Talk:Zoroaster/Archive 3

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" . 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 &mdash;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). . - 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: 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 &mdash;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) "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.


 * 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)


 * Ehm, Ive always known/read his name as Zarathustra, first time i seen "Zoroaster" being used,

altough im not native english speaker so i cant say for sure, but at most places (public, generally less academic) an overwhelming majority seem to use Zarathustra.

as an example, here's a google search on: Zarathustra =  5 450 000 result Zoroaster = 2 480 000 result

I know, it's just a google search, but still interesting i think regarding the discussion above. --148.136.141.173 (talk) 14:52, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Zoroastrianism and Christianity
Did Zoroastrianism influence Judaism and Christianity? When was Zoroaster born? Is the time of his birth consistent with him having influenced the Abrahamic faiths? Christians like to claim that the opposite is true -- that the Jews, in fact, influenced Zoroastrianism. So which could it be? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.161.252.56 (talk) 00:47, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps neither! 75.73.114.111 (talk) 01:16, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Origin
Since all 'prophets'-did they claim this?:)- had been assassinated and their true message had been diverted by the rulers of their time for more power to the rulers own mind, most probably what is known about him today is just another edition from the rulers. The question is how many editions achieved about him till now and how it can be possible to get true identity of his message from this very complicated encryption. Just as a point of view, it looks to me it can be something about the nature of phenomena of day and night. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.130.12.219 (talk) 05:22, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Zoroaster means Morning Star
Avestan was more related to Jasz-Sarmatian-Alanic-Scythian then to modern Iranian. Extend of Eastern Iranian languages dominion was possibly more to the West then the territory of Ukraine. At some period on history Proto-Slavs have been much influenced by Sarmatians. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernyakhov_culture Then the migration of Central European Slavs into the territory of modern Kiev has led to the assimilation of remaining Eastern-Iranics Scytho-Sarmatians and their words into Slavic. Modern Slavic languages have around 40 percent of their ethymology ,related to those Eastern-Iranic languages mentioned above. Baltic languages have emerged earlier then Slavic ,but have linquistic relation. This is why I have been reading the sections about possible Latvian - Slavic with real interest. I can conclude that I have been given the matter of Zoroaster name etymology some attention. This topic is obviously solved. Slavic has existing word Zara (Rus) / Zora (Ukr) simple translation - 'morning dawn'. https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%97%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%8F To be more precise the word describes the reddish glow of the morning there was a Goddess Zorya https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zorya

Both Slavic and Baltic have words for morning or sunrise as Utro /Austra in Russian morning means Utro in Baltic Austra ( ustra - sunrise ). It is not the first known case when ancient Indo-Iranic ethymology relation to Slavic: The word  Buddha goes almost unchanged in Slavic будить(BUDIT) - wake, wake up, awaken, awake, rouse, arouse and Lithuanian  išbudinti - wake, awake, awaken (iš  is a prefix here not the root ,which is budinti). One more obvious thing to point out is that Aster-means star in Greek. It is related to Germanic, for example Swedish - Stjerna etc. It is a good example that ancient Indo-Iranic is better understood with the use of related IE languages, like Slavic, Baltic, Greek then with the use of loan words from Semitic and later Turkic. Edelward (talk) 05:36, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Is this a correct sentence?
"His English name, "Zoroaster", and the derivatives from a later (5th century BC) Greek transcription, Zōroastrēs (Ζωροάστρης),[2] as used in Xanthus'sLydiaca (Fragment 32) and in Plato's First Alcibiades (122a1)."

I'm not a native english speaker, so I may be wrong, but to my eyes this sentence from the Zoroaster article is not complete. To me it is incomprehensible. Could anyone please clarify this? Kind regards, Bertux (talk) 21:43, 4 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't know where "and the derivatives" came from. Just changing to "derives from" makes sense of it. Paul B (talk) 09:00, 25 February 2014 (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)

Ridiculous, utterly ridiculous. Neither Buddha nor Zarathustra preached heresies of Hinduism. That is an entirely idiotic statement.

