Talk:Zoroaster

Template:WP1.0

Claim about home on "Ditya River" in error?

Hi - I was interested to read that Zarathustra's home was said to be on the Ditya River, and went to avesta.org to read more. It turns out that there is no mention whatsoever of any Ditya River or anything similar in Yasna 9 or 17, as translated on that site. Does this article rely on an alternative translation? If so, that should be specified. If not, the error should be corrected. Thanks. Mrcautious (talk) 04:47, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Edit Request

Sorry to be critical of a piece that's apparently so erudite, but it's also almost unreadable - at least to me. Could someone with some knowledge of the subject as well as the ability to write clear English PLEASE have a go at a rewrite? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Numero60 (talk • contribs) 20:36, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The article contains the following sentence:

The alternate Greek name for Zoroaster was Zaratas/Zaradas/Zaratos (cf. Agathias 2.23-5, Clement Stromata I.15), which—so Cumont and Bidez—did derives from a Semitic form of his name.

There is clearly something grammatically wrong in this sentence. Unfortunately I don't know hot to fix it, because I don't know how Cumon and Bidez are, and thus don't know exactly what is supposed to be stated here. Hopefully somebody more knowledgeable can help out here -- I just wanted to point out the error. Thanks. 98.212.24.54 (talk) 18:39, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Place

This article appears to be written by someone very familiar with Iran and surrounding regions. Can anyone help out by adding in more modern references (modern day Tehran for example) or a map?Friedonc (talk) 18:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know, Zoraster was born and died in Balk, present-day Afghanistan. Can someone please find the citations to add this?

The exact place isn't known, but there is more proof he was born in North Western Iran in the biggest and oldest fire temple of Zoroastronism. Please do not change it to Balk, the exact place isn't known. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.221.160.67 (talk) 20:35, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Poor Scholarship

The article is devoid of insight and is hopelessly one-sided. There is no recognition of the fact that Indian and Iranian history and religion are closely interrelated. There is no mention of Gaumata or Gotama buddha who was a contemporary. Herzfeld wrote that Gaumata was Zoroaster's adversary and in the Buddhist texts Devadatta was the adversary of Gotama. In fact the tacit assumtion of all scholars that Zoroastrianism is the oldest religion is untenable. If one rejects the Nepalese frauds it becomes clear that Zoroastrianism and Buddhism belong to the same milieu and were sister religions. That Zoroastrianism was not the religion of the Sakas and Kushanas is stated categorically by Harmatta and other scholars ("History of Civilizations of Central Asia", vol. II by J. Harmatta,p.315). The fact that Gaumata was Gotama and that there were many Buddhas before Gotama is not known to scholars such as Frye, Boyce and Briant. In his work 'Fihrist' al-Nadim also makes no mention of the Zoroastrians and states that the Shamaniya who regarded Buddha as their Prophet formed the majority of the people before Islam. A similar view is expressed by Al-beruni who was a greater scholar than Diodorus. The recently discovered Bactrian Buddhist texts mention six pre-Gotama Buddhas. Mary Boyce wrote much but had a very shallow perspective. Why does the Persepolis tablets make no mention of Zoroaster? The reason may be, as Ranajit Pal maintains in his book "Non-Jonesian Indology and Alexander", p. 190. that Zoroaster was known by the name Devadatta among the Elamite scribes. Pal suggests that Damidada of the tablets may be Zoroaster. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mejda (talk • contribs) 08:19, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Poor scholarship, perhaps. In fact most of articles here on the Eastern religions sees relatively poor scholarship compared to Judeo-Christian faith, which has been dissected since Enlightenment and is still being dissected. At the very least, scholarly consensus has it that the so-called "pre-Gotama Buddhas" is but a myth conjured by Indian Buddhists to bolster the authority of their faith, much as Jainism's appeal to ancient Tirthankara's and Hinduism's "memory" of Vishnu's Avatara's. That Zoroastrianism and Hinduism are more ancient than Buddhism there is no doubt. 136.142.243.54 (talk) 14:09, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Philosophy

The section could be filled out a bit - I'm still confused about what the philosophy is. Perhaps a link to another page? Also, the poet, is that Zoroaster? Friedonc (talk) 18:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Origins of Philosophy

I used the exact format and language as Oxford, since they are qualified and the experts on the field. By using the same format and language as Oxford, then it is no longer assertion related to history, and the citation is exact and proper. Oxford is more of an authority than any person here involved in these discussion. The Oxford dictionary on page 409 states the following: The title of the page is Chronology. “In this chronology broadly ’philosophical’ events mentioned in the body of the dictionary are in the second column.” It dates the events in this order; “1500 BC Beginning of the Vedic period in India.”

“630 BC    Zoroaster.” 

The readers should know that this is the exact format and language used by Oxford Universityon page 409. (Dvakili (talk) 05:29, 5 July 2008 (UTC)).

I removed the opening paragraph on the philosophy section for several reasons.

• The section is about Zoroasterian philosophy and the opening paragraph is an assertion related to history
• The quotation from the Dictionary of Philosophy is misleading. That states that Zoroasterianism was an event in the history of philosophy (and one earlier one is given so not the first) which does not support the statement that Zoroaster was the first philosopher
• The paragraph is badly phrased and reads as an assertive statement. It may be appropriate to have a phrase at the end (not the start) which states that Zoroaster was one of the key events in the pre-history of philosophy, with a proper citation (rather than a page reference in the text).

Opinions? I have not reverted the rever to avoid an edit war. --Snowded (talk) 00:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Do not reverse material before discussion or you will be banned from editing. You do not own wikipedia. (Dvakili (talk) 00:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC))

Please, I made a change to this page which you reversed, I then moved the discussion to the talk page. That is correct Wiki behaviour. I have been editing for sometime without a warning, you have a months history and one ban already. Please answer the points above. In the meantime I am working on a factual comment that can replace the comment. --Snowded (talk) 01:14, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Snowded. I don't even see the point of Dvakili's addition. Was it to say that Zoroaster was the first philosopher? That's an absurd and unverifiable claim, even if Oxford makes it (which it doesn't). If anything, the quoted passage implies that Vedic Indians were the first philosphers. Instead of a direct quotation from the dictionary, Dvakili could have simply written "Zoroaster's ministry is the second-earliest event mentioned in the Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy's chronology of philosophy." That statement is true and uncontroversial, while still revealing Zoroaster's immense significance in the history of philosophy. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 19:23, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Recently added

According to Oxford dictionary of philosophy (page 409),the chronology of the subject and science of philosophy originated amongst the Indo-Iranians, by the name of Mazad-Yasna, meaning worship of wisdom. Oxford University dates this event to 3500 years ago. The first philosopher in the chronology of philosophy is Zarathushtra. According to Oxford dictionary of philosophy (page 405) Zarathushtra's philosophy entered to influence western tradition through Judaism, and therefore on Middle Platonism.

The material which was removed [1] does not fit in the section it was added to. Perhaps it be belongs in the section Zoroaster#Western perceptions, though not as written. --NewbyG (talk) 03:00, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Concur with Newbyguesses. Also to Davakili, you are inserting unsigned comments out of sequence. Please learn to edit by using the sandpit --Snowded (talk) 19:57, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I think we are over indulging an editor who insists on inserting more or less the same text here and in the Philosophy article while refusing to discuss matters on the talk page. All we get is assertion rather than engagement. I have further modified the recent generous edit of his/her original material to something which can be sustained by the sources and kept it at the end of the section rather than the start. Davakili, you have to learn to discuss things here. If you insert the text again I will report your behaviour as vandalism and request an admin to get involved. For the moment I have placed a warning on your talk page. --Snowded (talk) 19:57, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I do not think correcting and replacing opinions with facts and quotes is vandalism. However, if facts and quotes are replaced or hidden intentionally to serve an agenda, then vandalism has been committed, and that is what you have done with you authoritarian behavior. You do not own wikipedia to dictate the content, when the content is a fact or a quote from a reputable source accepted in academic society. Consensus is facts, academic sources such as Oxford does represent facts. Remember, I am only quoting Oxford, so, your whole argument is that Oxford is wrong. This is what you have failed to prove. Prove that Oxford is wrong in its claims. I stated once before, and I will state this again, we need to get the administer involved.(Dvakili (talk) 23:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC))

I formatted your edit again. If you bother to look at the edit I made it uses the Blackburn quote correctly so please do not say that it is being rejected or make the absurd suggestion that I am saying that Oxford is wrong. Oxford is only one source by the way as has been pointed out to you before. You also need to note the way that citations are done in Wikipedia (note my recent edit). You do not say something like "One page xxx of ...." , you make a supportable statement and then use . Please feel free to raise this on the administrators page if you want.

Oxford does represent facts. Remember, I am only quoting Oxford, so, your whole argument is that Oxford is wrong. This is what you have failed to prove. Prove that Oxford is wrong in its claims.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dvakili (talk • contribs) 01:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

This argument is becoming absurd.

Dvakili, Snowded's wording does not contradict Oxford. Snowded reworded your insertion because he felt (as I do) that it was awkwardly phrased.

I admit, I have no problem with something like the following: "The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy lists Zoroaster's ministry (630 BC) as the second event on its chronology of major events in the history of philosophy, following the beginning of the Vedic period in India (1500 BC)." That's completely accurate; it's more precise than what Snowded wrote; and it hopefully avoids making the (unsupportable) claim that Zoroaster was the world's second philosopher.

However, I like Snowded's wording much better than yours. In fact, without proper context, it's unclear what your insertion is supposed to mean. If you just say that Oxford has a list of philosophical events containing Vedic India and then Zoroaster, what does that mean? Is it supposed to mean that Zoroaster is the second-oldest philosopher after the Vedic sages? That's an unsupportable assertion. Scholars have no way of determining how many philosophers have existed throughout history. Is it supposed to mean that Zoroaster was a philosopher? That's at least iffy: Zoroaster was much more an Isaiah than a Descartes. As far as I can tell, you wanted to add the quote from Oxford in order to say that scholars recognize Zoroaster as a major figure in the development of philosophy -- and that's exactly what Snowded's wording says.

