic religions which, like Judaism, Christianity and Islam, posit that God is the creator of everything, including evil, were driven to explain evil by resort to fallen angels (like Satan) or inferior supernatural beings who vie with God for man’s soul, thus replacing a philosophical conundrum with another (Boyce, 1982, 195; Cohn, 2001, 182 ff.; Pagels, 1996)."

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s41412-021-00113-4

These sources, among many others, claim Zoroastrianism is monotheistic and should be called monotheistic. Besides whats important to note here is that dualism does not stand in monotheism's way. belief in a separate source of evil is not against Monotheism. Researcher1988 (talk) 02:10, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

George Foot Moore and many of the others there openly contradict you. even in your quotes. Moore says "By the side of these nature powers, the Immortal Ones become personal deities and receive divine worship... Ahura Mazda is the father and creator of them all; he brought them that they might be his ministers, and what he does is mainly done through their instrumentality. Each of them presides over a province of nature: " Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 07:05, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Observations and proposal

@Researcher1988: with all due respect, your long detailed posts are simply an engagement in original research. This isn't really how Wikipedia discussions should operate. We should present, but not argue from, sources. What needs presenting here is an overview source that has reviewed all the sources you present and come to some sort of conclusion about them. It has to be an independent conclusion: then you just provide it, and assuming it's a quality reliable source, there in neither room nor need for argument.

Because Wikipedia prohibits original research, you are never going to get the majority of editors to agree on taking any position in Wikipedia voice if it requires such argumentation to convince them.

As I see it, the underlying problem is that the article does not have a section on the evolution of academic views on Zoroastrianism. It is extremely difficult at the stage of development of the article to tell whether the religion may or may not have evolved to be more or less monotheistic, or whether academic opinions on the matter are what has changed over time.

My suggestion is that that section needs to be written: a history of Zoroastrian Studies. Then that section can be summarized in the lead. In religion, things are rarely only one thing. The old proverb about the blind men and the elephant comes to mind. Skyerise (talk) 10:26, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

I restored an old version of the article, before dispute. If I'm not mistaken, that version is the last stable and referenced version, it should remain as long as a consensus if found here, on the talk page.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:43, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

@Wikaviani

there are 2 editors here who hold different opinions:

1- tiggy the terrible, who is insisting on his opinions for 4 months,

2- Venus FF who (according to their own words) believes Zoroastrianism worships one deity, but thinks the religion should be called dualistic, without presenting any source on why It should not be called Monotheistic.

I suggest, first we deal with the second editor VFF and solve this problem, then the first editor Researcher1988 (talk) 11:03, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

You don't need to "deal with" any other editor. You just need to provide a source which details the history of the opinions in Zoroastrian studies and provides a summary and conclusion about those opinions. Skyerise (talk) 11:05, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

I already provided several, the problem is that you don't care to check all the above threads.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:09, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Great. Use them to write the article section I've proposed so I can read a coherent paragraph or three on the topic. Skyerise (talk) 11:11, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

@Researcher1988 You want to 'deal' with us? Is that a threat? Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 08:32, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

should we provide sources to describe the meaning of English words to some users now? Researcher1988 (talk) 08:38, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

@Skyerise

I agree with your points. but the other editors (who hold opposite views) are doing the same thing: arguing from their own sources.

My point is that Wikipedia is not a place of discussion about whether this or that religion is Monotheistic, dualistic etc. Wikipedia should reflect the outside consensus.

According to these sources Zoroastrian is considered one of the oldest (if not the oldest) Monotheistic religions in the world:

1-https://www.history.com/topics/religion/zoroastrianism

2-https://www.worldhistory.org/zoroastrianism/

3-https://study.com/academy/lesson/zoroastrianism-definition-beliefs-history.html

4- https://www.britannica.com/topic/Zoroastrianism

there are enough reliable secondary sources to support this claim. why should a Wikipedia article reflect a different view?

thank you. Researcher1988 (talk) 10:48, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Those are crap sources and there is no reason we should follow them. Skyerise (talk) 10:57, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

@Skyerise: Is WP:ONUS still in our guidelines ? you should wait to achieve consensus before editing this article, so far there is no consensus.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:05, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

There is a clear consensus in the section above that there is no consensus to call Zoroastrianism monotheistic. Skyerise (talk) 11:13, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

I restored a version before dispute, that version should stand as long as there is no consensus to change it.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:15, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

No, there is a clear consensus against stating that Zoroastrianism is monotheistic at this point. Recent edits implemented that consensus and should remain. Skyerise (talk) 11:19, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

@Researcher1988 @Wikaviani Why is the ancient aliens website History.com a valid source, but an academic specialist in languages not? Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 12:52, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't say we should follow them. but they reflect the Consensus and there are enough secondary sources to support their claim. Researcher1988 (talk) 11:05, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Those are not quality sources. Three are web sources and the fourth is a tertiary source. The only intellectually honest way to proceed is the find sources for and write the section I propose. Don't be lazy, you call yourself a "researcher"! Skyerise (talk) 11:07, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

@Skyerise: are thes sources from prominent experts of Iranian history and Avestan studies crap too :

---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:12, 13 April 2024 (UTC) ---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:12, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Again, stop arguing from sources. Write a summary section on the topic without changing the rest of the article. Then all editors can read a coherent presentation rather than desparate talk page arguments extended ad naseum. Skyerise (talk) 11:16, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

"Stop arguing from sources" ? What are you talking about ? we go by what reliable sources say, not our personal opinions. I feel like I'm talking to a newbie while you're not.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:18, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Arguing from sources is a form of engaging in original research. If you had a clear unambiguous source, there would be no need to argue. When there are multiple opinions, we summarize them all: we don't choose between them. Therefore this sort of argumentation is a complete waste of other editors time. Write a summary section about all the opinions and how they have changed over time. The fact the someone in 1912 said something is simply a single data point. Where are the rest? Skyerise (talk) 11:20, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

@Skyerise

with all respect, Sources are not the problem. there are editors here who don't want to accept that they are wrong.