The section changed was done because it's false. Page 405 of the Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy does NOT say what was claimed. In fact, at only 408 pages long, page 405 is at the very end of the book and states nothing about Zoroaster or Heraclitus, at all, in any way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.25.131.219 (talk) 13:37, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Zoroaster birth date 5000BC?
A new editor keeps changing the year of Zoroaster's birth to 5000BC. I'm aware that around 500BC would be a reasonable enough assertion, but 5000BC isn't remotely credible. PhilKnight (talk) 18:51, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * PhilKnight It is 1000 BCE to 600 BCE, I think he was born in Afghanistan or Pakistan or Gujarat, but background was pantheistic. Bladesmulti (talk) 11:20, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree. The point being that 5000 BC isn't remotely credible. PhilKnight (talk) 11:58, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * That's the date Plutarch gave - I don't think any academics think that is anywhere near credible. The footnotes (as opposed to the references) also discuss the dating. The infobox could say "uncertain" and give a probably range. Note that the Iranica ref says no later than 1000 BCE for some reason. The issue about the Gathas is interesting - the editor wrote ", due to the fact that the Ganthas were primarily a verbal gospel passed down by oral transmission and have only more recently been transcribed into text, i.e., Khordeh Avesta". But that isn't what Gathas says. The earlier dates come from, I think, assuming Zoroaster wrote them and wrote them in Old Avestan. Dougweller (talk) 16:04, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * See and other pages. Dougweller (talk) 16:07, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Zoroaster was not persian
constant disruptive editing by somebody with a nationalist agenda stating that zoroaster was persian which is completely incorrect as zoroaster did not live anywhere near fars/pars at the time and the fact that persians had not settled out of pars/fars during the period in which zoroaster lived
 * Where is Persian-ness claim on this article? Not lead section, not categories, then where? He categorized as Iranic not Persian. --Zyma (talk) 17:07, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

User Pahlavan Qahramani is linking him to persians https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zoroaster&type=revision&diff=662959262&oldid=662958922

When in reality persians did not even exist outside of fars/pars, avesta does not even mention persians, medes or even parthians. Zoroaster was definitely an iranic but a persian he was not.
 * His edit was wrong (used another wiki article as source). I've reverted it. He should use reliable sources. Both of you read my edit summary and don't start edit warring. Discuss on talk page or call an admin/third opinion. --Zyma (talk) 17:30, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

It seems he's still reverting.

Comment: I have fully protected the article for 24 hours in the hopes that none of you wind up getting blocked for edit warring. See if you can use that 24 hours to work something out. --MelanieN (talk) 01:42, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Both of us are willing to discuss, pahlavan qahremani is not however. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scytsari (talk • contribs) 02:08, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Do not add irrelevant languages to the lead section
Only Avestan, Greek and Persian names have common usage in English sources, referenced texts, and they are relevant to this article. This is not a dictionary to represent and spell his name in other languages, such edits are suitable for Wiktionary (Zoroaster at Wiktionary). Avoid edits like these diff1, diff2, diff3. If you want to add his name in other languages, it needs to be discussed on talk page, and you should provide your rationale. Regards. --Zyma (talk) 14:47, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Influence on Christianity
There needs to be a section on his influence on the development of Judea-Christian religions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:882:100:D7B0:EDA7:6F88:406F:D32C (talk) 17:44, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Avestan script
I mentioned this on another article, but I'll mention it here, too, as I've encountered the same problem. Where can I find True Type files that will render Avestan script properly? I download a group of fonts from St. Catherine's, but those have not helped.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 15:15, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Zoroaster. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://christopherbuck.com/Buck_PDFs/Buck_Zoroastrian_1998.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 06:50, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Haoma
In the life section it says 'He opposed the use of the hallucinogenic Haoma...'. Yet on the Haoma article it says it is used in Zoroastrian rituals. Is this a contradiction, if not why not? Jonpatterns (talk) 12:46, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