If I've misinterpreted your intention, then please explain what point you're trying to get across by adding that quote, and we can reword the article accordingly. Remember, we ideally want to write a concise paraphrase of what a source is saying, not simply insert an out-of-context quote from that source. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 02:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Good summary. I am more than open to rewording, but it should be agreed on this page given the history! --Snowded (talk) 02:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Etymology

too much far fetched commentries about the origion of the word of old iraninan word "Zerdush"t or "zerdosht" means 'Golden handed" also means generous.. "Ahura mazda" "Aura mazda" means agira mezen or Big fire. the sun and fşre plays an important image in zoroastriasmç you should take arien origion of the word into consideration, not take the english or german spelling of the word while trying explain the etimology of the words. the word in origiıon kurdish not persian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.175.47.159 (talk) 22:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Zarathushtra, as per Avestan/Vedic Sanskrit is: Za + rath + ush + tra. Za(r) = Vedic Har/Hari = divine, a mortal who has reached perfection (self realization). Rath = Chariot. Ush = Light (of knowledge, wisdom) Tra = concentration of

Thus Zarathushtra = The divine chariot that brings Light(knowledge) to the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.179.149.106 (talk) 19:28, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The word Zaraθuštra consists from two parts zaraθ 'gold' (Template:Lang-lv, Curonian *zal(a)tan, Template:Lang-ru) and uštra 'sunrise' (Template:Lang-lv 'sunrise, dawn', austrumi 'East'). So Zaraθuštra means 'The golden sunrise'. Roberts7 19:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Citation? The widely-understood cites all agree that it is means "Having Many Yellow Camels" (literally "Yellow/Gold Camel"). ناهد^𒀭(^dAnāhita) ^𒅴 02:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I think this section needs to be re-wording. This is an interesting article, but this lengthy discussion at the very beginning may turn off readers. If no one objects, I'll put the likely meanings of the name first, dicussion after. Friedonc (talk) 18:15, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I wrote that section (and pretty much everything else besides), and I think you are absolutely right. Only,... the whole section can be summarized in one sentence, and in an ideal world the rest of it would be elsewhere (e.g. in a separate "Name of Zoroaster" article). Unfortunately WP is not an ideal place, and there are too many folk etymologies floating around (see Robert7's above). And so its becomes necessary to turn up the volume on the academobabble.

Ditto 'place', which the EIr quite adequately summarizes already.

Ditto 'date', which too has been summarized by the EIr. already. But remarkably enough that has recently vanished from the article, which now doesn't even mention the 1000 BCE date anymore (even though that has been more-or-less settled for almost 30 years now). Most peculiar. Explains the new bump in the carpet, like the one that caused "Eastern Iran" to spontaneously wander 1000 miles westwards 10 days ago.

As for the philosophy section being too terse... Well, yes, thats one of the dangers of wielding occams's razor. Would you like me to explain it to you? (elsewhere, irc maybe?)

-- Fullstop (talk) 00:17, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm just suggesting a summary of the first, explanation second (isn't this the way newspaper articles are written?), the wording is fine. Am I off base there? As to the the 'philosophy section too terse' is this aimed in my direction? I am not familiar with the concepts at all - I suppose I'd make a good target reader - but by the end, I'm still not sure what the philosophy is. Perhaps I'm thick, but if I don't 'get it' I'm guessing the article needs a little more detail or a link to another page about the religion, not the 'founder.' Perhaps you are too familiar with the topic? I can jump all over the place when discussing some of my areas of interest. Friedonc (talk) 01:17, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Does all common sense leave you when discussing this topic ? What does Camels have anything to do with Zoroastrians ? Common sense would dictate that the name has absolutely nothing to do with camels, because if it did camels would play some sort of role within the Zoroastrian belief system. Why do they have the eternel fire that burns ? They are followers of the light, not golden camel herders, that makes absolutely no sense —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.7.80.182 (talk) 05:39, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

That section was a good laugh, thank you.98.165.15.98 (talk) 01:36, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Birthdate & historicity of Spitama Zarathushtra

According to tradition, & Greek sources, Zarathushtra was born to the family of Haetat-aspa ( his great grand father) of the Spitaman section of the priestly Athrawan tribe around 7100BC in the town of Rae (Raya), along the banks of the river Veh-daiti, (one of the 6 tributaries of the now dried River Harah-vaiti/Vedic: Saras-wati) north east of Drangiana ( Zarangiana) , a mountainous territory around Lake Hamun and the Helmand river in Seistan (Iran-Afghanistan). In the Vendidad, Raya is listed between the Helmand river and Caxra (assumed to be modern Carx near Ghazna in southeast Afghanistan) and is therefore different from Median Raga and modern Ray. This river Harah-vaiti, prominently mentioned in the Gathas as that purifying celestial river of Prosperity that leads one to self realization, was said to flow from the mountains to the Ocean. A large number of vedic hymns are similarly dedicated to this divine river Saraswati.

In the Avesta, the Khordad Yasht is dedicated to it. (The Vedic “Saa” becomes “Kh” or “Khw” in Avesta)

Zarathushtra is traditionally referred to as one who had achieved “perfection”; the “perfect man” : the Naro-ish Nara & his birthday is thus called Khordad Saal.

This mountaineous land known as Harah-vaiti in Avestic times is listed in the Vendidad as one of the 16 aryan lands. The fertile plains bordering this divine river are mentioned in the Vendidad as the 15th land (out of 16) called Hapta Hendu (Vedic Sapta Sindhu) & located in the modern undivided Punjab. According to Avestan geography the region of the Haêtumant River extends in a southwest direction from the point of confluence of the Arghandâb with the Helmand. (Gnoli, 1980, p. 66) ARACHOSIA, province (satrapy) in the eastern part of the Achaemenid empire around modern Kandahar (southern Afghanistan), which was inhabited by the Iran Arachosians or Arachoti. The Old Persian form of its name is Harauvatis (h-r-u-v-t-i); this form is the etymological equivalent of Vedic Sarasvati - (fem., name of a river, properly "rich in waters/lakes" and derived from saras- "lake, pond"); thus the province is named after its main river, the modern Argandab (in Greek called Arachotos), a tributary of the Helmand. The same region appears in the Avestan Videvdat (Vendidad 1.12) under the indigenous dialect from Haraxv aiti - (whose -axv a- is typical non-Avestan); of these two forms Old Pers. Harauvatis (remodeled nom. -is) is rendered by Elamite Ha(r)-ra-u-ma-ti-is, Ha(r)-ru-ma-ti-is, etc., and "Arachotic" (and Median) *Haraxvati- by Aramaic hrhwty (cf. R.A. Bowman, Aramaic Ritual Texts from Persepolis, Chicago, 1970, p.192b); Elamite Har-ku-(ut-)ti-is (Dsf 39, Xph 16 and Persepolis tablets; see R.T. Hallock, Persepolis Fortification Tablets, Chicago, 1969, p.691a); Greek Arachosia; and, reflecting a form with metathesis, *Harauxati, Babylonian KURa-ru-ha-at-ti(-'), a-ru-hat0 , and Aramaic hrwhty (DB) respectively. (See M. Mayrhofer, Onomastica Persepolitana, Vienna, 1973, p.32; K. Hoffmann, Aufsatze zur Indoiranistik II, Wiesbaden, 1976, p.641 with n.38; R. Schmitt in Sprachwissenschaft 9, 1984, pp.205f.). (Encyclopedia Iranica, Volume II, 1987, Routledge & Kegan Paul. ISBN 0 7100 91109

Spencer gives details from Malcom's "History of Ancient Persia" and states that for 2598 years some four dynasties ruled over Persia from Yama Vivanghao (Yama Vaivaswat in Sanskrit) in whose time the Deluge commenced (end of the ice age), i.e., in 9844 B.C. The rule of these four dynasties ended therefore in approximately 7200 B.C. By this time, Kai Vishtaspa became ruler of Persia. Sage Kaksivan (RV 1-122-13) speaks of one Istasva who is identified with Vishtaspa by E.S.Bharucha (quoted by Hodivala). This king is supposed to have ruled for 120 years, and so his period can be fixed in the vicinity of 7100B.C. Zarathustra was a contemporary of King Vishtaspa, and therefore his date can be worked out to be around 7100BC . On the basis of astronomy, Spencer determines Zarathustra's date to be around 7052 B.C., coinciding with the dates determined above. Traditionally, Zarathushtra has been considered a master mathematician & astronomer. He is said to have calculated the rare coincidence of sunrise in Sistan (Afghanistan)with its longitudinal equinox in 7037BC & called it Nav-roz, or new year.

The Varsagira battle (referred to in hymn I.100 of the Rig Veda) is identified by many Zarathushti scholars as a civil war between the Iranians and Indian (Bharatas) sections of the Indo-Iranian tribes, at the time of Zarathushtra. The hymn (in I.100.17) names five persons as being the main protagonists in the battle: In the Rigveda, Istasva (Vistaspa) is mentioned in verse I.122.13, roughly translated by Sayana as follows: “What can Istava, Istarasmi, or any other princes do against those who enjoy the protection of Mitra and Varuna. Note the reverence to the common divinities. a. The leader of the Varsagiras is Rjrasva. He is identified by most scholars with the Arej-ataspa or Arj-aspa the Turanian, who is referred to in the Avesta as the main enemy of Vistapa and his brothers (Aban Yasht.5.109, 113; and Gosh Yasht, .9.30). Later Iranian tradition (as in the Shahname) goes so far as to hold Zarathustra himself to have been killed by Arjaspa. b. Sahadeva is one of the four companions of Rjrasva in the battle. He is correctly identified by S.K. Hodiwala , with the Hushdiv remembered in the Shahname (Chapter 462) as one of the main enemies of Vistaspa in the battle, who led Arjaspa’s troops from the rear. Although not mentioned in the Avesta, Hushdiv is a natural development of Hazadaeva, which would be the exact Avestan equivalent of the Vedic name Sahadeva. c. The other three companions of Rjrasva in the battle are AmbarIsa, Bhayamana and Suradhas. In the “Cama Memorial Volume, E.” Sheheriarji quotes RV I.100.17 to identify the other persons mentioned in the said Rigvedic verse by showing that the names of certain persons known to be connected with Arjaspa in the Avesta bear the same meanings as the names of the persons in the said verse. Thus he says that AmbarIsa is identical with Bidarfsha (= Av. Vidarafshnik) brother of ArjAspa, since both the names mean ‘one with beautiful garments’. Similarly, Bhayamana = Vandaremaini, father of Arjaspa, both meaning ‘the fearless one’; also Suradhas = Humayaka, brother of Arjaspa, as both the words mean ‘one with much wealth’

Hodiwala correctly identifies Humayaka, Arjaspa’s comrade in the Avesta (Aban Yasht, Yt.5.113) with Somaka, the son of Sahadeva (IV.15.7-10). There is a strong likelihood that the Suradhas of I.100.17 is the same as the Somaka of IV.15.7-10. This War also appears to have set the Avestics living in the Sapta-Sindhu homeland towards the North, and West directions . This date is in wonderful agreement with Greek sources about the times of Zarathushtra.

