Talk:Zoroastrianism/Archive 1

Vote on Zoroastrianiasm
There is a vote on Zoroastrianism in these pages:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Christianity_and_world_religions#Vote

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:History_of_Christianity#New_Effort_at_Consensus

Oral "texts"
I'm going to change the section on "Holy Book" to reflect the fact that the Avesta was originally composed and learned as oral literature and not written down until the Pahlavi era, thus making Alexandrian "destruction of texts" impossible. If anyone wants to contradict me on this, please post something here in the next week, preferably with links to sources that say otherwise, and we can discuss it.

Thanks. --Marcus, May 24th 2005

Syncretism
Of the below links that were removed, I would question the removal of Syncretism, because this subject is dealt with in the second sentence, and because the argument that Zoroastrianism and its offshoot/cousin, Mithraism, are at the foundation of mainstream Hebrew and Christian doctrine is one of the most popular current arguments regarding the history of religious belief. I would encourage anyone who is interested to investigate the validity of this argument. Carefully look into the known data about the ancient roots of Zoroastrianism, when Zarathustra (aka Zoroaster) lived, the nature of his religious reformation, the the way in which his teachings, in their most pure, original form, were interpreted by his first folowers, how and when those interpretations evolved, the timing of the first appearance of Ahriman and Ormuzd in written form and the timing of the first appearance of messianism in Mithraism. Also carefully look into the history of Judaism and its scriptures, both in general, and specifically, regarding the writings of Isaiah and Daniel, and the Bablyonian/Persian exile. I would be very interested if anyone were able to show overwhelming evidence that 6th C. BCE Zoroastrianism is at the root of key Judeo-Christian doctrine, and not the other way around. --dave c


 * Mithraism may have some roots in proto-Zoroastrian Indo-Iranian paganism. --Zosodada 20:05, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Rm links
Removed these links:


 * New Age, Syncreticism, Occultism, Cabala

I think these are irrelevent to the article. If I'm wrong, please fix.


 * Syncreticism may not be irrelevant. The others seem to be. --Zosodada 20:05, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Page messup
Confuse! Angra Mainyu has his own page under the alternate name Ahriman -- but Ahura Mazda comes back to Zoroastrianism, and his alternate name Ormuzd is nowhere to be seen either. Does evil get better coverage here? :) --FOo


 * Evil is cool. :) --Bryan


 * That must mean that in the war between the Truth and The Lie, The Lie is winning. --Zosodada 20:05, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Also note that someone has categorized Ahriman as a "Zoroastrian god"; in this case all of the "Christian gods" should be categorized as well, including Satan. --Zosodada 20:13, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Parsees
I added some points about endogamy, arrival in India. I think the Parsis deserve a separate page. Although Zoroastrianism defines them, they're a disproportionately important part of Indian culture. --ESP 05:29 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Anti-Materialist?
This seems contradictory to me:
 * Unlike Manichaeism, Zoroastrianism does not associate matter with evil. On the contrary, material pursuits such as raising a family and creating wealth are considered to aid Ohrmazd.

--Lirath Q. Pynnor


 * That's accurate. Manichaeans believed that all matter was evil, including the human body, and engaging in animal pursuits like sexual intercourse was inherently evil.  Zoroastrians, on the other hand, consider it the responsibility of human beings to reproduce and so create helpers for Ohrmazd in the fight against evil. --KASchmidt 04:56, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Pre-Islamic Zoroastrianism?
This article seems mainly focused on Zoroastrianism since the Islamic conquest. I know sources are sparse, but shouldn't it include information on the religion at its height during the Achaemenid and Sassanian empires? --Jfruh 22:02, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes, it should.

A lot less than 250,000 zoroastrians worldwide.
I think the figures for the Zoroastrian population of today given in the article are far too high. Here's why:

The parsi population of india is only about seventy thousand according to a recent census. The total number of zoroastrians is estimated by the Zoroastrian Trust Fund of Europe to be 6000 to 7000, ergo the total number of parsis in Europe is less than 6000 to 7000. There are about 2500 parsis in Pakistan (according to a Pakistani parsi I met at the 2004 World zoroastrian youth congress, which was really a parsi congress in all but name) and I estimate the parsi population of North America and Australia to be very optimistically 12000. Adding a few thousand to account for parsis in the united arab emirates, oman, and other gulf countries and another few thousand (optimistically) for prsis living elsewhere and the sum total should be less than hundred thousand, probably significantly less, say ninety thousand. parsis have a serious demographic problem: over thirty percent of the parsi population is over sixtyfive (in India, certainly according to the census of the govt. of India, anecdotal evidence would support this for other countries also).

Official figures concerning the irani zoroastrian population of the govt. of the islamic republic of iran are too high by a factor of ten, according to somebody from the zoroastrian trust funds of Europe. According to him Irani zoroastrians number in the ten thousands, most likely about thirty thousand.

I too agree that parsis should have a seperate page.

Aside: I've never written a wikipedia article, so I dont know how to put links, signature etc, I might come back to this later and find better references, add links and edit the main article (and use capital letters).


 * Hopefully you will soon discover the shift key. You're forgetting about the Zoroastrians in the US, Britan, the Netherlands, France &c., &c. --Zosodada 19:56, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Please use some commas in this section's numbers; i've taken care of the hdg. --Jerzy·t 30 June 2005 16:17 (UTC)

Hinduism
Unusually among religions, the Zoroastrian faith, like Hinduism, even when holding positions of power, has been tolerant and supportive of other faiths.

There are a number of reasons why I'm taking out the mention of hinduism:
 * 1) It's historically incorrect. As soon as the British govement gave India even limited self rule the Hindus started to oppress Muslims


 * (I guess you are the one incorrect 'bout this, my pissed-off friend, the "intolerant" Hindus let 40 million Muslims (now 130 million) live in India even whilst their co-religionists were driven out from Pakistan. Muslims have ruled over majority Hindu population in India for better part of last millenium. They put jiazat tax on Hindus for following their religion. They killed, maimed and converted an estimated 25 million Hindus. So My Dear History-Know-It-All friend kindly read any book on India's partiton, except probably from a Pakistani source to get the actual account of Hindu-muslim confrontation. I'd also like to state that those "intolerent" Hindus let Jews,Sikhs,Buddhists,Parsis and Christians stay but "opressed" the Muslims).