VFF edited theology section and removed texts with reliable sources, without providing any reason. their edits sure are a form of Vandalism.

they edited the lead and deleted sourced material without seeking any consensus or editors' opinion here. Researcher1988 (talk) 12:06, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

With all respect, they are not wrong. When there are sources which say X, and other sources which say Y, and yet other sources which say Z, you can't just say "I've got 3 sources that say X. Game over." The game is not over. You have to also include and summarize opinions Y and Z. You are failing to do that, because you want to support only one of the range of opinions. That's not what we do here. Skyerise (talk) 12:51, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Indeed. I'm still waiting to find out why "divine beings worthy of worship and sacrifice" are not considered gods. Never mind an explanation as to the well documented presence of Mithra etc in the Aveta, and his title being the same as Mazda. 12:54, 13 April 2024 (UTC) Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 12:54, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, and I want to know things like: X was the majority opinion in the 19th century, Y was the majority opinion in the 20th century, but Z is the majority opinion in the 21st century. I don't care which is X, Y, or Z, I want to know the history of the matter. Only then can we really give a summary in the lead that does the subject justice. I don't know why editors should be resistant to writing the necessary summary first so we can gain some clarity on the issue. Skyerise (talk) 13:01, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

This would be a very good good idea @Skyerise. It seems increasingly clear that Zoroastrianism has been primarily viewed through a Western lens, and that it has been influenced by both Christian and Islamic ideas. I truly doubt that the English edition of Avesta would contain such a large amount of specifically Christian terminology that does not exist in the original language if this were not the case. For example, calling one of the seven Immortals/virtues (Amesha Spenta) the 'holy spirit'. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 08:37, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Those texts contained other opinions as well. VFF is not against it being Monotheistic, they insists that it should be called Dualistic but presents no sources why. even one of their own sources says the religion can't be described as straightforward Dualistic:

https://academic.oup.com/jaar/article-abstract/XLVII/4/557/744081

"In brief, the interpretation we favor is that Zoroastrianism combines cosmogonic dualism and eschatological monotheism in a manner unique to itself among the major religions of the world. This combination results in a religious outlook which cannot be categorized as either straightforward dualism or straightforward monotheism..." Researcher1988 (talk) 13:01, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Unambiguous sources have been provided by me with quotes several times here and in the article, please check by yourself.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:02, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Totalling Consensus on Monotheism

The stats for the people currently editing this page thus far are against Monotheism as an explanation if Dualism is counted as an objection to it. However; if 'Objection' and 'Support' votes both cancel each other out to become "No consensus" votes, then the true majority vote is to remain neutral on the topic of Monotheism and represent both views equally. I'm sure this will cause another massive debate, but I would prefer it to be down here instead of in the middle of the vote itself. However, I'm hoping the 'Support' side will see this as an olive branch.

• Objections:; 2
• No consensus on monotheism: 2
• Support Monotheistic view: 2
• Dualism: 1

Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 10:33, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a WP:POOL, we don't vote, the WP:BURDEN is on those who want to change the article, that makes edits like this one unwarranted.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:58, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Notwithstanding our difference of opinion about how to accurately reflect the academic consensus surrounding Zoroastrianism I would concur, as I mentioned below, wikipedia parlance uses !vote in place of vote for a reason. Simonm223 (talk) 18:00, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, but I'm considering to step out this mess and let people here label this religion as they want, since this talk page is turning into a battleground and I'm not interested in fighting other Wikipedians. @Researcher1988: I advise you to do the same, this article seems to be owned by some editors who refuse to ackowledge WP:CON, WP:BRD, WP:ONUS and so on, let them label Zoroastrianism as polytheistic if they want, we both did our best to avoid that, but who cares ...---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:11, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

@Wikaviani The user known as Researcher constantly tells us we need 'consensus' on the page, and has launched multiple versions of this vote, so pelase talk to them rather tham me. Page votes are a common tool. I find it very interesting that you warning Researcher about other people engaging in [WP:OWN]. Researcher very much treats the page as if they own it, to the point that I cannot even make superficial grammatical or aesthetic edits. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 07:34, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

@Wikaviani

I suggest it is time for a RFC.

There are users here who really think they own the article and change it whenever they want and put anything they want in it. Researcher1988 (talk) 20:37, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Summary of Zoroastrian studies

I hope it helps:

Overview of Zoroastrianism:

1-Zoroastrianism believes In one single creator deity who is all-good, omnipotent and omniscient.

2-Zoroastrianism believes that the Evil principle has an origin separate from god; this dualism is cosmological, and thus Zoroastrianism is both Monotheistic and cosmologically dualistic.

3-In Zoroastrianism, material creation is considered holy, and every beneficent and holy creation is Considered “Worthy of worship” or a “Yazata.” thus, while Yazatas are divinities created by God, and should not be considered a “god”, they are considered worthy of worhip or veneration. Even in (Yasna 3) prophet Zoroaster himself is called a Yazata.

Summary of Zoroastrianism studies:

1700

Orientalist Thomas Hyde, concluded that Zoroaster was a strict Monotheist sent by god to repeat the work of Abraham among the ancient Iranians and he supposed that his teachings was misinterpreted by Greeks and other people. This Judeo-Christian interpretation of Zoroastrianism established itself firmly in the academic world for three-quarters of a century.

Mary Boyce – Zoroastrians, Their religious beliefs and practices - Pub: Routledge (december 14, 2000)

1860

Martin Haug, German Philologist suggested that In the Gathas, Zoroaster rejects every divine being other than Ahura Mazda, and the Dualism is merely philosophical and the Amesha Spentas were nothing but Abstract Nouns and Ideas.

Mary Boyce – Zoroastrians, Their religious beliefs and practices - Pub: Routledge; (december 14, 2000)

1912

George Foot Moore, American Historian of Religions, calls Zoroastrianism, the only Monotheistic religion of Indo-European Origin. He believes that in the Gathas, Ahura Mazda has no partner or rival, the Yazatas or Zoroastrian Divinities, are subordinate to Ahura Mazda and believes this is certainly a Monotheistic Doctrine.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/1507426?seq=1

Early 20th

Maneckji Dhalla, a Zoroastrian Theologian and priest, describes Ahura Mazda as, “the Being par excellence. Who sits at the apex among the celestial beings of Heaven. He is not begotten, nor is there one like unto him. Beyond him, apart from him, and without him nothing exists. He is the supreme being through whom everything exists. He knows no elder, he has no equal and There is none to dispute his supremacy and contest his place, Nor is there one to struggle successfully with him for the mastery of the heavens. He is the first and foremost. He is the most perfect being. He is almighty and the absolute sovereign.