The main priestly enemies of the Zarathushtra & his followers are the Angras (Vedic Angirases) who are condemned throughout the Avesta right down from the Gathas of Zarathushtra. The Angarisas are that section of the Atharwaan tribe that split from the Ahura tradition & took up worship of multiple Devas (Deified Man, elevated to Godly heights). They were the composers of the early portions of the Rig Veda. The Gathas & Avesta refer to the Angirases (from which the term Angra mainyu- the evil mentality is derived), as enemy priests & their two branches, the Usiks (Vedic Usijs/Ausijas) mentioned in Ys 44.20 and Gaotemas (Gautamas), both of whom originated in and dominated the early Period of the Rig Veda compositions. The Angarisas are mentioned by Zarathushtra himself in the Gathas ( Ys48.10 ) & designated as karapan (a derogatory word used in reference to enemy priests who are extremely ritual oriented to the extent of being blind & deaf to righteous intelligent reasoning) & in whose hymns alone we find references to the conflict of the Vedics with the Zarathushtis.

The original Atharwaan priestly tribe had by Zarathushtras’ time split into two sections, the Angirasas, who worshipped Devas & the Brighus (Spitamaas of the Avesta), who worshiped Asuras . One may note that Brighu means blazing white flame & Spitamas means brilliantly bright. We see the Vedics & the Persians use such linguistically interchangeable terms to describe each other throughout. The Brighus had a calender based on the orbit of Venus (Shukra) & the angirasas had one based on Jupiter (Brihas-pati) reflecting their alliance to the specific philosopher.

The Puranas allude to a cosmic war between the Devas, led by Brihaspati of the Angirasa line of seers & the Asuras (Ahuras), led by Shukra (our Kava Ushana) of the Brighu line of seers. As such the Asura-Daeva split was already in place by Zarathushtras’ time.

It should however be noted that Zarathushtra refers to evil “Daevas”, as "Mashya" or mortals, meaning egotistic mortals who have taken the mantle of "God-hood". It refer to un-desirable/degenerate aspects of behaviour, akin to Vedic “Divs”; which is the destructive aspect of Hindu Gods. It has been wrongly assumed for some time that the daevas of the Mazdayasna are the same as the Vedic devas and therefore Zarathushtra inverted the deva-asura dichotomy of the Vedic period. In reality, the situation is much more complex with the Vedic Gods changing their attributes over time. We thus find that the Vedic (middle & later) and the Zarathushtrian systems are much less diverse than is generally assumed. This is borne out in Kashmiri (Pandit) scriptures that considers Divs (Daeva) as evil & opposed to the Devas who are Gods.

On the other hand, nothing can exemplify the hostility faced by Zarathushtra from the Asuras than the fact his chief enemy from infancy, childhood to adulthood was an evil magician, Dur-asuran.

On the other hand the Vedas refer to their enemies , the asuras, as militant, unethical & prone to violence, the almost clinical definition of middle eastern Ashuras, who represent the Priest-Warrior caste split amongst Indo-Iranian times in an earlier time frame.

However the main enemy is defined as the Druj; or the Vedic Druh/Drugh/Dhroga , a word/term derived from the root “Dru” meaning to deceive & identifying the inimical tribe Druhyus . Reference to them occurs throughout the Gathas & Rigveda in the sense of “demonic deceiver”

From the Vandidad portion of the Kem-na Maz-da Prayer:

“ Apa-nasyat Druksh, nasyat druksh, dvarat druksh vinasyat, apaakhedhre apa-nasyehe, maa merin-chainish gaethaao, astavaitish ashaahe.”

May the liar, the demonic deceiver, perish, rendering the righteous material world free from its depravations.

It is therefore clear that Zarathushtra arose at this time of multipolar spiritual confusion, to raise the ancient faith out of its failings.

The Ground level situation faced by Zarathushtra can be summed up as follows: During the Indo_Iranian Era the religious doctrine referred to a Single Creator who was both Creator & Destroyer. This exclusive CREATOR was called Ahu-ra (Vedic Asu-ra) or Life Force, & exemplified by the vedics as Shiva/Rudra. Starting from an initial expansion to his spouse (Parvati) & his Son (Ganesh); over a period of time, the term Asura became plural & a galaxy of Asuras take stage, each with his/her own independent existence. This expansion of God-hood ended up encompasing negative entities such as Bhairava, (the wrathfull destroyer), Mahakala, (wrath, druj, adorned with snakes & bones) Kuvera, (4 armed, God of wealth) , Asura-maya (the builder of illusions), Rahu-Ketu (Maleficent last 2 planets of the solar system, or astrologically, the 2 extreme positions of the moon’s orbit), Vasuki and Vritra (Serpents-Gods). This philosophy, exemplified by the Priest-Warrior caste split, spread as far as the middle east where it was called Ashura the warrior God. As the concept of a single exclusive Creator was usurped by a host os Asuras; over time, a class of "Gods" , namely the Devas, the shining, visible, Mortal ones (originally temporal lords, literally lord of the land, a philosopher-king, in the kavya mold, who was Deified ); came about as theological rivals. Devas were originally mortal & “Mashya” (mortal) in the Gathas, Avesta & the Vedas. Thus Kings of the land, based on their material wealth & power appointed themselves God. We see this in the Pharoes of Egypt. Daevas included Indra,(mainly) and others. Indra,was a warrior based entity whose attributes were expanded from the original Aryan hero Vrita. Over time (the Vedas being composed over 6000 years) Previous “asuras” were re-incorporated as devas, over different periods of time, as in Varuna, Shiva, Savitr (our Khwtr), Agni,(our Atar-sh), Soma (our Hoama) , Mithra & Saraswati (our Ha-urva-tat). Society ended up getting classified as Ahuras (those who follow Ahura) & Devas (those who follow Devas).

  These were times when belief in multiple Gods was the norm. When each God was feared for his/her wrath, jealousy; & obedience was demanded in  ways so demeaning that man was reduced to a thoughtless entity, a plaything for the perverse games of the Gods. 

In effect therefore, Zarathushtra challenged the existing definition of Asuras as numerous demi-gods under one supreme, & placed Ahura-Mazda, the Loving, compassionate, lord of intellect & wisdom, as the supreme creator. We are ofcourse believers in Ahura, the single, self created Life force as opposed to numerous Daevas who are mortals (Mashya) elevated to Godhood & having an independent existence. While Ahura Mazda is fashioned along the lines of Rudra/Shiva, being all powerful, self created, there is a vital distinction. Whereas Asura’s attributes is also that of destroyer, Ahura Mazda is the Loving, compassionate God who knows no wrath & whose strength is knowledge & enlightenment. Unlike Shiva who parades around with a Damroo (Drum) made of skulls, Zarathushtra carries a staff with a Gao-mukh (face of a cow) to represent the selfless mother earth (Gey-ush Urvaan). So while Shiva represents a dualist nature of both creator & destroyer, Ahura Mazda is the absolute creator & epitome of perfection (Ha-urva-tat) . Being a loving God, there is no provision for him to be destructive; as destruction is considered evil. Death itself is considered a temporary victory of evil over good. For Zarathushtra, the only source of destruction is poor, unintelligent, un-righteous choices made by man (Angra-Mainyu). He maintains the definition of Ahura as the formless, self created one, jettisons the independent multitude into one single entity. He also jettisons all negative entities such as Vrita (evil snakes), association with bones, destruction & wrath (Asura Bhairav, Mahakala) that have crept into the then existing philosophy. This pits him against his own tribe.

In Ys30.10 Zarathushtra mentions “Skenda” (identified in the hindu scriptures as the son of Shiva, & subject to various trials & tribulations during his lifetime), allegorically, as the self destructive fate of those willfully opposing Truth.

Work is worship (epitomized in the Yenghe Hatam mantra) therefore becomes the epitaph of the Daena, underlining the real reason for preference of worship, facing a living, breathing fire (Atar-sh) as opposed to an idol or image worship. An image although a good focal point of devotion, obscures the true aim of worship, namely the necessity of continuous, Intelligent (Wise), compassionate acts of Selfnessness; in a way mimicking the requirement to regularly & diligently feed the divine fire (Atar-sh).

Kashmiri theology has a three-way division consisting of devas, asuras, and daevas; wherein Deva or devata is a positive (sattwa) power related to knowledge & understanding; Asura (rajas), a power related to activity, & Daeva (tamas), a power related to blind acquisitiveness. Sometimes the term rakshasa (monster) is used interchangeably with daeva. The Rakshasa’s behavior was exemplified by a form of marriage (unfortunately still common in Islamic Iran) involving the violent seizure or rape of a girl after the defeat or destruction of her relatives —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.73.62.215 (talk) 03:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I waded through the above... what on earth are you trying to say?? Do you have a point? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.169.189.226 (talk) 20:22, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Fanciful OR in etymology section

Without providing any reason for doing so, Jbambo has reinstated his/her original research that

• "latter [i.e. 1930 Markwart] etymology of "yellow camels" which has been most widely accepted"
• Some non-linguistic nonsense about "cultural context" and what the Greeks do
• "Certainly later Zoroastrians chose to remarket the name Zarathushtra as meaning "Golden Light/Dawn"" horsepuckey.

Besides being a completely novel position (i.e OR), it is scientifically unsound, and I have accordingly removed it again. WP:BRD is now in effect, and Jbambo will have to discuss the artifice here first. The editor has been notified on his/her talk page. -- Fullstop (talk) 17:57, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

DATE

Zoroaster - Is displayed in the Painitng of Raphael Sanzio 1509-1511 - Plato knows his work - He does a lot in Astrology - Astrology is earlyest 3000 BC http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrology So if we all agree that this statement is true, we can delete the spam comment 70.73.62.215 (talk) 03:22, 14 October 2008 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_School_Of_Athens

He is obviously connected with the Achaemenid dynasty, as he is called the persian.

Avestan Zaraθuštra is generally accepted to derive from an Old Iranian *zarat-uštra-, which is in turn “perhaps”[1] a zero-grade form of *zarant-uštra-. This is supported by reconstructions from later Iranian languages – in particular from Middle Persian Zartosht, which is the form the name has in the ninth- to twelfth-century Zoroastrian texts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoroaster http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Achaemenid_dynasty

The town flourished and attained prominence and political repute with the rise of the first Babylonian dynasty. It was the "holy city" of Babylonia by approximately 2300 BC, and the seat of the Neo-Babylonian Empire from 612 BC. The Hanging Gardens of Babylon were one of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World.