 * It doesn't matter how the muslims behaved. It matters how the hindus behaved. If someone wanted to claim that muslims had a history of being tollerant of other relgions then it would be but no one is claiming that. --Geni 13:29, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * 1) This article is about zoroastrianism, not hinduism. If you want to claim this about hinduism please do it in the hindu article


 * 1) I could make a pretty good case for budism and taoism to be mentioned in the same space. (along with most of the egyptian relgions) it would resuilt in the article looking silly though. --Geni 16:02, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * That's a bunch of bull. If the Muslims are so oppressed by the Hindus, how come there are 100 million of them in India and none in Pakistan? First of all, the alleged oppression was done by nationalist leaders like Nehru who care more about being the first prime minister of India than caring for Hindus. Nehru was a nominal Hindu and didn't care about Hinduism as Jinnah cared about Islam. If Hindus were so intolerant, there would be no Parsi, Muslims, and Jews in India.
 * Secondly, Hinduvta or Hindu nationalism is not Hinduism and does not represents Hinduism. (see discussion)


 * No true scotsman fallacy. They are Hindus by most standard defintions. While polytheistic relgions do tend to be more tolerant to other faiths than monothistic relgions this is not total


 * Also, in general, Muslims and Hindus have gotten along well except for the extremist kooks.


 * Britian was wooried about relgius conflict even as it was leaveing


 * I can agree with you about not putting in Hinduism because this is a Zoroastrian article.


 * Good.Thank you


 * Are you Muslim? You seem to ignore likewise Muslim oppression against Hindus (which is far more than alleged Hindu oppression).


 * My religion is not significant but no, I'm not a Muslim. Muslim wars againsts hindus were not relevant to my arguments


 * Secondly, Buddhism was not so tolerant as you suggest. For ages, when Buddhism was a state religion, devotional Hinduism was in decline. Only with the rise of the Advaita movement and bhakti movement, did Hinduism arise. Also, Sri Lankan Buddhists have persecuted Hindu Tamils.


 * They also didn't get on too well with the taoists either but those who did the oprressing were not representative of buddists, etc (you can see where I'm coming from here). --Geni 17:29, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Secondly, Hinduism is not polytheistic but rather either monist (i.e. Advaita), either pantheist or panenthestic or monotheistic(i.e., Vaishnavism and Shaivism). Ok, I agree with you on the Buddhist point as well.

Disposal of the dead
I don't know enough about Zoroastrianism to verify this, but I'm not sure it is accurate to say that all modern Zoroastrians bury or cremate their dead. While it is probably accurate that most Zoroastrians have abandoned it, I have read that the ancient practice of placing the deceased on scaffolds for vultures is still practiced in some traditional Zoroastrian communities in India, or at least has certainly been widely practiced in modern times. I don't think this is an exclusively ancient practice anyway. Note in particular that this assertion is directly contradicted in the article Towers of Silence. --NTK 00:04, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * It's a tricky one. Most of the information in the Towers of Silence article comes from a radio program (BBC) and some cross cheaking. So it wasn't orinaly writen by an expert on Zoroastrianism. My understanding of the current situtation is that in theory the bodies are eaten by vultures. However the shortage of vultures has resulted in large mirrors being set up around the towers that focus the sun onto the bodies. Whether this counts as cremation or this mearly results in the drying out of the bodies is an issue of dispute and not one I feel know enough to comment on. --Geni 01:06, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Perhaps using the correct word, excarnation, would help your research in this regard.


 * The Towers Of Silence are still very much in use in India. At least in Mumbai, Pune and Bangalore - there may be others that I am not aware of. The problems reported about dwindling number of vultures (due to dwindling number of corpses) are resolved by the use of solar mirrors IN the Tower of Silence at Pune. I do not think this would count as cremation as the corpse is not burnt per se, but decomposes at a faster rate. All in all, dokhmenashi v/s cremation v/s burial is a very divisive topic for Parsis and we need to ensure fair and neutral description of the same.

Just adding that the Dokhma system is prevalent in Calcutta as well - we have a functioning Tower of Silence here - however - we do also allow burial of ashes within the Dokhma grounds and people are gradually accepting this option. Burial is practised in Nagpur and in some other places which do not have a dokhma. 59.93.246.201 13:45, 11 February 2006 (UTC) CalGal

"A.C."?
In an otherwise excellent recent addition to this article, there is this sentence:

"Mardanfarrokh, a Zoroastrian theologian in the ninth century A.C..."

Should "A.C." be "A.D." (or, if you prefer "C.E.")? I think A.C. is a bit confusing here. I'm assuming we mean AD here (there wouldn't be much reason to argue for dualism over monotheism in the 9th century B.C., when monotheism wasn't on most people's radar). --Jfruh 20:11, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Google suggests AD and d is closer to c on the keyboard then a is to b the article us BC and AC elsewhere so AD would be consistent. --Geni 20:41, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Improving
Changed many things apparently, Major improvements;

--'''Included Persian script term and actual correct term "Zartosht" in contrast to "Zarathusthra" wich is generally known to be greek and Alien to most english speakers to begin with. Also corrected many other words wich contained spell errors.'''

--Added "overview" (speaks for itself)

--Added "Holy Book" (speaks for itself)

--Added "Beliefs" (speaks for itself)

--Added "The prophet" huge improvement in order to elaborate on what was requested previously.

--Added "Zoroastrian Concepts"

Tried putting it in a correct order so the viewer gets a nice overall view and reading experience. Ill try to work on "History" and the other two sections as well..ill also try to elaborate on the Abrahamic faiths and how they have taken shape after Zoroastrianism among many other things. If i flawed anywhere by all means correct me, Respectfully. --Paradoxic 00:49, 9 May 2005 (UTC)


 * What? "Zarathustra" isn't Greek, it's Avestan. I assume you are thinking of "Zoroaster". Zardosht is not the original version of the name, afaik, but Zarathushtra is. --Paul B 09;20, 9 May 2005 (UTC)


 * ''Thanks for correcting me, Zoroaster is greek yes, but my reasons for Zartosht would be that it's the most common word in modern day Persian and to my knowledge Zoroastrians also pronounce it this way. There are many ways to pronounce his name and there are many forms of interpretation, I do agree that the avesta does say Zarthoshtra if its in context and is classically pronounced.