In fact, in this age of developed understanding of Indo European poetry and riddles and thoughts, we need to really introspect ourselves whether we should purposely deny the Rigvedic metaphors. The Rigvedic soma except in some of stanzas of ninth mandala could be equally symbolised, and a tenth mandala verse does talk explicitly about soma symbolism. It should be that soma cult was a BMAC product in late Rigvedic / Iranian culture, an intrusion which the spiritual bards did not want to accept. Similar kind of aversion is seen to horse sacrifice in Rigveda, where unlike common (mis)interpretations, the poet actually uses pun words till the end that mock the ritual and concludes it by explicitly stating that horse does not die and has easier paths left to travel. Moreover, the horse is yoked to the pole with his old companions. (RV 1.162 last lines) The poet also ends the poem with a very sarcastic prayer that let the infinite forgive the sins. The subsequent poem symbolises the horse and equates it to sun (RV 1.163). The reason why I told is that both Rigvedic and Avestan periods had much tribes and clashes among them. The poets and wise preferred spirituality (in RV 7.103, the Brahmins who mutter without knowing things are mocked as frogs and heavy satire like the Ashvamedha RV 1.162 is written) over ritualism, the commons still interpreted the words in such a way that they could continue with the ritual religion. (This is seen in Avestans and later Vedic India, where Brahmanic school of (mis)interpretation started) Kiron Krishnan (talk) 17:31, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Zoroaster. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090210035120/http://www.compassionatespirit.com:80/Homilies/Book-9.htm to http://www.compassionatespirit.com/Homilies/Book-9.htm
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140111062530/http://rockefeller.uchicago.edu:80/architecture/exterior.shtml to http://rockefeller.uchicago.edu/architecture/exterior.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:55, 21 July 2016 (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

'''Zoroaster was Central Asian Aryan. Zar gold in Avestan, Ustra Camel in Avestan, Zar yellow in Rigvedic Sanskrit Ustra Camel in Rigvedic Sanskrit.'''  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.101.228 (talk) 18:21, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

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?

There is a section of debate that "Jarutha" in Rigveda 7th Mandala being a rival of VasishTha, does represent the "JaruthoSTra" or Zarathustra. In such a case, even if the name comes to be Zarota, there is no need to look for a Semitic derivation - the name still remains clearly Indo European. Kiron Krishnan (talk) 17:38, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Article contradicts itself on the date
"he is dated by scholars as a contemporary or near-contemporary of Cyrus the Great" in the lead appears to contradict "Scholars generally place Zarathushtra as having lived in north-east Iran or northern Afghanistan some time between 1700 and 1300 BC" in the body. Can someone verify what the sources say? If they both say what our article attributes to them, one must be either outdated or wrong. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 22:23, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * There is no general consensus on the date, some scholars consider earlier while others later date, and both should be in the lead. Recently the article was edited, and probably thus the change. Someone should do a research on both Zoroaster and Zoroastrianism as they are an important topic, there several statments without reference, however, it should be noted that some Christian or Judaist teologist sources tend to have a bias toward Zoroastrianism, and often show ideological constructions which diminish the origin, reality and influence of the religion in comparison to the Abrahamic religions, see for example Talk:Zoroastrianism where is also mentioned Zoroaster.--Crovata (talk) 22:34, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Since have substantial knowledge and several sources at hand will edit the article.--Crovata (talk) 22:55, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Abrahamic religions
Yes the statement "Zoroaster's teaching about individual judgment, Heaven and Hell, resurrection of the body, Last Judgment, and everlasting life for the reunited soul and body, among others became borrowings in the Abrahamic religions ..." has a source, but nonetheless it is widely discredited. The quoted statement standing by itself as fact lessens the value of the article. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 18:51, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * ok, but does "nonetheless it is widely discredited" have sources? you could add them, and then I could decide whether to believe them. 68.175.11.48 (talk) 22:09, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Zoroaster. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170101063545/http://www.masseiana.org/pliny.htm to http://www.masseiana.org/pliny.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:18, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Dating (again)
So, what do the sources say on the dating of Zoroaster?