Under Cyrus and the subsequent Persian king Darius the Great, Babylon became the capital city of the 9th Satrapy (Babylonia in the south and Athura in the north), as well as a centre of learning and scientific advancement. In Achaemenid Persia, the ancient Babylonian arts of astronomy and mathematics were revitalised and flourished, and Babylonian scholars completed maps of constellations. The city was the administrative capital of the Persian Empire, the preeminent power of the then known world, and it played a vital part in the history of that region for over two centuries. Many important archaeological discoveries have been made that can provide a better understanding of that era. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylon

From this Article The second, and "more serious"[24] factor for the association with astrology was the notion that Zoroaster was a Babyloniann. The alternate Greek name for Zoroaster was Zaratas/Zaradas/Zaratos (cf. Agathias 2.23-5, Clement Stromata I.15), which—so Cumont and Bidez—derived from a Semitic form of his name. The Pythagorean tradition considered the mathematician to have studied with Zoroaster in Babylonia (Porphyry Life of Pythagoras 12, Alexander Polyhistor apud Clement's Stromata I.15, Diodorus of Eritrea, Aristoxenus apud Hippolitus VI32.2). Lydus (On the Months II.4) attributes the creation of the seven-day week to "the Babylonians in the circle of Zoroaster and Hystaspes," and who did so because there were seven planets. The Suda's chapter on astronomia notes that the Babylonians learned their astrology from Zoroaster. Lucian of Samosata (Mennipus 6) decides to journey to Babylon "to ask one of the magi, Zoroaster's disciples and successors," for their opinion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoroaster

While the theorem that now bears his name was known and previously utilized by the Babylonians and Indians, he, or his students, are often said to have constructed the first proof. It must, however, be stressed that the way in which the Babylonians handled Pythagorean numbers, implies that they knew that the principle was generally applicable, and knew some kind of proof, which has not yet been found in the (still largely unpublished) cuneiform sources.[5] Because of the secretive nature of his school and the custom of its students to attribute everything to their teacher, there is no evidence that Pythagoras himself worked on or proved this theorem. For that matter, there is no evidence that he worked on any mathematical or meta-mathematical problems. Some attribute it as a carefully constructed myth by followers of Plato over two centuries after the death of Pythagoras, mainly to bolster the case for Platonic meta-physics, which resonate well with the ideas they attributed to Pythagoras. This attribution has stuck, down the centuries up to modern times.[6] The earliest known mention of Pythagoras's name in connection with the theorem occurred five centuries after his death, in the writings of Cicero and Plutarch. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pythagoras

So Zoroaster & Pythagoras Connection ... so this guy is possible older than P, maybe 50 years.

Who was the first monotheist? Abraham,Zoroaster or Akhenaton?

Uclides - The Key to Geometry

Proclus Lycaeus "Wherever there is number, there is beauty."

C.K. Raju, who has done considerable historiographical research on mathematics, suggests that the attibution of Elements to Euclid rose from a translation error from the Arabic uclides, literally ucli (key) + des (direction, space), or "the key to geometry". Raju goes further in showing that Elements and Proclus' Commentary was edited by the Vatican to make it "theologically correct". Ideas such as "irrefragible demonstration" were added to Commentary, though it did not align with Proclus' philosophy of mathematics, which held that proofs "vary with the kind of being". Interestingly, according to Raju, Proclus, in the same tradition of Theon of Alexandria and Hypatia of Alexandria , believed that mathematics was a window on the soul, being a meditative process, whereas the Church wanted to create a "universal means of persuasion", and mathematics was thus divorced from the empirical, which continues to this day.

It is this “theologification” that has made mathematics difficult to learn or teach. The remedy is to “de-theologify” or secularize mathematics and teach it in the cultural and practical context in which it developed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euclid%27s_Elements#Uclides_-_The_Key_to_Geometry —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tales23 (talk • contribs) 14:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about? Zoroaster was not a mathematician, and Greek notions of "Zoroaster" were (mostly) just fantasy. And Hellenistic notions of "wisdom"/"wise men" (sophistés) is not comparable to modern usage. And, if you have a point, would you please make it without dumping irrelevant content from other pages? Thanks. -- Fullstop (talk) 14:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

It turns out that the most printed book Euclids Element is not from the fictional character designed by the church. So and as Zoroaster is displayed in the painting The School of Athens with Euclid. And as Z is from persia, its likly that He broguht the Elements or people who came before him. So to understand the science and history its a infromative insight and breakthrough in the teachings of the last 2000 years. (Tales23 (talk) 14:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC))

which part of the word "fantasy" do you not understand? -- Fullstop (talk) 15:08, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello Again there Fullstop, the above links offer the reference in case you overlooked this in particular. Also please form full sentences so the audiance can follow you better. Cheers --Tales23 (talk) 15:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

OR?

the piece {"Nietzsche creates a characterization of Zarathustra as the mouthpiece for Nietzsche's own ideas against morality. Nietzsche did so because—so says Nietzsche in his autobiographical Ecce Homo (IV/Schicksal.3)—Zarathustra was a moralist ("was the exact reverse of an immoralist" like Nietzsche) and because "in his teachings alone is truthfulness upheld as the highest virtue." Zarathustra "created" morality in being the first to reveal it, "first to see in the struggle between good and evil the essential wheel in the working of things." Nietzsche sought to overcome the morality of Zarathustra by using the Zarathustrian virtue of truthfulness; thus Nietzsche found it piquant to have his Zarathustra character voice the arguments against morality.[f]'"} (in the section Zoroaster#In_the_post-classical_era) has to be removed as it is based on quotation from Nietzsche's own work and hence WP:OR. The point is that 1. Nietzsche can not be considered immoralist, the way we understand the word in 2009. (read Nietzsche Morality) 2. A person who wrote Beyond good and evil is certainly moralist.--Xashaiar (talk) 22:23, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

First of all, just because something "is based on quotation from Nietzsche's own work" does not qualify it as OR. Secondly, you are not in a position to claim that "a person who wrote Beyond good and evil is certainly moralist", and that work has nothing to do with Thus spake..., hence again OR. Third, Nietsche is not an authority on Zoroaster, and his opinion on Zoroaster is only relevant in a discussion of Nietsche's own work. Doing anything else with it is OR. Fourth, Nietsche did use "Zarathustra as the mouthpiece for Nietzsche's own ideas against morality", and it does not matter whether we are discussing Victorian-era morality, or 2009 morality - the fact remains that Nietsche identified himself in a certain way, and used the name "Zoroaster" as a hand-puppet to criticize society. Those are the points made by that section, and if you have a problem with the word "morality", then perhaps that needs to be explained, but it does not invalidate what the paragraph said. Fifth, it would be much appreciated if you did not forward your post-1979 emigree vocabulary vis-a-vis the use of the word "Persian" as if it belonged in the academic sphere. Ironically, the insertion itself ignores Victorian-era diction, and this article is in any case not the place to discuss such matters. Sixth, your citation style is not compatible with the citation style used by this article.

So, all in all, it would be appreciated if you undid your edits (removals and additions), and put them up discussion instead. As your edit prior to the one mentioned above also indicates, you are quite out of your depth here. Its quite obvious that you are groping for "sources" with Google search. This is not good scholarship. And, since it only gives you a keyhole view (as determined by your search terms), it invariably results in skewed content. -- Fullstop (talk) 11:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

1. please if you do not know what you are talking about, just say it. not every comment here needs your response. 2. based on 0-order logic (which does not exist, sorry!) or what did you conclude that "thus spoke.." and "beyond.." are related in my comments? 3. they are related because they are the work of the same person. 3. i am in every position that "free encyclopaedia" allows me. 4. your comment that "your are not in a..." is the well-known comment of certain ideology ... (you fill it!). 5. the page WP:OR is in plain english and does not say that on the talk page one can not make original statements. 6. you say "it does not matter whether we are discussing Victorian-era morality, or 2009 morality". my advise to you: do not say it in real life. 7. the age of "you are not in a position", "This is not good scholarship", is over.--Xashaiar (talk) 16:14, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I know what I'm talking about just fine. Thanks for your concern and "advice" though. Please don't hesitate to say something of substance, if possible sometime soon. WP:BRD is in effect, so discussion, and not reverts are in order. -- Fullstop (talk) 17:05, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

In the previous section of this talk page someone stated "Also please form full sentences so the audience can follow you better." I think this was worth mentioning once again. What are you really talking about. Let us go into details. The paragraph that does not bother you is:

"Nietzsche creates a characterization of Zarathustra as the mouthpiece for Nietzsche's own ideas against morality. Nietzsche did so because—so says Nietzsche in his autobiographical Ecce Homo (IV/Schicksal.3)—Zarathustra was a moralist ("was the exact reverse of an immoralist" like Nietzsche) and because "in his teachings alone is truthfulness upheld as the highest virtue." Zarathustra "created" morality in being the first to reveal it, "first to see in the struggle between good and evil the essential wheel in the working of things." Nietzsche sought to overcome the morality of Zarathustra by using the Zarathustrian virtue of truthfulness; thus Nietzsche found it piquant to have his Zarathustra character voice the arguments against morality.

1. This is improper english. 2. Nietzsche creates a characterization of Zarathustra as the mouthpiece for Nietzsche's own ideas against morality. who says this? (although one should look at WP:AWW as well.) This sentence contradicts WP:MORALIZE. 3. What is the point of having this paragraph? 4. the paragraph I had added, had the point that D. Ashouri summarizes as "By choosing the name of ‘Zarathustra’ as prophet of his philosophy, as he has expressed clearly, he followed the paradoxical aim of paying homage to the original Aryan prophet and reversing his teachings at the same time. The original Zoroastrian world view interprets being essentially on a moralistic basis and depicts the world as an arena for the struggle of the two fundamentals of being, Good and Evil, represented in two antagonistic divine figures." and my only POV was that: this choice and change of name Zoroaster->Zarathustra is significant. In fact if you think about it, my sentence express that "immorality, morality" conflict you point to more concretely and moreover gives reference to an RS. Do you get this point? 5. The sentence Nietzsche sought to overcome the morality of Zarathustra by using the Zarathustrian virtue of truthfulness; thus Nietzsche found it piquant to have his Zarathustra character voice the arguments against morality. is also problematic: First the sentence does not make much sense, secondly you use the same name to refer to two-differently-symbolized characters (cf. the quote from Ashouri). Do you get this point?