Maneckji Nusservanji Dhalla – history of Zoroastrianism

1979

James Boyd, believes that Zoroastrianism combines cosmogonic dualism and eschatological monotheism in a manner unique to itself among the major religions of the world. This combination results in a religious outlook which cannot be categorized as either straightforward dualism or straightforward monotheism. 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.

https://academic.oup.com/jaar/article-abstract/XLVII/4/557/744081

1995

Prods Oktor skjærvø, claims Zoroastrianism is Dualistic and Polytheistic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Researcher1988 (talk • contribs) 07:57, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

2011

Erhard Gersenberger, American Theologist and professor of old testament studies, writes that: “In Zoroastrianism 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

2012

Almut Hintze, professor of Zoroastrian studies in university of London, writes that: “The rejection and demonisation of the Daivas and their cult in the Avesta has all the features which characterize a monotheistic movement whereby the elevation of one deity, in our case Ahura Mazdā, is concomitant with the rejection of all other gods.”

https://eprints.soas.ac.uk/16952/1/073%202013%20Change%20%26%20Continuity.pdf

2013

Almut Hintze, in another article investigates the Monotheistic, Dualistic and polytheistic features of Zoroastrianism and comes to conclusion that: Zoroastrianism' is 'Monotheistic, but “Zoroastrianism has its own particular form of Monotheism: Monotheism, the Zoroastrian way.

http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S1356186313000333

2020

Dorothea Luddeckens, from university of Zurich, in “The Sage Encyclopedia of the Sociology of Religion,” states that: “Zoroastrianism is a global religious tradition whose boundaries and ritual practices are challenged by changes in modern societies. As a religious tradition, Zoroastrianism traces itself back to the ancient Iranian Prophet Zarathushtra and identifies him as the origin of the authoritative Zoroastrian scriptures, liturgies, rituals, beliefs, and ethics. Zoroastrians call their religion Zarathushti Din or Mazdayasna Daena referring to Ahura Mazda (“Wise Lord”) as the creator of the world and their only God. While several kinds of positive spiritual beings, known as Yazatas, “[beings] worthy of worship,” support humanity…”

https://www.academia.edu/42395885/Zoroastrianism

2022

Dr. Shernaz Cama, Honorary Director, UNESCO Parzor Project for the preservation and promotion of Parsi Zoroastrian Culture and Heritage, writes that: “For Zoroastrians, Ahura Mazda is the only one God. All good is comprehended within Him. Division and evil only appeared because of the hostile Spirit Ahriman. Evil is the disruption of the fundamental unity of Asha and because it negates, it destroys. Evil is the antithesis of good but the conflict between the two will end with the triumph of Asha, when evil shall ultimately perish.”

https://www.academia.edu/100018445/The_Dawn_of_History_Zoroastrianism_Ideas_and_Impact

2022

Professor Mario Ferrero, Economist and expert on religious subjects, claims that: “The prophet Zoroaster is credited with the founding of the first monotheistic religion in history sometime around the middle of the second millennium BCE...” Ferrero believes that Zoroastrianism’s Religious dualism will be resolved at the end of the world, and interprets the Yazatas as divinities similar to angels and saints in Judeo-Christianity who are subordinate to godhead.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s41412-021-00113-4 Researcher1988 (talk) 11:49, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

@Researcher1988 Among other problems, Angels are NOT worshiped or offered sacrifice, so the comparison makes no sense. There's also the problem that Mazda himself is a Yazata, and there are two other Ahuras. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 14:14, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

References

The issue I see here is these sources seem to have been cherry-picked for their opinion. I know there are also sources that reject the view that it is monotheistic. For the section to be NPOV, these positions must be sought out and included. Who comes down in favor of Dualism - they have to be included. Are there more qualified positions, do any sources use "Dualistic monotheism" or "Monotheistic dualism" to describe it? These also must be included. Also, even if it is a minority opinion, sources that suggest polytheism should also be addressed. This list should be developed with an attitude completely without bias for one position or the other so we can write a decent summary. Skyerise (talk) 13:28, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

And reading more of this talk page, it seems some sources call it Henotheism or perhaps Monolatry. I don't see those listed here either. Skyerise (talk) 13:39, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

these are some of the most famous sources. Almut hintze did one of the best researches in this field, and also, Dorothea Luddeckens entry in "the sage encyclopedia of sociology of religion" can be considered the current Scholarly consensus. Researcher1988 (talk) 01:56, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Also James boyd that I have included is in favor of calling the religion "Monotheistic dualism" or "Dualistic Monotheism." I tried my best to include all sources. inside the articles, for example Almut Hintze article, many of these so called sources are reviewed. Researcher1988 (talk) 02:00, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

I've added skjærvø to this list. as far as I remember, he is the only person who is against calling the religion Monotheistic. Researcher1988 (talk) 07:58, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

@Researcher1988 So now we're back onto sociology being okay after it was rubbished earlier? And you are ignoring the parts of those sources that say things like the religion was no one thing over its history? And you ignore me too. How are the Yazata Angels when Angels are NOT worshiped or offered sacrifice, but Yazata ARE? And how can the three Ahuras also be Yazata if the Yazata are just created angels?

@Skyerise I think Researcher just ignores anything that contradicts them. But since we have the results of the vote, we should simply move forward with making the page neutral on the subject of monotheism.Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 07:00, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

no. these are the Majority of sources. The religion is Monotheistic. there is a scholarly Consensus about that. if we can't reach a Consensus here, we should call Admins and other editors for their Opinion. Researcher1988 (talk) 07:06, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

@Researcher1988 The consensus is neutrality on the issue, and your sources make clear there are other gods in these religions. Mary Boyde, who you cite, says that they were only called angels because they were under Muslim occupation. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 08:22, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

@TiggyTheTerrible

No. it is not. According to majority of Sources Zoroastrianism is Monotheistic and there are no Gods in Zoroastrianism. Researcher1988 (talk) 08:31, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

@Researcher1988 Your own sources debunk you.