Zar- Sort of Gold (a shining form of gold)

tosht - Camel/Shining Star (? I have no clue what this would mean as it is possibly avestan or Dari)

Ra-{Rah} - (Path)


 * Generally the rough translation to Zaratushtra is thought to be something along the lines of "He that can deal with camels of Gold (In a particular way/path) although it makes no real sense to me. Zartosht is a shorter easier to pronounce (Perhaps informal) but is universally used as far as i know. ill try and double check it either way...thanks.


 * Hi, check out the Zoroaster page and the discussion. --Paul B 17:00, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Alexander/Pliny
I have restored the qualification of the statement about Alexander's persecution, which was deleted by Paradoxic. It is a fact that historians have questioned this explanation. It is not an undisputed truth that Alexander was responsible for these losses.

I find the restoration of the non-link to "plinius secundus" incomprehensible. The link should go to "Pliny the Younger". Initially I changed this to the ambiguous Pliny, because I thought it more likely that the reference came from Pliny the Elder, but was far from sure. I still haven't found the reference, but am provisionally leaving it as Pliny the Younger. --Paul B 15:11, 11 May, 2005 (UTC)


 * Just checked, and, yup, it's Pliny the Elder, so I'm changing it. --Paul B 15:30, 11 May, 2005 (UTC)

Announcing policy proposal
This is just to inform people that I want Wikipedia to accept a general policy that BC and AD represent a Christian Point of View and should be used only when they are appropriate, that is, in the context of expressing or providing an account of a Christian point of view. In other contexts, I argue that they violate our NPOV policy and we should use BCE and CE instead. See Neutral point of view/BCE-CE Debate for the detailed proposal. --Slrubenstein  |  Talk  22:55, 15 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to follow that, unless the Arbitration Committee (backed up by Jimbo) forces me to. It neither advances nor retards the "Christian cause" to use traditional abbreviations.


 * Please don't "change" my use of AD or BC. I don't change British contributors' use of centre or "car park" (parking lot). And remember that I championed the neutrality of "football" - as meaning soccer to the non-US world! -- Uncle Ed (talk) 02:48, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

Consistency
Please ensure that this article remains consistent with the BCE/CE and that no one changes it to BC/AD. There is a growing problem with users who wish to continue the imposition of Christian BC/AD convention on non-Christian histories and religions. Editors comments on this page reflecting consensus opinion would be appreciated so as not to allow constant reversion to BC/AD. Thank you. --SouthernComfort 11:21, 24 May 2005 (UTC)


 * You have never edited this page before nor (AFAIK) edited any related page. Therefore will you please take your campain elsewhere? --Geni 11:31, 24 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Geni, I am a major contributor to Iran-related articles (and this is certainly Iran-related), and what makes you think I won't begin editing to this one among all the others? I noticed that this article uses both BC/AD and BCE/CE - an article should be consistent in the use of dating conventions and BCE/CE makes the most sense. Please don't revert my changes. --SouthernComfort 15:12, 24 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm broadly in favour of BCE/CE over BC/AD, though I think people get "offended" for the sake of it sometimes. The reality is that the number system is based on the birth of Jesus however you label it. I don't see why the BC/AD should be 'offensive' anymore than "March" and "Tuesday" are offensive to Christians because they are named after pagan gods. It's just a convention. I'd prefer consistency though. --Paul B 14:46, 24 May 2005 (UTC)


 * You are editing as part of a campaign. A campaign you were unable to get comuunity consensus for. --Geni 18:52, 24 May 2005 (UTC)


 * You are the one going against consensus when most editors involved with these articles prefer BCE/CE. --SouthernComfort 19:03, 24 May 2005 (UTC)


 * evidence?


 * Furthermore, it is very rude to constantly revert when an editor tries to improve the article by maintaining consistency. This behaviour is not appreciated at all. Instead of reverting without discussion (not proper behavior for an admin), let the editors decide for themselves. --SouthernComfort 19:12, 24 May 2005 (UTC)


 * every one of your non date chages has been left in. You know this.Geni 21:27, 24 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Geni, I think your behaviour is wholly inappropriate. You should know that CE/BCE is legitimate usage within Wikipedia. I can only assume that you have an ideological agenda of some sort. You have no grounds to revert. --Paul B 19:17, 24 May 2005 (UTC)


 * There has been/is a massive debate of the BCE/BC isssue. The BCE lot were unable to obtain a consensus (or even a straight majority). User:SouthernComfort is currently involved in an arbcom issue of changeing articles over to BCE. There is not wikipedia conseus on this and I have just as much right to change them to BC as User:SouthernComfort has to change them to AD (ok so I draw the line at doing this over multiple pages that I have no previous involvement with).Geni 21:27, 24 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I am well aware of the debate in question. It is clear that both BC/AD and BCE/CE are acceptable.' You are trying to make BCE/CE unacceptable. The question here is which is more appropriate. I can see good reasons to adopt this latter convention in this case. I can see no reason at all to adopt the absurd convention of years before the present as one anti-CE/BCE zealot has just tried to do (and which for specific dates would have to be changed every year!). --Paul B 22:15, 24 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Wouldn't you agree that BCE/CE is more appropriate in this article (and related articles) than BC/AD (being a Christian POV)? And what do my actions have to do with the consensus? There is such a thing as editorial consensus as regards specific articles such as this one. Please allow other editors to make up their own minds as to which convention they prefer. SouthernComfort 21:41, 24 May 2005 (UTC)


 * a)fallacy of the excluded middle b)everything C)you owe me for an irony meter.Geni 21:44, 24 May 2005 (UTC)


 * By the way, the article as it was before was not consistent in dating convention. Style guidelines dictate that an article should be consistent - and I propose that BCE/CE is the most appropriate considering Zarathustrianism is an Iranian religion. Please do not impose Christian POV terminology. Would you insist on doing the same to Jewish articles? SouthernComfort 21:45, 24 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Once again you use the pathetic "Christian POV" argument. BC/AD is not Christian POV.  It is in fact you that is forcing a POV. violet/riga (t) 22:02, 24 May 2005 (UTC)


 * There is no dispute that BC/AD is Christian POV terminology - and plus, shouldn't it be left to editorial consensus? If most editors agree with BCE/CE, what is the problem? And read my comments above - the article was not consistent. I chose to go with BCE/CE. SouthernComfort 22:09, 24 May 2005 (UTC)