 * 2nd millennium BCE (User:Miki Filigranski diff):


 * c. 1200 BCE - 900 BCE (User:EdwardElric2016 diff):
 * , pp. 4–8
 * , pp. 25–35

Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   16:55, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I see no reason to not have reliably sourced dates. Do you have any policy based reasons for not including? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:16, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Read the related section. There is no definite and widely accepted dating nor place of birth and death. This dating does not have an advantage over 1700–1000 BCE, 1500-1000 BCE, 1200–1000 BCE, or even 7th and 6th century BCE, nor it can be placed an ambiguous territory location such as Airyanem Vaejah in the infobox. No scholar, no reliable source, can be cited for a claim when and where Zoroaster was born/died because it is in the domain of scholarship dispute, while only "reliable" dating according to scholars who studied the topic and religion is somewhere in the 2nd millennium BCE.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 16:45, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Then we can put something like that, but we have no policy based reason to abandon mention. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:10, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * What it means "something like that"? We already have "2nd millennium BCE". Should we add references (including those above and related section) with quotes of various approximate dates supporting this claim? As for policy we have WP:NPOV. Also, we are talking about your edit which was reverted by me, join the discussion and stop reverting to your revision.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 19:20, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

There must be better sources than the BBC, right? But 2nd millennium BCE, or "ca. 1500-500" BCE seems better than 1200-900 BCE. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   21:19, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok, let's look at:
 * "West Litchfield Martin (2010), The Hymns of Zoroaster: A New Translation of the Most Ancient Sacred Texts of Iran, I.B.Tauris, ISBN 978-0-85773-156-2 page 4-8 . It doesn't give a date at all.
 * The abstract notes "before 1000 B.C."
 * Mary Boyce (Iranist): dates to 1700 BCE to 1300 BCE
 * Prods Oktor Skjærvø (Iranist): 1700 to 1200 BCE p. xvii
 * BBC: 1200-1500 BCE
 * All of these are based on either just linguistic or linguistic and archaeological evidence. Linguistic refers to Old Avestan and archeological to the "Yaz culture." Thus, we can probably have two datings: "1000 to 1700 BCE" or the generalization "second millennium BCE"
 * --Newaccount31 (talk) 16:47, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Think that not all sources cited in the article are listed here.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 23:31, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

"Old" vs "well-established"
Originally, the article noted "Zoroastrianism was already an old religion when first recorded." It was changed to "Zoroastrianism was already well-established when first recorded." The term "well-established" may mean that it had a significant number of followers, while "old" just means that it was established a considerable time before. I think it is better to say it was an old religion and not that it was well-established before adoption by the Achaemenids. Newaccount31 (talk) 01:35, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Whatever the relevant source states, as those are two very different statements. —DIYeditor (talk) 02:41, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Bad edits from IP
This appeared to me to be a bad edit but I am not familiar with Zoroaster. and were both involved as well. Is there any part of the edit that should be restored? Is this POV pushing and OR as it seems? —DIYeditor (talk) 06:29, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't know enough to be able to comment on all the content in this edit, but the text about the Indian connection was pure batshit craziness, and the IP appears likelely to be the same person as this LTA sock. – Uanfala (talk) 10:57, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Connection with Magic Flute's Sarastro
I was looking to this video, where the specialist Jason Reza Jorjani connects Zoroaster with Sarastro, the high priest of Mozart's  The Magic Flute. Anyone else knows more about this? – JoseEduardoTR (talk) 23:59, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Its a myth.
Sorry about bad english.Its time to confess its a myth.There is no trustworthy sources that person like this exist.Its a product of Free Masonry myth and philosophy.It should be a old god but thats all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:1028:83B4:A662:1040:3A17:C50E:D21F (talk) 19:32, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Even though is not well documented, we know Zoroaster teached "about individual judgment, Heaven and Hell, the resurrection of the body, the Last Judgment, and everlasting life for the reunited soul and body, among other things", which has being pointed out later by other important individuals. It surely might be a myth, but your confession have to be stronger than this. – JoseEduardoTR (talk) 00:03, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Iran vs. Greater Iran vs. Eastern Greater Iran
The article repeatedly uses the term "Eastern Iran" when it's really trying to say "Eastern Greater Iran", the areas that are now Afghanistan, Pakistani Balochistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa as well as southern Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan, and all of Tajikistan. This to a non-academic makes it sound like the area being discussed when the the term "Iran" is being used is the modern Islamic Republic of Iran. Even "Western Iran" is a misnomer because you are leaving out Turkish, Iraqi and Syrian Kurdistans and the Republic of Azerbaijan. Can we please use "Greater Iran", which is a more politically neutral and historically and geographically accurate, than Iran all throughout? 168.150.42.52 (talk) 17:09, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Born in Kashmir
Besides the fact that this completely wrong and no historian ever suggested something like that the link which states he was born in Kashmir is from a Hindu nationalistic site. It should be reverted/removed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xerxes931 (talk • contribs) 18:12, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Great site; nice collection of fringe theories. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  18:58, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