You do not own any part of an article.--Xashaiar (talk) 19:16, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

As in the section above this one, I do write in complete sentences. I am surprised that you would put yourself down to the same level as someone who found it difficult to comprehend a simple ten-word question.

Anyway... 1) No, it is not improper English. It may be unnecessarily convoluted and difficult to understand, but its not improper English.

2) As I said before, Nietsche himself says he employs "Zarathustra" to express Nietzsche's own ideas against morality, or as Nietsche called himself, "the first immoralist". This article also says Nietsche said it himself, and cites chapter and verse that he said it in. Really. And no, it does not contradict WP:MORALIZE, which refers to letting facts speak for themselves. There is no evaluation at all of what Nietsche said. The mere fact that the word "morality" appears (Nietsche's own word) does not in any way constitute a relationship to WP:MORALIZE.

3) Are you asking what is the point of a paragraph that describes Nietsche's use of Zoroaster as his literary avatar? I would have thought that the answer was obvious: The section is titled "Western perceptions", and Nietsche's use of Zoroaster as his alter-ego is a classic example of "Western perceptions". "In the history of the Western perceptions of Zoroaster nothing remained the same after Friedrich Nietzsche".

4a) Upto your "... and my only POV was that ..." everything is essentially fine. It is not significantly different to what the paragraph already said. Indeed, you may even wish to read the preceding summary more carefully yourself: the key terms "choosing the name" and "paradoxically" are clues that would assist you in revising your notions about Nietsche.

4b) Everything after "and my only POV was that" is not fine. Nietche's opinion on Zoroaster is strictly with respect to his own fantasy figure, and that is as far as anyone may go. This article is not about Nietsche, nor is Nietsche's opinion relevant here for anything but Nietsche's own appropriation of the name "Zarathustra" to represent himself. And you may also not instrumentalize this article (or any other article on Wikipedia) as your WP:SOAPBOX. If you have a trouble with that policy, then file a case at WP:RFC to get the policy changed.

5) I get the point, and I concur. Incidentally, it is not "my" use that you are making a case out of. I did not write that sentence you refer to (or, for that matter, the paragraph as it stands now). This is how I had written it. If you are interested in why Nietsche characterterized himself as an "immoralist" (a subject irrelevant to this article), then you ought to read the same chapter in Ecce Homo yourself, and abstain from making wide-sweeping claims of what Nietsche was or wasn't, or what he was thinking. He was not thinking what you think he thought.

With respect to owning the article, I suggest you reflect on your four-time forcing of your opinion here, your self-acknowledged attempt to use this article as a soapbox, your disregard of conventions used in this article, your disregard of WP:REVERT, and your disregard of WP:BRD. These actions speak volumes for the license you give yourself, and the disregard of everyone/everything else here. It is obvious that you do not know enough to make educated decisions about the material that you are reading, and your interpretation of a deeply ambiguous word does not do you credit. A little less regard should be given to what you "hear" through back-channels, and a little more regard should be given to people who lay weight in reliable sources. -- Fullstop (talk) 00:33, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

1. maybe you mean this english. 2. you still fail to get the point. stop this "top ten" labeling. He used the word "moral" in a way which is a subject of debate. 3. irrelevant answer. 4a. repeating. 4b. in fact it is a fantasy to make Zarathustra related to anything else than what people of Yazd say. ..5. There is no opinion here. There is a well sourced material and related to Persians, and in particular to Zarathustra, therefore worth mentioning. (I really have problem with your english) but let me tell you: wikipedia is an encyclopedia and you can not continue your "selective" copy of Encyclopedia Iranica (not Indica) and removal of Persian instances. This is against wikipedia rules. Last but not least: is calling my country "a deeply ambiguous word" the remaining of British effort in India? at least we speak a language and can understand most of texts from 1000-2000 years ago. Is that ambiguous? What language do you speak? (certainly not english), what is your link with Zarathustra: non-integrated immigration? I am happy that all your reliable sources are from Encyclopedia Iranica, which in turn, by its very foundation, should put a big question in your "head" (an object including hearing device) that: why there is only one deeply and definitively established concept of a country.--Xashaiar (talk) 01:24, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

1. why would I mean that English? 2/3/4. The only "point" you've now made is that you are one of those nationalistic creeps who will do anything to further his agenda. Like all revisionists, your revision is all you know, the only "truthy" rose-tinted glasses you ever look through, and as remote from reality as the (quite uninformed) ad hominems that you are slinging. 5. As for "selective" copy, you may wish to look into the mirror, which of course you won't, because you can't bear to have the same standards applied to yourself. In any case, since courtesty and politeness are meaningless when all you understand is the stick, that is all that counts now. A) No WP:OR, and B) No WP:SOAPBOXING, and C) No WP:UNDUE. Your edit fails all three. If you want to discuss these issues sometime as a civilized human being, then fine. I'll be here. End of story until then. -- Fullstop (talk) 02:58, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I take that back. Except for minor flow issues, and ensuring that its clear that it is Nietsche talking (I'll tackle these matters in the morning), the present revision is fine. -- 03:39, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Date unclear

The "Date" paragraph is very in-conclusive. It says that Zorastor was not born in the 6th century BC, but the paragraph does not clearly state what the current opinions on his date of birth are. Kak Dela? (talk) 15:40, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes it does say. But I also think that a rewording would be helpful.--Xashaiar (talk) 14:31, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

A query for the Editor Chiefs

Say, would it be out of line to show the opinion that Zarathushtra was a Hindu Brahmin who moved to Iran? According to an English documentary I've seen, entitled "The Story of God", that is precisely who he was, a Hindu Brahmin reformer, much like the Buddha.

I await what will no doubt be a deafening silnce in reply. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.21.112.123 (talk) 04:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

And would it be possible for you to tell us whether "an English documentary" is an authority on Zoroaster and WP:RS? How many examples of "English documentaries" which talk non-sense do you need, so that you will no longer be their victim?--Xashaiar (talk) 09:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

English documentaries are more likely to be reliable than some Iranian ones, but we'd need to know exactly what it said. The Story of God seems to be a well known one, with an accompanying book. Altogether, documentaries, whoever made them, are not the best sources. Paul B (talk) 10:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

1. And Iranian ones are most likely non-fictional. 2. Do not contradict yourself in less then two sentences that you wrote. 3. Whatever your wishful thinking is based on, it is not worth mentioning because it is deeply rooted outside universe.--Xashaiar (talk) 10:32, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I didn't contradict myself at all. The documentary is reasonable as far as it goes, but as a matter of principle documentaries are not generally good sources for Wikipedia purposes, especially on subjects where there is abundant academic source material. Simple. Your extrme nationalism blinds you to the facts. Why you think linking to an article about polygamy is in any way relevant is a mystery. Paul B (talk) 12:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

1. How do you want to USE an English documentary? 2. You contradict yourself, because my first comment was questioning quality of that source, and you commented: A. English documentaries are more likely to be reliable than some Iranian ones. B. documentaries, whoever made them, are not the best sources (also later you said: as a matter of principle documentaries are not generally good sources.) I mean so what? what is the point? isn't it reasonable to assume that: in A you wanted to question my comment on reliability of that "documentary"? and in B yourself said documentaries are not good sources? This is a contradiction. are you aware of WP:FORUM? 3. The same here: "Why you think linking to an article about "someone converted to something and somewhere met somebody who has something to do with some people who somehow call themselves somewhat Iranian" is in any way relevant is a mystery" too. And I always tend to answer "irrelevant links" by "irrelevant links". 4444. No PA. 5. You seem to have misunderstood my criticism of that "English documentary" which you, if I am correct, took it as "criticism of English". --Xashaiar (talk) 12:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The point is to discuss proposals for content added to the article. The only person turning this into a forum is you. You have added nothing of value. I have actually found, linked and commented on the docuumentary. The remark about Iranian documentaries and the link was a joke in response to your pointless and silly remarks about English documentaries. If you can't understand that you are wasting everyone's time. Paul B (talk) 12:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Your comment=joke according to yourself, therefore silly. Google search is not "adding value", everybody is supposed to know that.--Xashaiar (talk) 13:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

As a matter of fact the Zoroaster section is availible to be seen here [2]. It says nothing about Zoroaster being a "Hindu Brahmin". It says he was "An Aryan Brahman, or priest". It does present a rather over-simplifed version of Zoroaster, as one might expect, but is reasonably fair. Paul B (talk) 10:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I have also watched the Zoroastrianism section of the documentary. I have two things to say: (1) It presents such basic and oversimplified information that it is unlikely to be a good source. (2) As Paul B points out, it does not in fact say that Zoroaster was a Hindu Brahmin. It says that he was an Aryan Brahmin -- a reasonable inference, considering that the pre-Zoroastrian religion of Iran was probably much like the ancient Vedic religion. Zoroaster was certainly an "Aryan" (i.e. an Indo-European), and he was a priest. I admit that I don't know whether the ancient Iranians called their priests "Brahmins", but the Vedic Indians certainly did.

Anyhoo, I think there's a lesson to be taken away from the overblown argument above: Whenever someone (e.g. an anonymous editor) suggests a source that is readily available for viewing on YouTube, always check the source itself; don't rely on the editor's description of it. That will likely save everyone a lot of confusion.

Sorry, forgot to sign. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 03:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Zarathushtra Help Me

Lord Ahura-Mazda! You people do go nuts, don't you? I was actually inquiring as to whether anyone could refresh my memory on this point of Z. being a Hindu Brahmin. Someone did clarify that as well as clarifying the documentary.

Also, to the point of Brahmanism, it is truly misleading to try to say there are "Aryan" Brahmins and "Hindu" Brahmins. Uhhh... who were the Hindus? Oh! ARYANS!

As to certain people's apparently vicious hatred of documentaries, do you think they are any worse than Wikipedia? What, are you now going to shoot down every line in Wikipedia that has a documentary as its source??

Argue away like fools... I'm not coming here to waste any further time with you who feel drunk with power. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.21.112.123 (talk) 18:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

In regard to the Hindu vs Aryan thing, I don't think that Paul meant to imply that Hindus and Aryans were two different groups. Rather, the point is that the documentary calls Zoroaster only an Aryan, not a Hindu. (There are Aryans who aren't Hindus -- Iranians, for example.)