 * And therein lies the problem! You are horribly mistaken about BC/AD and that is your justification for your blatant POV-pushing. violet/riga (t) 22:14, 24 May 2005 (UTC)


 * See Talk:List of kings of Persia - if Codex (who opposes BCE/CE) can agree to consensus, why should Jguk be allowed to go against that? SouthernComfort 22:11, 24 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Articles should be taken back to their original version and not edited until Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Eras is finished. violet/riga (t) 22:14, 24 May 2005 (UTC)


 * SC, at the moment you have shown no respect for anything other than your own political viewpoint. If we are to have any sort of constructive dialogue, you will need to calm down a bit and stop acting like a politician. Kind regards, jguk 22:16, 24 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Jguk, cease and desist following me around all over the place and reverting so much that editors have lost their contribs - some might interpret this behavior as 'trolling.' SouthernComfort 22:39, 24 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I think I rest my case. Now SouthernComfort if you would be so good as to disscuss this over policy pages rather than carrying out activities that some might say are an attempt to get things your way by the back door perhaphs this whole issue can be sorted out all the sooner.Geni 23:41, 24 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Excuse me? The article was not consistent in the use of dating convention - how many times do I have to repeat myself? I simply made sure that the article was consistent, going with BCE/CE since it is most appropriate as Zarathushtrianism is not a Christian religion nor was Zarathushtra a Christian. There is far more justification for BCE/CE than BC/AD. There is no WP policy which prohibits my actions, nor is there any policy which favors one convention or the other. You reverted so quickly so as not to even allow for proper discussion or to even see if other editors have a problem with this - and Jguk doesn't count, considering he's been stalking me all over the place, nor has he even remotely contributed to articles dealing with Iranian history and religion. If most editors do not oppose BCE/CE, what is the problem?? SouthernComfort 10:50, 25 May 2005 (UTC)


 * stragey there is no wikipedia policy against what I am doing. If most editors don't opose AD/BC what is the problem? You are editing this article as part of a campain that could be better delt with through the more normal channels. I do not view this as acceptable editing practice.Geni 12:00, 25 May 2005 (UTC)


 * What "campaign"? Another editor here stated that he supported the use of BCE/CE and yet you continued to revert despite this fact. Why you are so insistent upon BC/AD in an entirely non-Christian article is beyond me. I'm afraid your position lacks credibility. SouthernComfort 12:09, 25 May 2005 (UTC)


 * < Losing indent

I think a fundamental problem you are having, SouthernComfort, is that you are not allowing yourself to see the views of the opposing side even though they have been presented on numerous pages. I suggest you just take a step back for a moment and read through our opinions. --violet/riga (t) 12:23, 25 May 2005 (UTC)


 * No, the problem is that Jguk, who has never been involved with Iran-related articles decided to revert every single one of my changes and refusing to allow other editors to discuss the changes or to even see if they opposed them. You and RickK supported and defended him (neither of you involved in Iran-related articles either), and yourselves engaged in the revert war that he initiated. And all this despite the fact that other editors clearly involved with those articles spoke up in favour of BCE/CE. Regarding this article, another editor chimed in and spoke out in favour of BCE/CE and even then Geni reverted. Now tell me, who is being unreasonable here? --SouthernComfort 12:27, 25 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Excuse me but I need to dig some bits of my latest irony meter out of the wall. --Geni 12:31, 25 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Note again my attempts to resolve the issue have been shot down by someone that believes that revert warring is the best approach. Have you even commented at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Eras yet? --violet/riga (t) 12:39, 25 May 2005 (UTC)


 * My quick two cents on this. I think it's irrelevant.  Both BC/AD and BCE/CE are linear time systems that use the Birth of Jesus of Nazareth as their year one.  Six of one, half dozen of another, if you ask me.  The traditional system for numbering years that most people around the world used was what year it was of the reign of the current king. I suppose that BC/AD came from the Christian notion that Jesus was the King of the world, but now it's become the standard, so we're stuck with it. It's for the best anyway: Isn't 2005 easier to write than, "In the fifth year of the Presidency of the George Bush, the Younger..."  -Marcus 1 June 2005

Hahahah! I just came back to this article to see the most ironic discussion ever! Being an Iranian-born Zoroastrians, one of the most fundamental concepts I've been taught is T.O.L.E.R.A.N.C.E. Tolerance towards other sex, towards other races, towards other religions. We accept Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. Yet here we are in an article on the tolerant Zoroastrians, arguing about using some insignificant acronym over another because it's not Christian-centric, maybe. The mind boggles! Zoroastrians accept Christianity and therefore the Christian-centric AD/BC. For this article we can use AD/BC, or BCE/CE, or AC/DC, or whatever other acronyms we want, trivial point. The priority is to convey information, not to lead some petty battle against a world religion (how sad is that?!). Let's concetrate on accurate documentation, not political games. -Bem 6 Aug 2005

SouthernComfort
Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR - for all who are interested in knowing what has been going on. --SouthernComfort 09:14, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Take a chill pill, y'all
As someone who has contributed a lot to this article but who has no strong opinion about the AD/BC - CE/BCE controversy, I have to say: this is quickly approaching candidate status for the list of lamest edit wars ever. At the risk of sounding like your therapist, I urge all of you to take a step back, reflect on whether this issue is that important in regards to this article, and consider whether it's worth the energy that constant revisions take. Maybe it would help to state on this thread exactly why you're so passionate about this issue, as it's kind of mystifying and nobody's really explained it -- that might help others see your point view better than just reverting their edits and telling them they're wrong. --Jfruh 13:24, 25 May 2005 (UTC)


 * See [],[], their respective talk pages, rather a lot of posts to the mailing list and probably some other places I can't remember. --Geni 13:32, 25 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Also see Requests_for_arbitration/Jguk for background on my intentions and involvement. --SouthernComfort 14:05, 25 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Jfruh, it is unfortunate that, after the failed policy proposal, some editors chose to implement it, and this is one of these pages. I apologise for the disruption to an article you clearly care about - particularly as the issues being fought over have nothing to do with Zoroastrianism. Hopefully it will all die down soon. Kind regards, jguk 18:21, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

The Judaism Tangent
This sentence seems to go off on a tangent that has little to do with Zoroastrianism:


 * Judaism does not appear to become strictly monothesitic until after the Jewish people is freed from Babylon by Cyrus the Great (c539 BC). Even the first commandment reflects the henotheistic nature of early Judaism. "Thou shalt have no other gods before Me" implictly accepts the existance of other gods."