West Used Wrongly
I have a copy of West's book, and words like "Last Judgment" and other terms do not show up. This is a bit of original research with a fake author attached. 2600:1003:B0AD:8894:5CF4:7B45:55D8:705E (talk) 17:15, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Zoroaster is Fundamentally a Humanist
Zoroaster is fundamentally a humanist. What does "good deeds" mean to you?

Good thoughts, good words, and good deeds are central to Zoroastrianism.

Zoroaster was a humanist. He is parallel/analogous to the Buddha. The Buddha is a: secular philosopher, mystic, mythical- and/or semi-mythical- figure, religious figure; etc., et al., etc., etc. Addendum: Avestan even overlaps with Sanskrit.

Tautology (logic): Consider if the practice of "good thoughts" are a form of logic.

Best Wishes,

184.22.248.42 (talk) 03:34, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

There should be a "historicity" section
In the Wikipedia page about Moses, there is a section where they say that according to modern scholarly consensus, he probably doesn't exist. There should be one here too. In my opinion, Zoraster probably is a mythical figure. I mean, how could he exist during both 6000BC and also during 1500 BC? Makes no sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.149.60.76 (talk) 11:36, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

"Semi-mythical" is a valid term and phenomenon.

Best Wishes,

184.22.248.42 (talk) 03:23, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Historicity is important, but we need to give a higher priority to the topic of Zoroaster's ethics.

The words matter more than the man. Good thoughts, good words, and good deeds.

Best Wishes,

184.22.248.42 (talk) 04:00, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree with the other responders, but the scholarship on Zarathustra’s historicity sheds a lot of light on the origins of the religion in general, so I think it’d be fitting to have such a section here. Bagabondo (talk) 21:10, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:54, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Zoroaster 1.jpg