• Mary Boyde says: the Zoroastrians had "lesser gods".
• George Foot Moore says: "By the side of these nature powers, the Immortal Ones become personal deities and receive divine worship..."
• Professor Mario Ferrero, Economist "Zoroaster carried out a “reform” of Iranian polytheism, asking his followers to change their ways and beliefs but not to throw away all they had. Consequently, lesser divine beings or “gods” and many old rituals remained, to the dismay of modern European Christian scholars who were looking for a “pure” monotheism."

Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 08:47, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

No. You totally miss the point. Zoroastrianism is Monotheistic. Yazatas are not gods. the old "Gods" became "Yazatas" or angels of the new Religion. Researcher1988 (talk) 08:50, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

All those sources call Zoroastrianism Monotheistic. Worship of Yazatas is not against Monotheism. because they are not worshipped as gods equal to Ahura Mazda. It is clear and very simple. Researcher1988 (talk) 08:52, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

The issue was debated at length by Almut Hintze. See HINTZE, ALMUT. “Monotheism the Zoroastrian Way.” Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society 24, no. 2 (2014): 225–49. [11], which also contains a summary of the scholarly controversy. I wouldn't say that the point of that article is that Zoroastrianism' is 'Monotheistic, but “Zoroastrianism has its own particular form of Monotheism: Monotheism, the Zoroastrian way. An excerpt might be helpful.

Excerpt from Hintze 2014

[...] The religion thus seems to involve monotheistic, polytheistic and dualistic features simultaneously. In the ongoing scholarly debate on the classification of Zoroastrianism according to the terms just mentioned views differ according to which of these features is given most prominence, and usually the labels attached to Zoroastrianism combine two features out of a possible three (or four).Footnote 2 For instance, Boyd and Crosby's answer to the question posed in the title of their article “Is Zoroastrianism Dualistic or Monotheistic?, is that the religion starts from a cosmogonic dualism, but over time moves towards an eschatological monotheism.Footnote 3 Schwartz, with regard to the oldest texts of the Zoroastrian tradition, the Gathas, defines the religion as a “monotheistic dualism”Footnote 4 and Gnoli, who considers dualism to be incompatible with polytheism, as a “dualistic monotheism”Footnote 5 while Panaino considers Mazdāism to be synonymous with monotheism because of Ahura Mazdā's sovereign role in the religious system.Footnote 6 By contrast, Skjærvø admits both dualism and polytheism but excludes monotheism.Footnote 7 As far as the Gathas are concerned, Kellens accepts cosmic dualism for the opposition between a a- ‘order’ and druj- ‘deceit’, but not for that between the two mainyus or ‘spirits’ which in his view denote right and wrong human mental forces.Footnote 8 Regarding the terms polytheism and monotheism, Kellens, while emphasizing the pre-eminent role of Ahura Mazdā, comments that the two alternatives are “just as absurd as that of the half-full or half-empty bottle”, and rightly notes the inadequacy of any of these terms on its own.Footnote 9 One of the difficulties arises from the fact that the notions of monotheism, polytheism and dualism are defined not on the basis of Zoroastrianism but on that of other religions, in particular the Judeo–Christian tradition. [...] Having been defined from the scholarly perspective of the Judeo-Christian tradition since the period of the Enlightenment, the two terms came to constitute a dichotomy of mutually exclusive opposites. Consequently “monotheism” was claimed as the label of the Judeo-Christian tradition and endowed with greater prestige than the “polytheism” attributed to some non-Judeo-Christian religions and perceived as both challenging to and in opposition to monotheism. [...] An adequate characterization of Zoroastrianism is obviously not possible by imposing terms the contents of which have been defined on the basis of other religions. Rather than asking whether Zoroastrianism is monotheistic or polytheistic – a question the legitimacy of which has rightly been doubted – in what follows I hope to throw light on and suggest an explanation for the mixture of seemingly monotheistic, polytheistic and dualistic features mentioned above, which Zoroastrianism presents to the observer. [...] Each of the monotheistic, dualistic and polytheistic features, mentioned at the beginning of this article and which Zoroastrianism presents to the observer, thus represents an essential constituent of the whole system. Taken together, their sum makes a self-contained theology with a remarkable degree of coherence and consistency. Notions of monotheism, dualism and polytheism are so closely intertwined in the Zoroastrian religion that it is difficult, if not impossible to separate them from each other without causing the whole system to collapse.

Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:12, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

"She adds that Zoroastrianism has its own form of Monotheism: the Zoroastrian way." as you said this can be very helpful. Researcher1988 (talk) 05:12, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

I was quoting your summary of Hintze's article, which I don't believe is entirely accurate. Here's my summary:

Zoroastrianism can be described (and has been described by reliable sources) as monotheistic, dualistic, and also polytheistic. According to Hintze, each of these terms provides an incomplete and potentially misleading characterisation of Zoroastrianism, whose main feature is the way these elements are combined into a coherent doctrine. Hintze argues that debating whether Zoroastrianism qualifies as strictly monotheistic (or dualistic, etc.) is pointless, since the question is meaningful only in the perspective of our Judeo-Christian notion of deity, which emphasizes the idea of "one true God."

As WP editors committed to neutrality, we must "describe disputes, but not engage in them" (WP:VOICE), "fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources" (WP:UNDUE) and "describ[e] the opposing views clearly, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint" (WP:BALANCE). Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:19, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

@Gitz6666 I think that's essentially my view on the subject too. The question of what it is does really seem to depend, also, on the era you are talking about. I'm pretty sure they went more towards Monolatry after the Islamic & Christian missionary period and up into the modern day. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 19:26, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Vote on Edit Conflicts

Mary Boyde is a source accepted by @Researcher1988, but when I try to add a specific quote from her to the page stating that the word "'angel' is commonly substituted for Yazad" in order to "counter Muslim accusations of polytheism" he reverts it, demanding consensus. Therefore I would like to call a vote. Should we be allowed to cherry-pick and quote-mine sources, or must the whole source be used? Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 08:55, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

We should wait till we reach a consensus. besides You totally changed the lead in a way it wasn't supported by the sources. Researcher1988 (talk) 09:00, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

@Researcher1988 Stop using votes as forums. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 09:05, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

In addition to that, those material belong to theology section, not the lead. Researcher1988 (talk) 09:05, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Editors should be allowed to edit outside the area of discussion. That said, we must try to avoid using the word "claim": it implies doubt and thus is not WP:NPOV.