The earlier part, about the dating, does pertain to Zoroastrianism, of course, but this part seems unnecessary, in addition to controversial. --Jonadab


 * This section was added by user 138.88.151.133 some little while ago. I shortened it, because it was too tangental, but left the last sentence. The last sentence was deleted recently, but rapidly restored by Marudubshinki. I'm in two minds about it. I happen to agree with the point that the first commandment is henotheistic, and the reference to it helps to clarify the claims in the earlier sentence. --Paul B 23:55, 8 June 2005 (UTC)

NPOV? I don't think so.

 * "The timing of Zoroaster's life is significant for understanding the development of Judeo-Christian beliefs. Should it be before 1300 BC (prior to Akhenaten), then Zoroaster would be the earliest monotheist known in any religion. Even a later date could make Zoroaster a template for Biblical figures who introduce monotheism over henotheism. Traditional Jews and Christians typically seek to place Zoroaster's life at as late a date as possible, so as to avoid the conclusion that much of the theology and morality of the non-Torah parts of the Old Testament derive from Zoroastrianism, the ideas having flowed into Judaism during the Babylonian captivity which happened shortly after 600 BC. Even the first commandment reflects the henotheistic nature of early Judaism. "Thou shalt have no other gods before Me" implictly accepts the existance of other gods."

So much for not reading in our own points of view! --Ta bu shi da yu 04:24, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Let's have a look at other POV statements:


 * Many modern scholars believe that Zoroastrianism had a large influence on Judaism, Mithraism, Manichaeism, and Christianity because of Persia's connections to the Roman Empire and because of its earlier control over Israel under rulers such as Cyrus II the Great, Darius the Great and Xerxes I.
 * Which scholars? Weasel word.
 * Because Zoroastrianism is thought to have emerged from a common Indo-Iranian culture that preceded Vedic Hinduism, many scholars also use evidence from Zoroastrian texts to reconstruct the unreformed earlier stage of Indo-Iranian beliefs, and therefore to identify the culture that evolved into the Vedic religion. This has also informed attempts to characterise the original Proto-Indo-European religion (e.g. the god Dyeus who became Jupiter, Sabazios, Zeus, and Tyr).
 * "many scholars". Weasel word.
 * Zoroastrianism teaches many concepts we today find in the major Abrahamic faiths, concepts of Heaven, Hell, Day of judgement, the concept of Satan, the prophecy and coming of the Messiah and the extensive teaching of Angels and Evil spirits.
 * Implies that these concepts in Abrahamic faiths comes solely from Zoroastrianism. Most evangelicals, Roman Catholics and Muslims would dispute this.


 * Until these can be fixed (and the whole tone) with proper footnotes, I doubt this will be an NPOV article. It's going on my watchlist, btw. --Ta bu shi da yu 04:28, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Your arguments are little more than an attempt at censoring entirely commonplace scholarly views about Zoroastrianism. There is nothing NPOV about them, nor does the phrase 'many scholars' in any way constitute "weasel words". In fact they mean exactly what they say. It is very easy indeed to find examples of such many scholars. I will do so later today or at the weekend. In fact the point about Proto-Indo-European religion is so utterly commonplace you can find it throughout Wikipedia on the many pages devoted to Indo-European studies. It has been a fact of the study of religion ever since Max Muller.
 * Incorrect. Perhaps a read of Avoid weasel terms might be helpful. Perhaps a direct quote from that page might assist you to alter this article:
 * ''This is a half-hearted attempt to give it the appearance of a neutral point of view:
 * ''"Some people say Montreal is the coolest city in the world."
 * ''Who says that? You? Me? When did they say it? How many people think that? What kind of people think that? Where are they? What kind of bias do they have?
 * ''It's better to put a name and a face on an opinion (and to seek out other alternate opinions to discuss) than to assign an opinion to an anonymous source. This doesn't really give a neutral point of view; it just spreads hearsay, or (worse) couches personal opinion in vague, indirect syntax.
 * ''"Some have criticized the King James Version as archaic (e.g. "thou shalt not" instead of "do not")..." The use of "some" is a disguised passive voice which means to avoid attribution, just as the passive voice may do. Legend has it... is a weasel phrase, a cover for not pinning down which legend, in play where and when. The phrase is also a flag for spurious "legends."
 * ''Here's a listing of some weasel terms that should be used only with caution:
 * ''"Some people say..."
 * ''"...is widely regarded as..."
 * ''"...is widely considered..."
 * ''"...has been called..."
 * ''"It is believed that..."
 * ''"It has been suggested/noticed/decided..."
 * ''"Some people believe..."
 * ''"It has been said that..."
 * ''"Some would say..."
 * ''"Legend has it that..."
 * ''"Critics say that..."
 * ''"Some historians argue..."
 * Until you fix the issues, this is a blatantly POV article. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:38, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * No, you are wrong. It is virtually impossible to avoid these kinds of phrases altogether without creating utterly turgid prose. Note that the rule says should be used with caution, not should not be used at all. Surely one needs to apply common sense. If you write "the Mona Lisa is widely regarded as the best known painting in the world" it would be absurd to attribute the opinion to an individual. One reason why it can actually be misleading to attribute comments to individuals is that it implies that standard views are quirky or personal ones. The whole point of the "weasle words" guideline seems to be to avoid the smuggling in of idiosycratic opinions by evasive phrasing, as in "some people believe that the Mona Lisa encodes secret messages about alien landings". In other words, it would be wholly contrary to the 'spirit of the law' to use the weasel words ruling in order to be weaselish - by trying to imply that standard scholarly views are idiosyncratic opinions. I have no objection to your pointing out that the article could be improved in several ways - and that the addition of footnotes would be one of them. However I don't think you have even begun to demonstrate that the article is "blatantly POV". Your initial comments read like the lashings-out of an evangelical who has encountered threatening material.
 * Nice. I was not "lashing out" any more than you are violating Wikipedia's policy of Assume good faith. I have specific criticism of wording and yet you are accusing me of "lashing out" at an editor or at their material. I found a whole paragraph and several statements that are obviously the point of view of the author, given at the exclusion of all other points of view (see my comments on Zoroaster's birth date below!). I am not, and I don't thank you for telling me that I am. Again, please acquaint yourself with the policies and goals of Wikipedia. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:38, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * BTW, my aggressive style in reponse to your comments merely mirroring of your own. I note you have nothing to say about any issues of substance. As far as I can see your outraged outpourings come down to nothing more subtantial than the fact that you don't like the phrase "many scholars". Paul B 09:11, 10 June 2005 (UTC)
 * A short question: why have you got an aggressive style in the first place? Are you saying that it is OK for your own self to be ultra aggressive and not for others to be aggressive? Incidently, I don't believe that I was being ultra-aggressive. It's a pity that you interpreted it this way. May I suggest you reread the Assume good faith policy? If you had, in fact, abided by this then we wouldn't have this massive battle where I feel you are being massively unfair towards myself. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:00, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * "Outraged outpourings"? well, that's reading into things a little, isn't it? I think you're getting a little defensive here. As for your statement that the whole point of the weasel word guidlelines is to avoid the smuggling in of idiosyncratic opinions: where did you get that? In NPOV, we cannot say that one opinion is more idiosyncratic than the other. As for stating that standard scholarly opinion is one way or the other - that's for you to prove, not for me to just accept. If this is the case, then you'll back up your contributions with plenty of sourced material (which I can see you can do already, but haven't bothered to). Its not hard to see that if a position is a "standard" scholarly viewpoint then you will be easily able to source scholarly material that backs up your case. If you can't do that, then don't make the statements. It's easy. I suggest you look at Verifiability:
 * Those who write articles likely to be deemed in need of fact checking, for whatever reason, should expect to assist by providing references, ideally when the article is first written. Because of this, it's important to make it easy to verify the accuracy and neutrality of your content. Citing your sources is an important part of this, but not the only factor. Another good rule of thumb is to be specific (and avoid weasel words).
 * If you don't like it: sorry, but that's just tough. Our encyclopedia demands sources and WP:NPOV is not negotiable. If you want to work with us on this, please procede. Otherwise, please take a moment to review Wikipedia's policies and goals. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:04, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I am familiar with the NPOV policy, of course. It's far from clear in many respects. As stated, it's full of ambiguities. How does 'majority' opinion compare to 'expert' opinion, for example? Of course we should aspire to fairness and accuracy in the expression of current knowledge in any subject. On 'idiosycratic' opinions, I guess it would be more accurate to say that the original research rule is designed to minimise idiosyncratic ideas, but I said that it seems that this is (also) one of the intents behind the - disputed - weasel words guideline. Note that your quoted statement again speaks of a "rule of thumb", not a law. Paul B 11:24 11 June, 2005 (UTC)