Influences section is misleading
Some passages in the Influences section are, I think, inappropriate on this article. Some of the material in there doesn't refer to Zoroaster's personal influence, but rather to the influence of Zoroastrism, and hence a relevant subject in that entry and not in this one. For instance, "The Sabaeans, who believed in free will coincident with Zoroastrians, are also mentioned in the Quran.[64]" doesn't appear relevant Severian79 (talk) 20:30, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Edits of Manzarene
I have removed the violations of WP:RGW and WP:SYNTH done by Manzarene, who is currently blocked for socking, on these edits. Recent edits by other editors like also show that the claims he made on the article are not exactly supported by the sources or the information is too WP:EXCEPTIONAL. I just thought of notifying you both since you are actively watching this article. Zakaria1978 (talk) 03:09, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I am rather inclined to question your major removal of seemingly reliably sourced information (as well of the infobox date). Did you really check each reference? Where did you find that Zoroaster is "generally dated to 7-6th millennium BCE"?--Miki Filigranski (talk) 22:03, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Then you are wholly wrong if you are going to question on such poor basis. I don't see where "each reference" contradict that particular information.
 * "Australian Soul: Religion and Spirituality in the 21st Century", Cambridge University, p. 60 says "600 BCE".
 * "The Zoroastrian Faith: Tradition and Modern Research", MQUP, p.16 says 599 - 522 BCE.
 * Other highly reliable sources suggest, 660 - 583 BCE, 6th century BCE, 7th century BCE, and they are in line with the lead (which you have apparently ignored) which say "Most scholars date him in the 7th and 6th century BC as a near-contemporary of Cyrus the Great and Darius I". There is no need to provide misleading dating on infobox. Zakaria1978 (talk) 04:36, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The claim that 'most scholars' believe in a 7th-6th c. BC date is unequivocally false, and indeed is directly contradicted by nearly every single one of the 6 sources cited for the claim on the page:
 * Lincoln's statement, already included verbatim in the References section - "At present, the majority opinion among scholars probably inclines toward the end of the second millennium or the beginning of the first, although there are still those who hold for a date in the seventh century".
 * The Fischer text (p. 59) - "For a time, scholars supported such a sixth- or seventh-century B.C.E. dating... But earlier dates have also been proposed, and a new consensus seems now to support the (also speculative) date of 1080-1500 B.C.E."
 * The Ancient History Encyclopedia's only remarks on dating - "The dates of c. 1500-1000 BCE are commonly accepted for the time in which he lived, taught, and founded his religion based on a long tradition of scholarly work on the timeline of the Early Iranian Religion, evidence of the acceptance of Zoroastrianism, and references in the Avesta."
 * The Goucher & Walton text (p. 100) - "Scholars still disagree as to when Zoroaster lived, either in the late second millennium BCE... or centuries later in the sixth century BCE"; their timeline on p. 86 speculatively dates him to the 13th c. BC
 * The Boyce text (p. 3) - "That the date of Zoroaster was somewhere between 1000 and 900 B.C., or perhaps even earlier, was formerly the opinion of most Western scholars, including [10 names listed]. The support given to the date of "258 years before Alexander" in recent decades is largely due to the powerful advocacy of [3 names listed]; but the authenticity of this date has latterly been strongly challenged again"; Boyce is likewise quoted on this very page as personally dating him between 1700-1000 BC.
 * The West text is the only one that endorses the younger dating, but even West does not claim most scholars support one side, he instead states (p. 4) - "As to when he lived, scholars are divided between those who put him in the seventh or sixth century BCE and those who uphold a much higher dating, around 1000 BCE or even earlier."
 * 65.175.175.141 (talk) 18:13, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Just wanted to give some further clarity regarding this since I noticed the error had recently been re-introduced in a reversion of someone else's edits to that section. The contradiction described above emerged because that segment (with its sources) was first added to the page in September 2016 reading:
 * "some put him in the 7th and 6th century BCE as a contemporary or near-contemporary of Cyrus the Great and Darius I, while others on linguistic and socio-cultural evidence around 1000 BCE and earlier.[4][5][6][7]"
 * i.e. the claim which it again has been fixed to reflect ('some scholars support x, others y, there is no consensus'). It wasn't until August 7th 2020 when, for reasons I am unclear on, it was rephrased to say 'most scholars' while leaving the extant (unsupportive) sources.
 * 146.168.6.190 (talk) 02:32, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Suggested for possible addition
Posted on the Facebook group "The Magic of Persia" c/o https://www.facebook.com/groups/290303672159850/ on August 1, 2021. Post reads as follows: "Persians became a by-word of judicial incorruptibility and harshness, throughout the subject lands. It was the Zoroastrians who gave the world legal principles enshrined in the law of evidence and procedure. Legal concepts like arbitration, representation by a lawyer, release on bail, power of attorney and execution of wills are of Persian origin, later picked up by the Greeks and Romans.

"In recognition of Zoroastrian contribution to the development of law, a statue of Zoroaster stands in the Court of the Appellate Division in New York, near Madison Square and 23rd Street.

"Another statue of the Persian prophet Zoroaster/Zarathustra stands on the main entrance of the Rockefeller Chapel on the campus of the University of Chicago, made by the American sculptor Lee Lawrie (1877 - 1963)"

Cliffewiki (talk) 20:22, 2 August 2021 (UTC)