• Oh, one moment if you please... those of Iran, undoubtedly related and perhaps highly like Aryans, are not technically "Aryans", nor should they be called that. They always should be referenced as Persians, unless you have a more ancient knowledge than anyone else on earth. You will say "Persians descend from Aryans", but we do not know that. For example, we know the Celts and Aryans were aware of their relationship--does that make my Scots neighbor an Aryan too? Therefore it is even less productive to say that someone could have been an Aryan Brahmin, because there is technically no "Brahmin" (Brahmana) outside Hindu-believing India. And what the heck have any of you got against documentaries? I think the support for "The Story of God" shown here is a wonderful thing... and those of you who know the documentary know that it stated very carefully that it was a legend that Zoroaster might have been a Hindu Brahmin looking to reform Hinduism. RevAntonio (talk) 20:07, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The word "Aryan" can be used in several different ways. Celts are "Aryans" if you use the term as a synonym for "Indo-European", as it often was in the early 20th century. If you use it as a synonym for "Indo-Iranian", then they are not "Aryan". It's just a word. There are many other words that have similar ambiguities. The Scots are "British" in that they live in the British isles. However if you use "British" as a synonym of "Brythonic", they are not British. The Bretons are British in one sense, and they are not British but French in another sense. The same fuzziness is true of the use of "Brahmin". The word was being used in the docmentary as the best extant term that would be the culturally appropriate equivalent of "priest", that's all. TV documentatries are popular recyclings of scholarship. Ideally we should use the scholarship itself. Paul B (talk) 12:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I personally have no hatred of documentaries, and I'm not opposed in principle to using The Story of God as a source, if others do not object. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 19:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are getting upset about. As Phatius McBluff says, what we call Hinduism derives from Aryan Vedic culture, but is not identical to it, just as Catholicism is not identical to Christianity. There are non-Hindu Aryan peoples and non-Catholic Christians. As I said, the documentary is OK as far as it goes, but there are better sources to use. Paul B (talk) 16:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

• No one is getting upset. The upset is only in stupidity regarding historical terms and definitions. A substantive point: it is nearly bordering on asinine to quote one person, that there are "Aryans" outside ancient India. If you want to say something not quite as stupid, you could say "Vedic-like", but I wish people could stop saying there were Aryans outside India. Even "Vedic-like" would draw laughs from the serious scientific community. Further, I don't actually see the need to emphasize Hinduism when discussing Zarathushtra. It's not really helpful. It matters little from today's viewpoint whether Zarathushtra was a HINDU Brahmin or not. It's like the way it matters little that the man called Jesus might have been a JEWISH rabbi.75.21.115.37 (talk) 10:36, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what you may have been taught, but it is not at all "asinine" to say there are "Aryans" outside of India - it's verifiable. If you look into it deeply, you will see that the very name of "Iran" is the same word as "Aryan". The term "Aryan" is common in the Avesta as well as in the Vedas, and we've actually known for some considerable time that the "Aryan" languages of Iran and India form a closely-related linguistic family. 70.105.56.73 (talk) 11:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

• All right, firstly, I will apologize for earlier belligerence. I acknowledge the ancient use of Aryana and related forms. What I tried to get across here is that it was suggested Zarathushtra may have been a HINDU Brahmin, that there were no Brahmins, Hindu or otherwise, in Iran (that we know), and that those folk did NOT generaly refer to themselves as Aryanam--the people in India did do.75.21.96.166 (talk) 22:35, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi again. The site avesta.org has all of the surviving Zoroastrian scriptures and writings, and given all the polemic against Brahmanist "idolatry" found in them, I would think it's safe to say that you are right, that Z. was certainly not a "Brahmin". I'm not sure who actually said he was one; it seems more sources think he might have been a "Magi". But look at Darmesteter's notes 24 and 32 to Fargard 1: [3] He quotes the Arabian historian al-Masudi as saying that Kabul and Seistan provinces were "half Indian" and had many Brahmans and Buddhists, who of course were considered heretics in Zoroastrian Iran. 141.152.51.128 (talk) 23:20, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Poor documentation of influences

I must confess that I'm fairly uninformed bout these things, but I understand fairly clearly that Christianity, and hence Islam, are fundamentally based upon two older religions, first Judaism, and second Zorastrianism. Shouldn't the details of this heritage be laid out more clearly? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.122.120.238 (talk) 21:19, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

• A fair answer to this query is that it is impossible to trace roots directly back from Christianity and Islam to the Zarathushtri or to Judaism. I have a big pet peeve: people who like a neat, perfect "Jewish" heritage/pedigree for Christianity. It's like saying Islam descends from Christinaity when you say Christianity descends from Judaism. There is off-shooting, I guess, or perhaps borrowing, but no line of descent. Christianity was not even an offshoot of Judaism: they went well out of the way to emphasize they were not Jews. And just ask a Muslim if he is anything other than a Mohamedan! And these, outside the theoretical, have no link whatsoever that we can find to Zoroastrianism.75.21.115.37 (talk) 10:43, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

• • Actually, it is fair to say that Christianity is a heresy of Judaism and that Islam is a heresy of both Christianity and Judaism. Whether current religious leadership wants to admit these facts or not, Judaism, Christianity and Islam all three borrowed much from Indian Hinduism, as did all the other "pagan" or "multi-theistic" religions. Both Buddha and Zarathustra preached heresies of Hinduism. What all religions have in common is a reliance on the faith of the individual adherents. Faith is a belief in things unseen and un-knowable. Any article about a religion should point this out. No genuinely religious person can argue with this point because it is a fact. -- Brothernight (talk) 07:40, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Query about sources

• Paul B says there are better sources than the "Story of God" documentary and I agree deeply. So what are they and why can they not be included in the entry? I for one would love to hear and read the exact Zarathushtri position about all this.
• RevAntonio (talk) 20:10, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

On Family Names and Terms

Could some knowledgable person please come in and rectify either the spellings or at least insert the correct pronunciations of names? They are like Sanskrit and require guidance for the lay reader. Thanks!ElKeKomeIKanta (talk) 11:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

What was his true name?

I've known for awhile now that Zoroaster is an Anglicized version of the name we render as Zarathustra, and that it comes from the Latinized version of the name. But what is the true name of this prophet rendered in English (in other words the direct Anglicized version from the Avestan name)? Is it really Zarathustra, or is it Zartosht as he is known in Persian? Or is it a third Anglicized version that I have not heard?

Also, since Zarathustra is the name which is still the closer rendering of his true name (even if it isn't the exact Anglicized version), shouldn't that be the name of this article? 71.191.199.74 (talk) 17:21, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:NAME, the most commonly known name should be chosen. As for your other questions, you may want to consult one of the Wikipedia:Reference desks. There's a good chance that they'll be more helpful than this page. Pollinosisss (talk) 04:32, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. 71.191.199.74 (talk) 20:27, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

This is discussed in the article. 'Zoroaster' and 'Zarathustra' are both almost equally familiar in English, but Zoroaster is slightly more established, and the religion is called 'Zoroastrianism', so it preferred. Paul B (talk) 23:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Colloquial Language

There is some peculiar language, awkward grammar, and sentences like "thus Nietzsche found it piquant to have his Zarathustra character..." Thus? Piquant? we may be discussing the 19th century. We shouldn't necessarily talk like we are in it.Tao2911 (talk) 04:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Cannabis usage

I have no background in studies of this, but this edit a couple of days ago introducing the "Use of Cannabis" section seems suspect.

Googling around I get all sorts of contradictory indications.

Can someone familiar with the topic in real life review if the comment and section are accurate at all; if so, we need to at least fix it significantly, as the modern lingo in use is out of place in a history article. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:39, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I am not familiar with the topic, but [4] and [5] back this. Dougweller (talk) 15:45, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

It's only related to some speculations on the meaning of Haoma. If we include it in this page, we should mention it in its own correct context. Alefbe (talk) 23:18, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Date

If no one provides sources for the many dates in the begining i will edit it down to the traditional 6th century ad date. Ishmaelblues (talk) 23:46, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

No you shouldn't. The opening section does not need sources if it summarises content which is sourced in the body of the text. There is a whole section on dating, which is amply sourced. Paul B (talk) 11:21, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Renaming

Suggest renaming to Zarathushtra or the Avestan transliteration.

1. The name Zoroaster, replacing the Avestan/Persian "zar[o]" (meaning "gold" or "golden") with the Greek word "zoro" (meaning "undiluted"), is a cultural substitution rather than a translation. For example, while the name "John" in the west references the original "Yehokanan," in China its similar-sounding substitute "Yuē-hàn" is phonetic substitution. So while the Hebrew original means "Yahweh is gracious", the Chinese means "treaty/covenant + brush/pen." Thus we try to avoid cultural substitutions like these, even if they are Greek in origin.
2. The Greek θ (and its IPA descendant /θ/) give a useful non-digraph representation of a voiceless dental fricative, but it is still not standard English as is the digraph "th."

These arguments are not contradictory. The issue of replacing "θ" with the common digraph is quite different from the issue using exonyms as "standard English," or Greek exonyms based on cultural substitution. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 22:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are arguing here. We use the most common name in English. That's the rule. whether or not it arose from a cultural substitution or anything else is essentially irrelevant. Paul B (talk) 00:58, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Either you don't understand the argument presented, and can't speak one way or another about what's relevant, or you do understand the argument and just don't agree with it. I know that there are conventions here for using "most common terms", but I think you are confusing the issue of terminology with personal names, which have certain different rules (WP:BLP for example has strong anti-exonymic properties).