 * "Evangelicals, Roman Catholics and Muslims would dispute this" is itself a POV statement, and largely false. Many Muslims, especially in Iran, identify Zoroaster as a prophet of God, following the Koranic assertion that previous prophets have been sent by God. So they would see nothing surprising about correspondence between his teachings and Mohammed's. Catholics have a variety of views, and the RC church is not closed to the idea that other teachings contain merit, or partial truths, as they would see it. Of course evangelicals deny everything that does not accept the primacy and factual truth of the Bible. So, what? Does that mean we should delete all references to anything that might contradict the Bible? How POV would that be? All the allegedly POV statements say is that Zoroastrianism has these teachings, which it does. It would be dishonest to say it doesn't, and censorship to delete it. You can interpret it to mean that Abrahamic faiths borrowed these concepts or not, but it is a fact nonetheless. Paul B 11:30 9 June 2005 (UTC)
 * I have reread this comment, and have just realised that the author of it has totally mischaracterised me. Firstly, I have never advocated removing well-sourced and well-written material. I would like to say that I was out of line when talking about Muslims, and for this I acknowledge that I am in error. However, RCs and Evangelicals would not agree with you. That you automatically assumed I was an Evangelical is amusing, though I am one. It means that you are quite happy to assume what I am without knowing who I am!
 * I said that "your initial comments read like the lashings-out of an evangelical". Saying what they read like is not making assumptions about who you are. It means what it says - "this is what it looks like". And since you have just confirmed that you are indeed an evangelical, I don't see why you are 'amused' by how I have 'mischaracterised' you! However, I think you did catch me at a point when I was feeling frustrated by a series of "outraged outpourings" from True Believers of various stripes. First it was a Jain contributor to the Swastika article, and then a Vaisnavite who wanted the tilaka article to contain his proof that Jesus was a Hindu - and so were the ancient Romans and Egyptians. Paul B 09:06 11 June, 2005 (UTC)
 * OK, understand about the POV pushers, but you should reread what you wrote. You implied (as far as I could tell) that I was an Evangelical, and then you started talking about my outraged outpourings, which if you actually look at the short amount of text that I wrote you would see is incorrect. I was "amused" in an ironic, savage sort of way at what I thought was your mischaracterisation of me. What was "amusing" was that you, who if you passed me on the street would have no idea who I am, apparently decided that you understood me and understood my motives: from there we got implications of removing all material contrary to the Bible. I find that amusing, not to mention being the mischaracterisation I spoke of. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:54, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I find it amusing that you decided that you would judge in this way: it also explains why you make unfair and ludicrous statements like "Of course evangelicals deny everything that does not accept the primacy and factual truth of the Bible. So, what? Does that mean we should delete all references to anything that might contradict the Bible? How POV would that be?". When the heck did I ever say that?
 * Now you are the one being ludicrous. The passage does not say that you said that. It's a reductio ad absurdam of your argument. Paul B 09:27 11 June, 2005 (UTC)
 * Say what? I'm sorry, but as you were the person who implied that Evangelicals would remove all information that was contrary to the Bible I fear that it is you who need to defend your points. Of course, if I have taken this out of context or misunderstood it, then may I ask why you made that statement in the first place when no mention of removing material was made by myself? - Ta bu shi da yu 01:54, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry if you don't understand what a reductio is. The point is to draw attention to an alleged weakness in an argument by saying that if you follow it through it leads to an absurd conclusion. The whole point is that your interlocutor will recognise the conclusion as absurd. The intent was that you would accept as absurd the notion that all non-biblical information should be removed, not that you were in fact saying that. Paul B 02:32, 12 June 2005 (UTC)
 * Why are you sorry? It's my issue if I did not understand what this was (I've heard it before, but never having had it used against me I never thought to look this up). The problem, of course, that you have is that if you took my argument to its logical extent then you would add information, not remove it! After all, I'm asking for sources of the statements, and I never asked for the stuff with weasel words to be removed. So your argument, I fear, does not work. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:00, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In fact, I would dispute anyone who did such a thing and put back the opposing POV into the article! What is POV is a statement like "According to internal and external histories, Zoroaster lived in Iran / Persia no earlier than 1700 BC and no later than 600 BC (although Plato believed that Zoroaster lived some 6000 years previous to himself)." Clearly this is an absolute statement made when there is some debate about such a dating. If you don't believe me, here is what our own Wikipedia article has to say about this issue (see Zoroaster):
 * One of the most important, and dividing, of all issues regarding the Iranian history is &#8220;the date of Zarathushtra&#8221;, that is the date when he lived and composed his Gathas. Different sources ranging from linguistic evidence to textual sources and traditional dates have been used by various scholars to determine the date of Zarathushtra.  Accordingly, any date from the 6th century BC to 6000 BC has been suggested, although some with more merit than others.  Here we shall look at the most prominent of these arguments.
 * A point of view held by many prominent scholars, among them Taghizadeh and W.B.Henning and continued by Gnoli among others, is what is known as &#8220;the Traditional Date of Zoroaster&#8221;. This date which was suggested in the Sasanian commentaries on the Avesta (Bundahi&), gives the date of Zarathushtra&#8217;s life as &#8220;258 years before Alexander&#8221;.  However one might want to interpret this statement (whether from the date of Alexander&#8217;s entry to Iran or even possibly from what is known as the &#8220;Seleucid Era&#8221;), the traditional dating would put Zarathushtra at 6th century BC.  This placement is particularly attractive when one notices that this dating would make Darius and Zarathushtra contemporaries of sort, making Darius&#8217; prominent mention of &#8220;Ahuramazda&#8221; and other Zorostrian motifs quite appropriate.  Furthermore, the fact that Zarathushtra&#8217;s benefactor, K&, closely reminds us of the name of Darius&#8217; father, Wishtaspa, who was the Satrap of Parthia during the time of Cyrus the Great in the middle of the 6th century BC.
 * According to this view, Zarathushtra lived in the court of Darius&#8217; father as the chief clergy and influenced Darius as a young man. It was due to this influence that Darius makes constant mentions of Ahuram&#257;mazd&#257; and other Zoroastrian motifs in his inscriptions.  The traditional tale of Zarathushtra's death, being slain by invading &#8220;Turan&#8221; warriors has also been affiliated with the unrests of Darius&#8217; early years on the throne and the attacks of the rulers of Drangiana and Sogdiana on Bactria.
 * However, from an early time, scholars such as Bartholomea and Christensen noticed the problems with &#8220;Traditional Date&#8221;, namely the linguistic difficulties that it presents. As we know, Zarathushtra himself composed the 18 poems that make-up the oldest parts of the Avesta, known as &#8220;the Gathas&#8221;. The language of the Gathas, as well as the text known as &#8220;Yasna Haptanghaiti&#8221; (the Seven Chapter Sermon), is called &#8220;Old Avestan&#8221; and is significantly different and more archaic than the language of the other parts of the Avesta, &#8220;Young Avestan&#8221;.  On the other hand, Old Avestan is very close to the language of the Rig Veda (known as Vedic Sanskrit).  The closeness in composition of Old Avestan and Vedic is so much that some parts of Gathas can be transliterated to Vedic only by following the rules of sound change (such as the development of Indo-Iranian &#8220;s&#8221; to Avestan &#8220;h&#8221;).  These similarities suggest that Old Avestan and Vedic were very close in time, probably putting Old Avestan at about one century after Vedic.  Since the date of the composition of Rig-Veda has been put at somewhere between the 15-12th centuries BC, we can also assume that Gathas were composed close to that time, at sometimes before 1000 BC.
 * Furthermore, a look at the Gathas and their composition shows us that the society in which they were composed was a nomadic society that lived at a time prior to settlement in large urban areas and depended greatly on pastoralism. This would stand sharply apart from the view of a Zarathushtra living in the court of an Achaemenid satrap such as Wi&#353;taspa.  Also, the absence of any mention of Achaemenids or even any West Iranian tribes such as Medes and Persians, or even Parthians, in the Gathas makes it unlikely that historical Zarathushtra ever lived in the court of a 6th century Satrap.  As a result, the present author is more inclined to believe that Zarathushtra lived sometimes in the 13th to 11th centuries BC, prior to the settlement of Iranian tribes in the central and west of the Iranian Plateau.
 * Still think I have nothing of substance to talk about?