I'd also like to suggest that it would be helpful to slow down on the reverts - wait an hour or two so other editors might have a chance to see the change and perhaps improve it. Skyerise (talk) 10:22, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

but he tried to change the lead in a manner that was related to the area of discussion. Researcher1988 (talk) 10:57, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with the changes besides the use of the word "claim"... I've restored part of it. Skyerise (talk) 11:31, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

I've put it back into the lede pending discussion on article talk about the appropriate place to put it. Simonm223 (talk) 12:05, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

I've put it into theology section again. this text in unrelated to lead and should be part of Theology section. Researcher1988 (talk) 12:11, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

@Researcher1988 Thank you for not removing it, but I find it interesting that every citation conflicting your beliefs about Zoroastrianism ends up buried as far down the article as possible. 18:20, 17 April 2024 (UTC) Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 18:20, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Regarding "votes" and !votes

Wikipedia does not operate via up or down vote - instead we build consensus by discussion on talk page of sources and of associated Wikipedia policy. This is why the general nomenclature is !vote - which implies a non-vote. I think everybody on this talk page would be wise to remember this. Simonm223 (talk) 12:05, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

@Simonm223

I Provided a summary of Zoroastrianism studies, is it helpful in reaching consensus? Researcher1988 (talk) 12:17, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Not particularly. It was very long and seemed like a lot of WP:SYNTH - I would strongly recommend you step away from this article for a week or two and get some distance. Simonm223 (talk) 12:26, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

@Simonm223

It was a summary of Zoroastrianism studies, as far as I had access to. Researcher1988 (talk) 12:41, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but as I've repeatedly said, what we need is a overview source that summarizes the opinions; you summarizing the opinions is simply not the way it is done, because you have an agenda and that makes your summary potentially unreliable because you leave out sources. Even if that wasn't the case, we can't count sources to derive the majority opinon (that's original research). You must find a source that clearly states: the majority opinion is X. Again, for Wikipedia editors to draw a conclusion by counting sources is not admissable, it's original research. So please stop wasting our time doing it and just find a source that makes the statement. Skyerise (talk) 19:52, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

@Skyerise

Is this enough?

Almut Hintze (2013):

“There is general agreement among scholars that there is one supreme god in Zoroastrianism, Ahura Mazda. From the oldest sources, the Gathas and Yasna Haptanghaiti, to present day religious practice, all worship, both ritual and devotional, is focused on him…” Researcher1988 (talk) 02:56, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Also, please read this Article by Almut Hintze to get a better understanding of the Zoroastrian theology. this study sums up the Opinions of Theologians regarding Zoroastrianism.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/271934655_Monotheism_the_Zoroastrian_Way Researcher1988 (talk) 03:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

This source looks valuable and provides the kind of "overview" Skyerise is looking for. Please read this excerpt. We could use it to expand/rewrite the Zoroastrianism#Theism subsection, or at least add to it the following text:

Zoroastrianism combines elements of monotheism, dualism and polytheism. According to Almut Hintze, each of these terms provides an incomplete and potentially misleading characterisation of Zoroastrianism, whose main feature is the way these elements are combined into a coherent doctrine

Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:42, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes. Thank you. All three views have to be acknowledged. In classical times, the general consensus was dualism. I thnik I was misunderstood that I wanted a history on the talk page. A history of academic studies and views needs to be added to the article. Only then will we be able to include the appropriate balance in summaries in the lead. Skyerise (talk) 10:12, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Also, I added an overview under theology. Seems since it is complicated it would be best to introduce the views first. Some of the theism subsection might need to be integrated there, and these above statements should also be added. We can discuss the ultimate placement of the materials if there is disgreements about where I put it. Skyerise (talk) 10:40, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Almut hintze Calls the religion Monotheistic, but a Monotheism unique to Zoroastrianism which combines dualistic and polytheistic elements. Is it not enough for editors here to label the religion as monotheistic? Researcher1988 (talk) 13:13, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

I think its better to move that overview, to theism subsection and mix it with the already existing texts. Researcher1988 (talk) 13:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

That really doesn't sound like monotheism to me. That sounds like Monolatry. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 19:28, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Jenny Rose says there is no widespread consensus on Zoroastrian Monotheism

I've been trying to contact researchers who deal with Zoroastrianism directly, and Jenny just got back to me. While I'm still waiting for a hard source I can share, her view is there is no consensus on Zoroastrian monotheism at all. Her exact words being: > "In this regard, there is no consensus among scholars as to how to define the Z religion, particularly as to whether it is ‘monotheistic,’ ‘dualistic,’ ‘henotheistic’ or ‘pantheistic.’ " I think this is very good news, and actually reflects our vote here on the topic. I'm hoping that once she gets back to me, we can finally put this to bed and make the page a lot more neutral. This should help a lot in terms of accuracy of the page, because the sources typically seem to reflect the idea that Zoroastrianism has changed wildly over the centuries. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 11:01, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

where is the direct text and source? there are others who say exactly the contrary Researcher1988 (talk) 13:10, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

This was over email, but I'm working on it. But if I can produce it, will you accept it? Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 15:43, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

No. I wont accept it. because there should be a reliable source for this claim. not an email Researcher1988 (talk) 16:21, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

@Researcher1988 I think I made it clear that I was not referring to the email. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 16:31, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Only reliable sources. Researcher1988 (talk) 16:36, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Do you find this source Jenny sent me reliable? Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 18:51, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

This looks like a reliable source based on a surface read but I haven't had time to review in depth. Simonm223 (talk) 19:06, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you @Simonm223. Let me know if you think it would be enough to push for full neutrality on the monotheism/polytheism issue and explore both topics evenly. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 19:23, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Mary Boyce says Zoroastrianism was influenced by Islam

According to Mary Boyce, one of the people on Reasearcher1988's list of sources, the Islamic Califate is the reason that the Yazad are sometimes called "angels". She has an entire chapter on this in one of her books. However, the specific page is 157. Wherein she says that: "Thus the religious vocabulary of both shows an admixture of Arabic words, witness to the pervasive influence of Arabic on spoken Persian after two and a half centuries of domination. In both communities, the word 'fereshte' or 'angel' is commonly substituted for 'yazad', the result no doubt of trying to counter Muslim accusations of polytheism." I think this makes it very clear that either 1) this author must be stricken from the page, or 2) we must add this information. Otherwise we are engaging in WP:CHERRYPICKING. 16:30, 16 April 2024 (UTC) Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 16:30, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

this means not that Zoroastrianism was influenced by Islam at all. Mary Boyce believes that Yazatas should be left untranslated and just be called Yazatas (Not angels, or gods).

