Talk : Zoroastrianism/Archive 9

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Zoroaster carried out a “reform” of Iranian polytheism, asking his followers to change their ways and beliefs but not to throw away all they had. Consequently, lesser divine beings or “gods” and many old rituals remained, to the dismay of modern European Christian scholars who were looking for a “pure” monotheism."
"Accordingly, Varuna (known in the Avesta only by its byname Apam Napat, “Son of the Waters”) and Mithra became associated with these elements and became gods of the waters and of fire (and of the greatest of all fires, the sun) respectively, and received the exalted title of ahura (lord). By logical extension, Mithra became further worshiped as a war god, fighting on behalf of the righteous, and as god of justice itself; and since it was believed that a just moral order brought prosperity to a realm, he was also invoked as bringer of rain and good crops and protector of rich pastures, i.e. a god of material plenty."
"Other amoral, warlike divinities were associated with Indra, and would be collectively designated as daevas and rejected under Zoroastrianism. We will see how important this contrast was for Zoroaster’s reforms. A key feature of this pantheon is common to the Vedic and Greek pantheons: through processes of logical association, personification of abstractions, and myth-making, most gods came to be seen as wielding broad powers affecting multiple, apparently distant areas, so each god could and would be petitioned for very diverse benefits."
"The Zoroastrian pantheon, by contrast, is asymmetric"
"the six divine beings of Zoroaster’s visions, forming a heptad with the Lord Wisdom himself. This evocation is described in Zoroastrian works in ways that suggest the essential unity of beneficent deity; in one text Ahura Mazda’s creation of them is likened to the lighting of torches from a torch (Boyce, 1979, 21). In turn, these six proceeded to evoke other divinities who are nothing but the beneficent gods of the old pantheon, including in particular the other two ahuras, Mithra and Apam Napat; these are collectively known as yazatas (beings worthy of worship)."
"The Avesta—the corpus of Zoroastrian holy scriptures—was transmitted orally by rote memorization in the priesthood for millennia before it was committed to writing in the Sasanian period (probably as late as the 6th century CE)."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I see nothing wrong with the source. Maybe there is a misunderstanding. This happens sometimes when you deal with too many vandalisms daily, so you errorneously mistake a reliable source for a bad one and get too focused on that issue to not see that you made a mistake. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 13:22, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Wiki-voice

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

this is the text based on Ferrero's article:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please wait and give other editors a chance to weigh in

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

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

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

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

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

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

Call for civility

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

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

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

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

Too much hanging up on words

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

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

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

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

between pantheism and monotheism rather than allowing for clear categorization

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

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

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

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

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

the general consensus is that Zoroastrianism is a Monotheistic religion"

Britannica:

"Zoroastrianism is one of the world’s oldest monotheistic religions, having originated in ancient Persia. It contains both monotheistic and dualistic elements, and many scholars believe Zoroastrianism influenced the belief systems of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam." Researcher1988 (talk) 14:05, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

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

Yes, I did this in the paragraph above.

the general consensus is that Zoroastrianism is a Monotheistic religion"

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

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

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

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

Boyd, James W., and A. Donald. (1979) is rather an essay than using scientific labels for research purpose. claims such as "Zoroastrianism proclaims a movement through time from dualism toward monotheism, i.e., a dualism which is being made false by the dynamics of time, and a monotheism which is being made true by those same dynamics of time. The meaning of the eschaton in Zoroastrianism is thus the triumph of monotheism, the good God Ahura Mazdä having at last won his way through to complete and final ascendancy. " are worthless from an academic perspective, since it is an intra-religious analysis not an extra-religious one. What happens within the religion is up for the believers to decide and not the matters of an encyclopedia.

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

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

According to Britannica:

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

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

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

@Remsense

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

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

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

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

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

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

Religious dualism is just another form of Monotheism.

correct.

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

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

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

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

Shernaz Cama on Zoroastrian Monotheism and the dualism problem:

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

Dorothea Luddeckens:

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

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

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

1-George foot moore:

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

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

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

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

"In brief, the interpretation we favor is that Zoroastrianism combines cosmogonic dualism and eschatological monotheism in a manner unique to itself among the major religions of the world. This combination results in a religious outlook which cannot be categorized as either straightforward dualism or straightforward monotheism, meaning that the question in the title of this paper poses a false dichotomy. The dichotomy arises, we contend, from a failure to take seriously enough the central role played by time in Zoroastrian theology. Zoroastrianism proclaims a movement through time from dualism toward monotheism, i.e., a dualism which is being made false by the dynamics of time, and a monotheism which is being made true by those same dynamics of time. The meaning of the eschaton in Zoroastrianism is thus the triumph of monotheism, the good God Ahura Mazdä having at last won his way through to complete and final ascendancy. But in the meantime there is vital truth to dualism, the neglect of which can only lead to a distortion of the religion's essential teachings. We develop this interpretation in the last part of our paper and argue for its satisfaction of the four criteria." Researcher1988 (talk) 06:03, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

For Zoroastrians, Ahura Mazda is the only one God

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

Division and evil only appeared because of the hostile Spirit Ahriman

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

religious Dualism is another variant of Monotheism.

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

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

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

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

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

hence it should be "Monotheistic"

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

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

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

There is another source which discusses the dualism problem:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

this edit:

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

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

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

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

Adding a section on gods of Zoroastrianism

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

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

In Zoroastrianism there is only one god, Ahura Mazda.

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

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

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

@Simonm223 Thank you! :)

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

1- Zoroastrianism has only one god, Ahura Mazda.

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

2-Yazatas are not gods.

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

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

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

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

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