 * Yup. Cutting and pasting other people's statement is hardly adding anything new, is it? As you know, I am well aware of this passage, having contributed to this very article. It also says exactly the same thing as is says here - that dates range from 6000BC to 600, with the 6000 being from a single source. It is bizarre to claim that saying dates range from between these dates is "absolute". How can a 'relative statement be absolute?! It is perfectly sensible that the detailed discussion of the dating should be in the article devoted to the prophet himself, not here. btw, it statement is "absolute" in just the same way as this one from the Jesus article "based on some historical data mentioned, [his death] would have been anywhere from the years 27 to 36 in the current era." Paul B 09:59 11 June, 2005 (UTC)

However, allow me to continue (I'm really quite annoyed about how you are so quick to assume bad faith - I wasn't annoyed before, but I am now)
 * You were aggressive from your first intervention. Your comments were full of exclamation marks and very little argument. I did not at any point assume bad faith. It was your uwarranted arrogant tone I reacted to. Paul B 10:02 11 June, 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that was you reading into a small amount of text and overreacting. That is not my problem. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:54, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

so that I may make myself crystal clear. You have stated that "All the allegedly POV statements say is that Zoroastrianism has these teachings, which it does." This is incorrect. Perhaps we should review which weasel words I was talking about?
 * "Many modern scholars believe that Zoroastrianism had a large influence on Judaism, Mithraism, Manichaeism, and Christianity because of Persia's connections to the Roman Empire and because of its earlier control over Israel under rulers such as Cyrus II the Great, Darius the Great and Xerxes I."
 * Not a single mention of Zoroastrianism's teachings: this is describing what some unattributed scholars believe.
 * Oh, for heaven's sake. This is in an overview section about historical importance. The specific teachings are discussed later. I've already answered the point about 'many scholars'. And by the way, the weasel words issue is a guideline not a policy, and it is disputed precisely because taken literally it can lead to absurdities, and because it can also be said to contain some inherent problems.