and I have no problem with adding Mary Boyce to the article. Researcher1988 (talk) 16:35, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Researcher1988 Do you have an issue with me adding sections involving the quote I have put in bold above? Incidentally, one of your sources for the Zoroastrians influencing Christianity only talks about the art. It doesn't mention angels, heaven, hell, free will, judgement, or most of the others - bar demons. It's written by an artist and Islamic Theologian - not an expert on Zoroastrianism. Never mind a famous one. The other source here is an economics journal. I feel both should be stricken out. Though I am quite interested to see that the first source calls the Zoroastrian Mithras a god. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 16:53, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

the text in bold is already present in theology section. Researcher1988 (talk) 17:24, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Sara kuehn is a researcher and expert on religious and cultural studies:

"www.sarakuehn.com I am a researcher, writer, and lecturer, presently teaching at the Department of Islamic Theology, University of Vienna, working at the interdisciplinary juncture of (art) history, anthropology, theology, religious and cultural studies." Researcher1988 (talk) 17:34, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Researcher1988 Yes. Art history. Theology. Cultural studies. Doesn't that fall rather short of your strict demands for specific experts in Zoroastrianism that you say preclude me from including a linguist who is an expert in the local languages? And, again, the other is an economist who we have not seen to have specific expertise here? Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 18:45, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

no Researcher1988 (talk) 21:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

FunFact, some researchers believe that the Zorastrian religion is alrgely lost, since Persians only started to be interested in their religion again, after the embraced Islam and then, most of their ancient language was lost. Works such as the Shanameh, often celebrated as resistance against Islamization, are actually relying heavenly on Islam. Can't give a source, since it was in a discussion with an expert on research of Persian history who introduced me to the Middle Persian language. (but since this turned into kindof an exchange and this talkpage is a mess anyways, maybe this is an interesting note) VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 01:19, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

@VenusFeuerFalle If you could track something down about that, it would be very illuminating. I believe the Islamic period is critical to understanding the claims of monotheism.

@Researcher1988 A one word answer implies you cannot actually oppose what I said. If you cannot, then I will be adding the word 'art' to that section or removing the source. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 16:57, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

She is a highly trusted academic.

"Dr. Sara Kuehn is a researcher writer and lecturer, presently teaching at department of Islamic theology, university of Vienna, working at the interdisciplinary juncture of art history, anthropology, theology, religious and cultural studies." Researcher1988 (talk) 09:08, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

@VenusFeuerFalle

Funfact: Zoroastrianism is one of the world oldest continuing practiced religions. nobody believes that nonsense.

Iranisns were forced to accept Islam. they didn't embraced Islam. you need to read more about subjects you don't know anything about. you don't know anything about Zoroastrianism. your personal opinions are irrelevant.

Michael Stausberg:

"Zoroastrianism is one of the oldest living religions in the world. It has a very rich history and was the dominant religious tradition of pre-Islamic Iran. Zoroastrians lived in close neighbourhood to adherents of various other religions such as Jews, Christians, Manicheans, Buddhists, and others. It is generally held that Zoroastrianism made an impact on several of these religions — as well as on Islam in its formative period."

https://www.academia.edu/1792246/On_the_study_of_Zoroastrianism

This is pure hatred against Zoroastrians. you should be reported for your racism. Researcher1988 (talk) 08:56, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Strike this entire reply, it's nothing but tendentious bile. You've very quickly shed any appearance of editing in good faith in your last few days of remarks. Remsense诉 09:18, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Why you think like this? these users hate Zoroastrianism, they are attacking the Religion and me who want to defend it. you know this very well. Researcher1988 (talk) 10:05, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

proposed text for theology section

@Skyerise

I provided a text, based on your new added overview and have integrated some paragraphs from the theism subsection in this text too. this text should be added to "Theism" subsection:

Zoroastrianism is often regarded as one of the oldest monotheistic religions in the world. Although Ahura Mazda is the supreme god, and Zoroastrians regard him as the creator of the world and their only God, Zoroastrianism believes in lesser divinities known as Yazatas, who are several kinds of positive spiritual beings that support humanity.” (ref: Ferrero and dorothea ludekens). These yazatas ("good agents") include Anahita, Sraosha, Mithra, Rashnu, and Tishtrya. Richard Foltz has put forth evidence that Iranians of Pre-Islamic era worshipped all these figures, especially Mithra and Anahita. (foltz ref)

In addition to this, Zoroastrianism believes in an evil principle whose origin is separate from God and acts in opposition to Ahura Mazda and his creation. This antagonist who is called “Angra Mainyu” or “the evil spirit” in the Avesta, is the embodiment of evil and his only desire is to bring disorder and destruction to Ahura Mazda’s Perfect world. (ref hintze)

The unique features of Zoroastrianism has caused Scholars and theologians to debate how best to classify Zoroastrianism theism, and according to Almut Hintze, “usually the labels attached to Zoroastrianism combine two features out of a possible three (or four). (ref hintze)

During 18th century, the Orientalist Thomas Hyde, concluded that Zoroaster was a strict Monotheist sent by god to repeat the work of Abraham among the ancient Iranians and he supposed that his teachings was misinterpreted by Greeks and other people. This Judeo-Christian interpretation of Zoroastrianism established itself firmly in the academic world nearly for 75 years. (ref boyce)

During 1860s, Martin Haug, German Philologist suggested that In the Gathas, Zoroaster rejects every divine being other than Ahura Mazda, and the Dualism is merely philosophical and the Amesha Spentas were nothing but Abstract Nouns and Ideas. (ref mary boyce)

The arrival of the German orientalist and philologist Martin Haug led to a rallied defense of the faith through Haug's reinterpretation of the Avesta through Christianized and European orientalist lens. Haug postulated that Zoroastrianism was solely monotheistic with all other divinities reduced to the status of angels while Ahura Mazda became both omnipotent and the source of evil as well as good. Haug's thinking was subsequently disseminated as a Parsi interpretation, thus corroborating Haug's theory, and the idea became so popular that it is now almost universally accepted as doctrine (though being reevaluated in modern Zoroastrianism and academia). (ref)