Its a matter of accuracy and fidelity to the concept, not "rules." The accurate name is the endonym, whereas the English exonym, regardless of its conventional usage (or any convenient "rules" which promote such conventions) has inaccuracies which are destructive and complicating. As Data put once it, "One is my name. The other is not." -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 07:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Your argument is very very easy to understand. It's just irrelevant, as I said. It is really rather absurd to refer to WP:BLP for Zoroaster! And it is a matter of rules. We use the common name. The religion is referred to as Zoroastr'ianism in English. the Encyclopedia Britannica titles its article "Zoroaster" [6]. Just a few seconds ago I heard the head of the British Museum Referring to "Zarathustra, or as he is more widely known, Zoroaster" (listen to the current episode of A History of the World in 100 Objects). Even in this case he only initially refers to the name Zarathustra, because he's just played a bit of Also Sprach Zarathustra. He's referred to as Zoroaster thereafter. We follow norms in English, as in "Confucius", "Mark Antony" and many other examples, including "Jesus", whose name in English bears almost no relationship to what his mum would have called him (and what his mum's called is very different from what he would have called her). There is nothing "destructive" about this at all. It's the norm within academia. Data, btw, is wrong. Despite being an android from the future, he's strangely expressing a very 20th century American obsession with cultural ownership of identity. Historically, spellings and even sounds of names were much more fluid. Paul B (talk) 08:59, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with User:Stevertigo. I do not know if the change "Zoroaster --> Zarathustra" can be made with support of any wiki policy, but since there is no controversy here and the original Avestan name is (in view of Greek Zoroaster) better, nicer, more appropriate, I would support that change of title. But I am happy with with Zoroaster too. Xashaiar (talk) 15:10, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Its not an issue of "policy." Paul B is taking a bit of an adversarial position here for some reason —perhaps because he's invested work into it, or perhaps just because he's an Anglophile. But whatever the reason, he has devoted enough time to responding with a combination of pejoratives ("irrelevant," "absurd") and attempts at citing examples (Confucius, Mark Antony, Jesus), and a convoluted reference to the name "Zoroastrianism" as some kind of binding principle for this article. All of which are quite easy to destroy, and I will do so shortly. Regards, -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 19:35, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

1. PaulB wrote: "Your argument is very very easy to understand. It's just irrelevant, as I said. It is really rather absurd to refer to WP:BLP for Zoroaster!" - The reference to BLP was simply to point out that names have different properties than terms, and are treated differently -SC
2. PaulB wrote: "And it is a matter of rules. We use the common name. The religion is referred to as Zoroastr'ianism in English." - The name of the religion and the name of the person are certainly intertwined, but not inseparable. I would like to see you expand on this argument of yours that 'because the one is a certain way, the other must [naturally] be likewise.' I don't see how, but its at least an interesting point. -SC
3. PaulB wrote: "The Encyclopedia Britannica titles its article "Zoroaster." Just a few seconds ago I heard the head of the British Museum Referring to "Zarathustra, or as he is more widely known, Zoroaster" (listen to the current episode of A History of the World in 100 Objects). [7]. - That's interesting from an Anglophile point of view, and I don't have an opinion one way or another about the British Museum, but we don't generally consider Britannica alone to be a definitive source for substantive topics. Haven't for some time now. ;-⌈ -SC
4. PaulB: "Even in this case he only initially refers to the name Zarathustra, because he's just played a bit of Also Sprach Zarathustra. He's referred to as Zoroaster thereafter." - Interesting. But its relevance is only allegorical and in relation to the recent book by Nietzsche, not actually etymological for the person himself. -SC
5. Paul B wrote: "We follow norms in English, as in "Confucius", "Mark Antony" and many other examples, including "Jesus", whose name in English bears almost no relationship to what his mum would have called him (and what his mum's called is very different from what he would have called her)." - Certainly you are right that the names you list do not sound the same in their English forms as they do in their native forms, or as they sounded in antiquity ([ˈkoŋˈzɨ], [ˈmarˌkus ˌanˈtoːnius], [jɛːʃuːa]). But your point here is entirely incorrect, as all of the names you mention are in fact transliterations from the originals, not cultural substitutions as "Zoroaster" is. Let's take them one by one: 1) "Confucius" is an approximate phonetic transcription of the Chinese "Kǒng zǐ," with the only important difference being the "-us"/"-ius" suffix, which is a nominal convention in Roman names and has philological, not cultural, usage. "子" ("zǐ," "child/son/daughter") in his actual name is itself a common Chinese affix found in names that has arguably neutral semantics (cf. Chinese style name). 2) Mark Antony is directly and clearly descended from "M·ANTONIVS·M·F·M·N" ie. Marcus Antonius Marci Filius Marci Nepos, and the etymologies are directly Western. Note however that the article, while titled with the English transliteration, uses the endonym "Marcus Antonius" first, followed by the explicit notation "known in English as Mark Antony" for the English. If this is a form you like, we can take that into consideration for this article as a compromise. 3) The English name "Jesus" [d͡ʒiːzʌs] or [d͡ʒiːzɘs] does not sound like the Hebrew "Yeshua," [jɛːʃuːa], but the differences are all attributable to natural and not deliberate causes: a) representational differences between alphabets ("י"→"Y"→"IE") b) vowel shift over time ("IE"→"J"[j]→"J"[d͡ʒ]) and c) the addition (again) of the Roman -us/-ius as an affix for a proper name. Again a case where there is no deliberate cultural substitution of semantics going on. So, if you could find better examples to support your point, by all means. -SC
6. PaulB wrote: "There is nothing "destructive" about this at all. It's the norm within academia." - There are many "norms" within "academia." Which "academia" are you talking about? Perhaps you mean distinctly English academia, and not Persian academia? Or perhaps you mean secular academia, and not religious or even Mazdayasna academia. Maybe you just mean "Western academia." In which case you are using "academia" here to simply mean "The West" or "Western culture." By "norm[s]" perhaps you just mean "conventions." -SC
7. PaulB wrote: "Data, btw, is wrong. Despite being an android from the future, he's strangely expressing a very 20th century American obsession with cultural ownership of identity."' - "Despite being an android from the future," Data is nevertheless not wrong about his own name: An individual's name is theirs and no-one elses. And contrary to your argument, the issue of one's name being what it is is not a "cultural ownership of identity" concept but a "personal ownership of personal identity" concept. -SC
8. PaulB wrote: "Historically, spellings and even sounds of names were much more fluid." - I believe you are confusing a linguistic concept of phonemic drift with an idea that people back in the old days could do different things with language than what we do now. If you could clarify, please. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 21:05, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

This long list of points is, once again, largely irrelevant. A lot of text does not make your argument more convincing if most of it is off the point. I understood your point about the difference between transliteration and cultural substitution the first time you made it (hence my reply "whether or not it arose from a cultural substitution or anything else is essentially irrelevant"). So, to repeat, it's irrelevant. And I know perfectly well how Jesus came to be called Jesus. I'm just not interested in parading irrelevant learning. That some ancient Greeks got their onomastics in a twist is an interesting historical fact. It's already briefly addressed in the article. It led to the current situation that Zoroaster is the most commonly used form in English. WP:Common name makes no distinction between legitimate and illegitimate reasons why a version of a name became common. Full stop. Even the version "Zarathusta" is normally used with reference to Nietzsche. The version "Zarathushtra" is very singificantly less common. I disagree with your points about cultural ownership of identity, but to explain why would fill this page with even more pointless and irrelvant verbiage. The fact remains that names differ between languages, and the use of the common name within the language is the rule. Paul B (talk) 21:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

(cutting in) PaulB here is simply restating his three basic claims: 1) that the issue of latter-day cultural substutition of semantics is "irrelevant" and "off the point", 2) that despite the fact that the examples he himself provided don't either substantiate his argument, nor substantiate the claim that he actually understands mine, my argument is still "irrelevant." 3) That "Zoroaster" is "more common" in English, and that "more common" always means proper title. There are thousands of ways in which this is not true, and I mentioned some examples below to Studerby. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 23:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Umm. Article naming choice is always an issue of policy, and the policy (here: -> WP:UCN <-) is: "Articles are normally titled using the most common English-language name of the subject of the article. In determining what this name is, we follow the usage of reliable sources, such as those used as references for the article." I have no idea whether "Zoraster" or "Zarathustra" is more common in the English-language serious historical literature. In the more casual material I'm familiar with, "Zoraster" is very very dominant, with "Zarathustra" almost always referring to the Nitzchean construct, not the historical figure. As PaulB points out, using the English common name is what Wikipedia does for all historical figures, even when that figure, or his peers and culture, used a different name. Other examples where Wikipedia uses an "incorrect" name are Eric the Red (real name "Eiríkr Þorvaldsson"), Mehmed I ("Mehmet" in Ottoman Turkish), Alexander the Great ("Mégas Aléxandros"), Roland ("Hruodland"), Pocohantas ("Matoka", or "Mrs. Rebecca Rolfe"), and on and on and on. The point is that this is Wikipedia policy; the argument for changing the name is not a new argument. Studerby (talk) 22:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I concur with Paul B and Studerby. I understand the issue with wanting to be culturally relative and sensitive, but policy balances that with the desire to be most useful for english language readers. Useful in this sense means easy to find and relevant. We specifically do not rename articles from the most common english language name - whether that be to a more technically accurate but limited usage jargon term, or to a more culturally or linguistically sensitive or accurate translation or transliteration. Those should be included prominently at the top of the article, but we are writing an encyclopedia for general readers, not for specialists in the field. Jargon - be that technical or linguistic - obfuscates rather than enlightens. Policy and our purpose of existence are in harmony here. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Responses to Studerby, George

OK, lets just get these out of the way, so that Studerby can understand the difference here between a latter-day cultural substitution, and all of his examples which (like with PaulB's examples above: Confucius, Mark Antony, Jesus) are simple translations/transliterations:

1. "Erik the Red" is, according to Britannica, a nickname he received during his youth referring to his hair, and the Nordic original may in fact have been similar to the Norse: "."
2. "Mehmed" is a transliteration of the rather common Arab name محمد, (ie. Muhammad (name)), which though in the Ottoman alphabet is romanized to "Mehmet," in Arabic script form has the final letter د (dal [d]) not ﻂ (ti [t]). So "Mehmed" is a perfectly natural transliteration. And considering the phonemic closeness between [d] and [t], as well as the prevalance of the romanization "Muhammad," not to mention the importance of preserving tri-consonantal roots, of which د [d] is the final, all mean that your example here is.. to borrow from PaulB's unfortunate language "[besides the point]."
3. "Alexander the Great" is simply a translation of "Megas" ("[the] great") "Alexandros," with a particle translation of the English affix -er to the Greek "-os." Both standard translations, and again without any semantic substitution.
4. "Roland" is the nominal transliteration of Frankish "Hruodland," from the Germanic hrōd ("fame" + land "land, territory"). Anyone familiar with Germanic to Old English (this was 1300 years ago) phonology will see little issue with spelling differences.
5. "Pocahontas" apparently was her own "childhood nickname" in her own native Powhattan language that meant "little wanton," and which was presented as her actual name "out of a superstitious fear." The only relevant issue here is the substitution made for ostensibly cultural reasons, but again this happened in her own lifetime with her own nickname.

