|↓||Skip to table of contents||↓|
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Zoroastrianism article.|
|Zoroastrianism was one of the Philosophy and religion good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.|
|Zoroastrianism has been listed as a level-4 vital article in Philosophy. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as C-Class.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|This article has an assessment summary page.|
|Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.5 / Vital|
|Threads older than 90 days may be archived by.|
NOT A FORUM...I think it says at the top...
Interestingly, just today I noticed THAT very phrase at the tope of this talk page. I suppose it's on EVERY article's talk page. But it's a good reminder. Stop the forum! (Would you all?) Nonetheless, I suggest it is disingenuous to assume that one religion influenced the three major religions. In any case, it would be wiser to edit it to say that there "are," "seem to be," or "it has been noticed that there are" "SHARED TRAITS" between this and the three major religions of the world. All the forum discussions don't seem to help much. A lot of bickering between what one source or other mentions, and what is interpreted to mean by each source, etc. Again: The shorter and best way to solve this would be to mention that there are or seem to be common or shared traits between the religions. That seems to be indisputable (as opposed to the other options). -Capikiw (talk) 04:10, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
- @Zyma:: No idea what the "fin" in the tag section was about. But: Wouldn't it be more neutral to leave the article as I proposed (and changed)?
- This certainly has to be some sort of "forum" if attempts at neutrality are reverted without discussion :P :(
- -Capikiw (talk) 08:04, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
- I have no idea what you mean by "disingenuous". It's just standard scholarship, an argument dating back beyond Nietzsche. As for 'shared traits', that's simply not what scholarship says. Judaism evolved over time, and of course the other two faith clearly follow from that evolution. Paul B (talk) 17:28, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Article needs to become semi protected
No discussion of Zoroastrianism's influence on Exilic and post Exilic Judaism? That is absolutely unacceptable, especially when couched with diplomatic language like "most scholars agree that ... while a very small minority of scholars, often affiliated with rival religions, dispute this..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:1800:6D:E175:9D4C:4363:D2D2 (talk) 03:13, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
This article is full of lies.
For example, this article states that Zoroastrianism has its origins in the Persian empire. That is complete and utter bullshit.
Look at the enclosed image. You see the symbol engraved on that wall? That's Faravahar, the best known symbol of Zoroastranism.
Guess where this symbol is placed? On the TOMB OF CYAXARES THE GREAT IN KURDISTAN, THE MEDIAN KING.
Guess what? The Median Empire is aprox. 200 years older than the Persian Empire, which means that Zoroastranism was established HUNDREDS OF YEARS before there was even a Persian Empire. The Achaemenid Empire was not even Persian by the way, it was Medo-Persian, Cyrus' mother was a Mede, his grandfather was the Emperor of the Median Empire, and he came to power via a Median general, Hapargus. Herodotus & old documents confirm that the Achamenid Empire was more Median, than it was Persian. This Persian crap is something that started the last 2 centuries via Persian nationalism, it's incorrect historically.
So please change it to origins in Median Empire. You can not possibly deny this, it was used by Median Kings, in Media. The guts some people have...
Link: Faravahar on Cyaxares the Great's tomb. Cyaxares the Great was the third & most competent king of the Median Empire. His tomb is located in Slemani, Kurdistan.
- New sections go at the bottom. We do not use original research. Please cite non-primary mainstream academic sources for your changes. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:28, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
- A number of sources you cited fail our reliable sourcing guidelines:
- Heritage institute is a business site that includes some layman material -- not an academic site.
- John A. Hardon's Religions of the World may be a reliable source, but Therealpresence.org would be better for defining Catholic perspectives on subjects.
- New World Encyclopedia is just a rip-off of Wikipedia sponsored by the Unification Church. Wikipedia does not meet its own reliable sourcing guidelines, and so a rip-off that is intentionally and openly religiously biased fails it as well.
- Avesta.org is a good website for personal study, but Joseph Peterson is not an accredited or noted authority on Zoroastrianism. The reliable sources on the site would include Dhalla's History of Zoroastrianism, Drower's Peacock Angel, and maybe Taqizadeh's Old Iranian Calendars. The rest of the materials on that site are either primary sources, or personal research by individuals who are not accredited, peer-reviewed, or noted academic authorities on Zoroastrianism.
- Lack of reliable sourcing is an adequate enough objection to revert edits on this site. Google books is a better place to search for information than a general web search -- just be sure to avoid self-published or pay-to-print publishers like lulu.com. Encyclopedia Iranica is generally a good source. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:16, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Hows this as a source http://www.iranchamber.com/religions/articles/secrets_of_zoroastrianism.php
The "Overview" section is (or was) essentially a less accurate and articulate variation on the introduction, putting Spenta Mainyu and Angra Mainyu in the introduction and Druj and Asha in the Overview, a very odd division. I'd like to, and have merged the Overview with the introduction; they both discuss cosmology and Zoroastrianism being incorporated as a national religion, for unnecessary redundancy, and I don't think it makes the introduction too much longer. And turned part discussing census taking into a note.FourLights (talk) 18:17, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Zoroastrianism and the Kurds
I'm not an expert on Zoroastrianism, so I thought I'd start on the talk page with this question: ought Zoroastrianism among the Kurds get mentioned in this article? There's this article  and this one , as well as the relationship of the Yazidi religion to Zoroastrianism. Tom Radulovich (talk) 16:46, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
I think you're thinking of Yazdanism. I'll add a mention in the introduction. I think it's fitting to add comparative section, but I don't know at the moment where it ought to go. If someone starts a section I'll try and help edit it.FourLights (talk) 17:32, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
A shame that this article is almost entirely about metaphysics and history. There needs to be much more about practice (tell us about how Z's worship, what moral rules they follow, how the faith is passed on, what different schools there are, practice in the disposal of the dead, how many accept the possibility of conversion). And the numbers look dodgy: can we have some sources for these? Diomedea Exulans (talk) 16:00, 16 July 2015 (UTC)