In 1912, George Foot Moore, American Historian of Religion, calls Zoroastrianism, the only Monotheistic religion of Indo-European Origin. Further, He believes that in the Gathas, Ahura Mazda has no partner or rival, the Yazatas or Zoroastrian Divinities are subordinate to Ahura Mazda and believes this is certainly a Monotheistic Doctrine. (ref foot moore)

Later, Boyd and Crosby suggest: “that Zoroastrianism combines cosmogonic dualism and eschatological monotheism in a manner unique to itself among the major religions of the world. This combination results in a religious outlook which cannot be categorized as either straightforward dualism or straightforward monotheism. 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.” (ref boyd)

According to the oldest texts of the Zoroastrian tradition, the Gathas, Schwartz defines Zoroastrianism as a Monotheistic Dualism, while Gnoli calls it a dualistic Monotheism; and Panaino, because of Ahura Mazda’s sovereign role in the religious system, considers Mazdaism to be Monotheistic. But Kellens accepts cosmic dualism for the opposition between Asha and Druj, but not for that between the two spirits. (ref Hintze)

Prods Oktor Skjærvø states Zoroastrianism is henotheistic, and "a dualistic and polytheistic religion, but with one supreme god, who is the father of the ordered cosmos". Other scholars state that this is unclear, because historic texts present a conflicting picture, ranging from Zoroastrianism's belief in "one god, two gods, or a best god henotheism.” (ref sk)

Dr Almut Hintze believes that Zoroastrianism has its "own form of monotheism" which combines elements of dualism and polytheism, and calls it Monotheism, the Zoroastrian way. (ref hintze) It has otherwise been opined that Zoroastrianism is totally monotheistic with only dualistic elements. (ref)

Shernaz Cama suggests that the definition of dualism lends credence to the monotheism of the Zoroastrian faith. A basic definition of dualism is “a doctrine that the universe is under the dominion of two opposing principles one of which is good and the other evil.” But Cama contends Zoroastrians believe in the supremacy of Ahura Mazda, for Zoroastrians, Ahura Mazda is the only God.

According to Ferrero, Zoroastrianism’s dualism is an attempt to describe the nature of evil as the product of a separate entity from Ahura Mazda: an entity which will be destroyed at the end of the world, resolving the dualism. In addition to this, He interprets Yazatas as being roughly analogous to angels in Judaism or to the saints within Christianity, pointing out that these holy beings are subordinate to godhead. (insert ref) Researcher1988 (talk) 16:31, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

I think this is a misapplication of Ferrero - the source is useful for describing the socio/political factors that led to transitions and transformations within Zoroastrianism; it is not an ideal source for describing an interpretation of Yazatas except in as far as he uses that description as a basis for exploration of the political and economic social factors at play. In other words use Ferrero in the context of what he was writing about rather than cherry-picking a description. Simonm223 (talk) 17:43, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

I think we should swap "good agents" for "divinities worthy of worship and sacrifice" as that is one of the most accepted definitions. We should also mention something about there being three Ahuras. We should also shy away from using an economist as a source, honestly. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 18:47, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Also, Jenny has sent me a nice source that seems to indicate that there is fierce argument amongst experts as to if Zoroastrianism is monotheistic. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 18:51, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

I mentioned this scholar in my sources too. however a great number of scholars have different opinions. Researcher1988 (talk) 21:05, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Ferrero is an expert on religious matters. he has several articles on religious subjects. Researcher1988 (talk) 20:31, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Researcher1988 His bio makes it seem he's just an economist. Please present evidence if he has more expertise elsewhere. 16:54, 17 April 2024 (UTC) Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 16:54, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Sub-section merge?

Isn't the "classification" (formerly "theism") subsection just 80% repeating the same debate mentioned in "Abrahamic religion"? Apart from that the term "Abrahamic religion" also has become subject to sever criticism in academical discourse, though popular in political discourse, this is the same debate on whether or not Zorastrianism is a form of proto-monotheism or not. Is it just me, or should the upper section be integrated into the lower one? An entire section about the debate also seems to be unbalanced given that there is hardly a contest about it being dualistic in real academic discourse. VenusFeuerFalle ([[User talk:VenusFeuerFalle}}|talk]]) 20:06, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

why are you editing the page before we reach a consensus? you behave as if you own the page? Researcher1988 (talk) 20:44, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

@Researcher1988: VenusFeuerFalle is an experienced editor in the area of religion. Their neutrality is not in doubt. Skyerise (talk) 20:51, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

@Skyerise

Experienced or not experienced, doesn't make any difference. we haven't reached a consensus yet, but he is editing materials related to debate. without presenting any sources to support his claim that Zoroastrianism is not Monotheistic. Religious dualism is just another form of Monotheism. Removing Monotheism from the lead is unacceptable.

I think we need a RFC. we need more editors give their opinion regarding this matter. Researcher1988 (talk) 21:02, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Of course it matters. They are editing to the consensus not to call Z monotheistic, which you keep pretending isn't already decided. Skyerise (talk) 21:07, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

but how you can decide when there are (for now 2) users against it? can it be called a consensus? Researcher1988 (talk) 21:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

consensus is not equivalent to unanimity. Stop. Simonm223 (talk) 21:19, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Because there are 5 editors opposed. That's more than twice as many against calling it monotheism. As Simonm223 states, consensus is simply a clear majority, it doesn't require unanimity. Skyerise (talk) 21:21, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

1- we need more time to reach the consensus.