Studerby wrote: "The point is that this is Wikipedia policy; the argument for changing the name is not a new argument." - Again, like PaulB above, you appear to have made a number of claims which are entirely refutable, only to fall back on an argument that Wikipedia policy somehow prohibits using actual endonyms, and allows only for the English exonyms —simply because the are "more common." There are thousands of ways in which this is not actually true, for example the Asian convention to use surnames first alone contradicts your view, or the Spanish-Latin use of matrilineal surnames, to say nothing of the countless Germanic, French and Nordic related articles which use special non-English letterforms and diacritics. Do you see my point, Studerby? -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 23:39, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

1. George Herbert wrote: "I understand the issue with wanting to be culturally relative and sensitive, but policy balances that with the desire to be most useful for English language readers. Useful in this sense means easy to find and relevant." - I appreciate such balances, but you might consider that the issue here is an example of the exception to the rule, where the mitigating issue of using something "common" also means using something that presents itself as not just culturally insensitive, but supportive of an etymological thread that is entirely the original research| of historical Greek historians. The argument for keeping Zoro- ("Undiluted") rather than Zar[a]- ("Golden") is simply an argument for preserving original research that, aside from its Occidental prevalence, perhaps otherwise has only the merit of certain lesser antiquity. -SC
2. GWH: "We specifically do not rename articles from the most common English language name - whether that be to a more technically accurate but limited usage jargon term, or to a more culturally or linguistically sensitive or accurate translation or transliteration." - There are always exceptions to the rules, and I suggest that you consider this one such a case. It could be that the article itself is incorrect in asserting that the zar[a] -> zoro subtitution is entirely based on the phonetics (Persian ɒː has certain similarity to "o"), rather than a semantic substitution. If it is the latter, its Western culturalism. If its the former, then its simply an issue of [zɒːrɒː] being transliterated per Greek conventions. Which, were perfectly academic 3000 years ago. ;-) -SC
3. GWH: "Those should be included prominently at the top of the article, but we are writing an encyclopedia for general readers, not for specialists in the field. Jargon - be that technical or linguistic - obfuscates rather than enlightens. Policy and our purpose of existence are in harmony here." - The issue is not of jargon, but of exonymic distortion of the semantics in a proper name, that otherwise is quite clear in its etymology. And if I may repeat a suggestion I made above, please consider the Mark Antony case as an example of a compromise where the title remains "Zoroaster" but the leading name is, well, his actual name. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 00:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The issue is how easy it is for english-language-natives, with their cultural and educational background, to find the article and clearly understand that they found what they were looking for.

It doesn't matter if the most common usage in english is "wrong" - that's what we use.

The alternate proposal you made, where the actual article lead is Zar- with Zor- below it slightly (which you implemented a bit ago in the article) doesn't make finding the article harder, and shouldn't in any significant manner confuse people as to whether the article they found was what they were looking for (your inclusion of Zor- prominently below it should make that clear). As it doesn't cause problems for either of these goals I see nothing wrong with it, and generally support the new language, though I think that I slightly prefer moving the Zoroaster spelling a bit more prominently to the front (perhaps parenthetically in the first sentence, following the immediate lede).

That was good work. Thanks! Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:57, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Great. Thank you. Yeah, I figured out from the Mark Antony example that the form [English title/ Endonym first] seems to be fair to both points of view here. Though there's sometimes a little bit of a strange feeling when first seeing a different name than the title, its mitigated by treating the English exonym in bold right afterward. I don't personally think "Zo-" is too far down, and humbly suggest that maybe its just that initial strangeness that you are dealing with. If this is a good compromise, and Ive seen a few articles with this form, then its mitigating aspect of appeasing both Anglophile and endonym camps should quickly enough override the strangeness. In any case, I'll look to see if the form you suggest, putting the English form into the onomastic parenthetical, works a little better for you. Regards, -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 06:09, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Baruch Spinoza?

In the Philosophy section, it says that Zoroastrians note the similarities between Zoroaster's philosophy and Spinoza's. This may very well be true, but it should at least be cited, and it should ideally specify the ideas in question. Zoroaster and Spinoza certainly wouldn't have agreed on the issue of free will. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 20:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Zar-, zar[at]-

The article previously read:

"The first half of the name does not otherwise appear in Avestan, which makes it necessary to seek a meaning in the etymology of the name."

While the second half of the sentence appears to be superfluous writing, the first part I took as accurate, and after some refactoring, the same passage is part of a different section which integrates the two:

"While the first half of the name "zarat-" is strongly referenced to mean "golden," (cf. meanings) from the old Eastern-Iranian (and Modern Persian) "zar-" (-زر), it does not itself appear in Avestan."

The issue here now is that the phrase "[zarat-] does not itself appear in Avestan" does not appear to be true, or is else referencing zarat- in its exact form explicitly to the exclusion of related zar- based words, which, as online Avestan dictionaries plainly show, are straightforward. For example zairi- (golden/yellow), zairitem (golden/green), zaranaênem (golden, of gold).[8][9]. So it seems to be a case where the emphasis of "does not itself appear" is strongly typed, to the point of being plainly innacurate. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 21:04, 3 June 2010 (UTC) no:Eirik Raude

Muslim attitudes at the time of conquest of Iran

the section of Muslim view of Zoroaster and his religion is silent on an essential point - for the Muslim rulers of Iran the divine inspiration or lack of it in the local religion was not just an issue of speculative theology. Rather, it was a question of whether to classify Iranians as "pagans" who had to be converted or killed or else let them live as "ahl al kitab". Apparently the first course of action was, at the time, not feasible, which is why they were so quick at figuring out that Zoroaster was in fact a prophet of God. 76.24.104.52 (talk) 22:36, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Nora Elisabeth Mary Boyce (August 2, 1920(1920-08-02) – April 4, 2006)

Mary Boyce's scholarship was highly respected, gaining her an international reputation and fellowship at numerous academic societies and institutions. Her speciality remained the religions of speakers of Eastern Iranian languages, in particular Manichaenism and Zoroastrianism. --McYel (talk) 21:17, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Date of Birth in Iranian tradition and today

In the first second paragraph it written "...and Iranian tradition places him at about 570 BC", it is not true. Zoroastrians OFFICIALLY (at least in Iran) believe that the prophet was born 3748 years ago (~1738 BC), on 6th day of month Farvardin. So this part of the article is wrong. I will remove it. If you want to change it back to 570 BC, please give a reference this time. 115.133.209.99 (talk) 20:22, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Lede changes

Warrior4321's changes (diff) add some phrasing to the lede, but detract from the article IMHO. He claims that 'if its sourced, it can go in,' but he appears unfamiliar with the issue of WP:UNDUE weight. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 18:10, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

A lead summarizes the entire article, not two sections (date and etymology). That's what I'm trying to begin to do, but you keep stopping me. warrior4321 18:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

A good lede for a concept article often does summarize the entire concept. But a good lede for an object article such as this one often simply cannot get into every detail. We have to decide what is or is not essential, according to WP:WEIGHT. I know what WP:LEDE says, I helped write it.

Zaro's birth just isn't all that interesting to note in the first few sentences, and in fact little of anyone's notability, is attributable to the circumstances surrounding their birth. For a quasi-mythical figure like Zaro, where information about their human lives is surrounded in a religious mythos, notes about their lives in general are not essential either. Ultimately people like Zaro, Jesus etc. are more symbolic than human, and that's the way their articles have to be treated.

BTW, I restored your work to the "life" section which I reverted by accident. It looks like you have an eye for integrating things and I appreciate that. Regards, -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 18:59, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

images from greatestbattles.iblogger.org

iblogger.org is on the blacklist[10] so images from it should not be used. See also the whitelist discussion|[11]

Graeme374 (talk) 04:04, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

If you wish to get the image deleted, by all means attempt to do so, but the site has no relevance to the value of the image itself which is a Mughal miniature, long out of copyright. Paul B (talk) 21:01, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

It may be a modern reproduction. There are plenty at http://www.exoticindiaart.com/search.php3?pagecount=1&searchmodifier=allwords&limitfields=all&subcatsearch=all&materialsearch=all&minprice=0&maxprice=1000000&archives=0&searchsorttype=testcode%7Cdesc&searchval=mughal&table=paintings&search_submit=Search

Where is the citation for this in the article? Challenged and removed.

06:31, 5 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graeme374 (talk • contribs)

I've no idea what you mean by an "uncited image", or indeed a "modern reproduction." Of course it's a reproduction. There is a detailed description on the image page. You are being disruptive. Paul B (talk) 09:22, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Zoroaster was only kurdish

Zoroaster was only kurdish pls edit it ,thx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.224.187.243 (talk) 07:34, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

No, because there is no historical reason to make such an assertion. Paul B (talk) 15:12, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Commented-out undocumented paragraph

I commented-out a paragraph at the beginning of the "In other religious systems" section, thus:

"Zorastrians do not believe in Abrahamic religions. They do believe that Abrahamic prophets where Ahrimani (Satanic). They also believe the followers of the main three Abrahamic religions (Christianity, Islam, Judaism) are followers of Ahriman (Satan). Zorastrians keep themselves away from followers of other religions in order to avoid devil's spirit. (based on an interview with Mr. Abramian, a zorastrian scholar, 2003)"

Aside from the fact that this writer uses a spelling of the name that is inconsistent with the rest of the article (and looks like a typing error), it cites no sources. rowley (talk) 22:37, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Usha was a vedic godess, the dawn godess, I therefore interpret Zarathustra to mean 'Zara'=golden, 'us' shine, 'ustra'

= shining star, thus we have "Golden shining dawn star" i.e. Venus and note that the syllable 'us' ocurrs again. The meaning is synomous with the meaning of the surname 'Reddi' i.e. 'Re' a reference to a solar deity and the syllable 'di' is a reference to 'day'. 'Re' thus became 'Redo' a latin verb meaning 'I return', the literal meaning was 'I return the day' hence the dawn. The origins I assume are Indo-Iranian since the ancient name for Tehran was 'Ray'. Reddi is an Indian upper caste name and the people of that name are of Dravidian origin so I must assume that there was some trade and communication between the Iranian plateau and the Dravidian occupied regions of South India. The name was originally accorded to a headman or community leader but later became a caste name and in turn a family name.86.164.41.251 (talk) 06:41, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

 It must also be mentioned that the Reddis are a Vishnaivite caste, Vishnu being a solar deity as well, he brings light

for the dawn with his first step, the noon with the second and dusk with his third step hence the tilaka on the forehead represents his step in the form of a 'U' shape as in 'Usha' the vedic dawn godess, Indians are fond of metaphysical conceits of such a nature. Vishnu is also represented by a fire altar, the Yagna-Kunda, which in turn brings us back to Zoroastrianism and the fire temples of the Iranian plateau. They came from the east where the sun rises.86.151.51.18 (talk) 21:33, 8 March 2012 (UTC)