2- the opinions of the users involved in this consensus is not supported by the majority of sources. so we should take the case to administrators and ask more editors give their opinion here. Researcher1988 (talk) 21:41, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

If I were you, I'd pay more attention to WP:ANI. There is a proposal with several for votes that you be banned from the topic. It would be in your own interests to take your defeat in this consensus more gracefully. Of all the editors involved, your behavior has been judged the worst and the most disruptive. It's pretty clear to me that the issue will be better resolved and the article more quickly improved without you being involved in the process. Keep this up and I will also add my for vote. Skyerise (talk) 21:45, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

With that behavior, the user should be blocked entirely. I have seen Users been deleted for less. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 00:27, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Since you intentionally misgendered me for the third time, I refuse to talk to you until you give a proper apology. In some countries you might even be brought to court for that by the way. But do not get your hopes up, your edits will nonetheless be reverted if they break the guidlines, and if you keep up with that I will get your account (including your potential sockpuppets) get banned. Usually, I do not waste my time with things but you really have a check list to be impudent. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 00:26, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

The things I edited was just routine stuff. Debating them is pointless since the outcome is clear. In that case, someone (I don't want to name anyone) had misinterpreted the source (totally accidentally), so I corrected the mistake for them (as nice as I am). When something is potentially subject to dispute, I bring it to the talkpage first. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 00:24, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

@VenusFeuerFalle: Good work. Yes, they should be merged. I think right under the Theology heading, rather than as a later subsection. It seems inevitable that there will be some duplication with discussion about the relation with Abrahamic religions. Skyerise (talk) 20:49, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree. Theology seems the appropriate target to merge this material. Simonm223 (talk) 22:42, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

may I ask exactly merging what materials together? Researcher1988 (talk) 23:03, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Would you or @Skyerise: be willing to do that? I just found out that Muhammad in Islam is GA without holding barely any GA criteria, and I would like to prioritize that one. I would prefer you Smonm223 to do this, since I already requested Skyerise to keep an eye on the jinn article, as I might not be able to be online the next few days. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 01:24, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I can do this, but not right away. I'm having to fill in for someone out sick at work, and it conflicts with my usual editing time. Skyerise (talk) 10:21, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do. Simonm223 (talk) 12:18, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Do we have a citation for In the 19th century, through contact with Western academics and missionaries, Zoroastrianism experienced a massive theological change that still affects it today. The Rev. John Wilson led various missionary campaigns in India against the Parsi community, disparaging the Parsis for their "dualism" and "polytheism" and as having unnecessary rituals while declaring the Avesta to not be "divinely inspired". This caused mass dismay in the relatively uneducated Parsi community, which blamed its priests and led to some conversions towards Christianity. or should I cut it? Simonm223 (talk) 12:32, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

It seems interesting, but I don't know a source for that. If a quick google search does not reveal anything, it probably lacks notablity and is not a generally agreed notion, and should be removed. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 14:01, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

@Simonm223 The Jenny source says that they were both influenced by and disparaged by Islam, who saw them as polytheists. And I believe the economist source says it evolved. The 'Gods in Hindu Garb' paper says it. In fact, a lot of our sources at least imply it. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 15:59, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

It's more specifically about the John Wilson history piece I'm concerned about. I did find this [12] but have not had a chance to review. Simonm223 (talk) 18:08, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

There is also this source that might be useable [13]. Simonm223 (talk) 18:08, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Ah, that seems like a good find. I have a feeling that missions like that are important to the story here. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 18:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Plan to Remove Unsupported Section Making Fringe Claims

As far as I've been able to determine, there is no evidence (or academic consensus) for the idea that Zoroastrianism's ideas resulted in the creation of other religions (such as Islam, etc). The idea seems to be very WP:FRINGE, and most sources I come across say nothing about it. It is also massively controversial, and will be deeply offensive to members of said religions. Especially in light of evidence that those religions likely had a huge influence on Zoroastrianism during the Islamic conquest period (See: Jenny's work), and in the missionary period of the 19th century. I'm not really sure why would we assume the direction of influence based merely on common features, to be honest. Especially since (at the moment) the only two citations supporting it are from 1) an economist with no background I can see in Zoroastrianism, and 2) an Islamic theologian writing about art - who similarly has no background. In the latter case, the essay doesn't even mention most of the beings that the section claims it does. And I couldn't find anything discussing the claims made based on it. It also seems very gratuitous that such a controversial and unsupported section would be in the lead. When I arrived here, this section wasn't even cited - which doesn't bode well for it being a real theory. So I feel I have strong grounds to treat it as dubious. Especially in light of how it will be read. So I think my proposal will be to remove such sections, until it can be shown there is academic consensus for them - or, failing that, some kind of reliable evidence. If evidence can be provided, I suggest they be moved to a special 'controvercy' section with other such claims. Otherwise the claims should be weighed against conflicting information for neutrality. Either way, I don't think such an unverified claim it should be a core statement in the lead. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 09:02, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

I have moved the section down to its own area, for now- until we decide what to do with it- and added some clarifiers. 09:12, 18 April 2024 (UTC) Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 09:12, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

I will add that section again with reliable sources. Researcher1988 (talk) 09:24, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Even if you can find better sourcing than an art historian, I severely doubt any existing body of reliable sources for this claim will amount to WP:DUEWEIGHT to appear in the lead as such. Remsense诉 09:29, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Mary Boyce:

"Zoroaster was thus the first to teach the doctrines of an individual judgement, Heaven and Hell, the future resurrection of the body, the general last judgement, and life everlasting for the reunited soul and body. These doctrines were to become familiar articles of faith to much of mankind, through borrowing by Judaism Christianity and Islam; yet it is in Zoroastrianism itself that they have their fullest logical coherence. Since Zoroaster insisted both on the goodness of material creation, and hence of the physical body, and on the unwavering impartiality of divine justice." Researcher1988 (talk) 09:43, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

@Remsense why?

this part was in the lead for a long time and is supported by reliable sources. Researcher1988 (talk) 09:40, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

this part was in the lead for a long time

Wholly irrelevant.

supported by reliable sources.

The article has to proportionately represent its subject, we don't get to put claims we like at the top if their emphasis is not reflective of the whole body of sources on the subject. These claims belong in the body of the article, weighted appropriately in context. Just because claims are verifiable doesn't make them WP:DUE. You know this. Remsense诉 09:46, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

there is general agreement among Scholars for that claim.

Dr Stausberg:

"Zoroastrianism is one of the oldest living religions in the world. It has a very rich history and was the dominant religious tradition of pre-Islamic Iran. Zoroastrians lived in close neighbourhood to adherents of various other religions such as Jews, Christians, Manicheans, Buddhists, and others. It is generally held that Zoroastrianism made an impact on several of these religions — as well as on Islam in its formative period."

https://www.academia.edu/1792246/On_the_study_of_Zoroastrianism Researcher1988 (talk) 09:50, 18 April 2024 (UTC)