These views about the influence of Zoroastrianism cannot reasonably be attributed to speciic individual scholars because they have been longstanding since the mid-nineteenth century and have been articulated by a great many writers. I've already said that specific attribution can itself create a misleading impression. Either a long list of names should be given, which would be silly, or a general statement like this should be made. Certainly adding references would be desirable. Paul B 10:14 11 June, 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, what do you think I'm asking?! Of course adding references would fix the problem! Why do you think I raised this issue? For heavens sake yourself. You just answered my issue - adding references would fix the weasel words! Sheesh. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:54, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Adding reference does not solve any real problem. It just refers you to what someone else says, with no guarrantee that it's worthwhile. It's desirable, but not a magic solution. Paul B 03:42, 12 June 2005 (UTC)


 * Because Zoroastrianism is thought to have emerged from a common Indo-Iranian culture that preceded Vedic Hinduism, many scholars also use evidence from Zoroastrian texts to reconstruct the unreformed earlier stage of Indo-Iranian beliefs, and therefore to identify the culture that evolved into the Vedic religion. This has also informed attempts to characterise the original Proto-Indo-European religion (e.g. the god Dyeus who became Jupiter, Sabazios, Zeus, and Tyr).
 * What teachings? This says that some unattributed scholars provide some unattributed evidence, and you just expect me to accept this? This is a free encyclopedia, written by anonymous contributors! We have a policy of No original research, which requires attribution so we can verify statements. I'm sorry that you think that the prose would become turgid, but that is a problem with writing skills. We can always rewrite turgid prose to become more readable, it's not hard to do and I've done it many times.
 * The reason I find replying to you so frustrating, is the fact that you are so obviously very ignorant of this topic. I'm sorry if that sounds rude, but it makes your comments about POV seems quite bizarre at times. It is quite hilarious that you should quote the "original research" policy about a passage such as this. I've already said that these views have been commonplace since Max Muller. They cannot reasonably be attributed to individual writers. And I've already said that discussion of the specific teachings appears later. If as an interested person with no backround in the subject you want to say that you find the passage confusing, that's fair enough. Of course we want readers to be able to understand the text. The actual words you quote have been written by several editors, but I decided to have the Historical importance section here at the beginning in order to emphasise what is so special and distinctive about Zism from the outset. Paul B 10:55 11 June, 2005 (UTC)
 * And the reason that I find you frustrating is because you keep talking about sources, yet you never add them to article! You make it sound like I'm personally attacking you - when of course I am fully aware that many authors have written this article. I had no idea who you were before I wrote my article. I mentioned several POV paragraphs and pointed our several weasel words that I would like to see resolved, and you all of a sudden I have you making personal attacks against my (statements like "the reason I find replying to you so frustrating, is the fact that you are so very obviously ignorant of this topic". You are obviously not sorry you were rude, or you would be keeping your statements to the issue at hand, not making horrible comments about me. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:54, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I made it clear from the beginning that my objection was to your aggressive tone in your initial comments and to your apparent view that you just expected an abstact body of other people to go and "fix" things to your satisfaction while you sat in judgement because you just felt that some statements were POV. That's one reason I reacted inh a personal way. Your initial comments personalised your own position. As such, I feel reluctant to just "go and do as you say". I think contributors would have been a lot happier to respond to someone who raised useful points about confusions, possible errors, bad organisation of material etc - not someone who says "I am watching you". There are many weaknesses in this article, but that's in part because of having to combine the views of Zoroastrian contributors themselves with more secular-historical positions onh the tradition, and because of inherent difficulties of the relation between historical material and legendary stuff, and of Zoroaster's own intervention in relation to the Aryan/Indo-Iranian traditions that preceded him and which persisted after him. And yes, it is frustrating replying to someone who is not actually engaged with content but who wants content changed to his satisfaction. Paul B 03:54, 12 June, 2005 (UTC)
 * What aggressive tone?? If you find that to be an aggressive tone, then just how aggressive is your own tone? You implied that I was trying to censor Wikipedia! Read your own response! Take the log out of your own eye before trying to take the speck out of my own. You do realise that you've now had this whole situation escalate out of hand. I've got the shits because of your response: I actually sent you a message to clarify what I was asking, but not only did I receive no response, but you continue to assume bad faith about me! To review, my title was perhaps a little insensitive, but you one sentence description under that large quote - that was, btw, POV - and then my even briefer explanation of several of the points that I found to have weasel words. That's a guideline that I take seriously and, though you don't agree with it, you could have just pointed out that you don't agree with it instead of mischaracterising my intentions that I was "censoring" Wikipedia. I've been contributing to this project a long time now, and I wonder why you think I'm trying to do this! - Ta bu shi da yu 11:43, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Zoroastrianism teaches many concepts we today find in the major Abrahamic faiths, concepts of Heaven, Hell, Day of judgement, the concept of Satan, the prophecy and coming of the Messiah and the extensive teaching of Angels and Evil spirits.
 * That statement implied that these concepts in Abrahamic faiths comes solely from Zoroastrianism. This is most definitely disputed, and not mentioning this means that having this text in Wikipedia is an attempt to say that "Wikipedia holds the position that Zoroastrianism provides much of the foundation for major Abrahamic faiths". This, of course, is not Wikipedia's position at all, because Wikipedia holds a neutral point of view on such matters.
 * How does it imply that? It says that Zism teaches these things and that they are also to be found in Abrahamic faiths. It's phrasing deliberately leaves open the question of whether they are just similar or whether one faith drew on the other. If you had constructive rather than simply negative comments to make, you might have sugested improvements, or even made some yourself. Paul B 12:59 11 June, 2005 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, but I am trying to get some constructive feedback from the talk page! This is normal practise on Wikipedia. I find the phrasing objectionable because their is a clear implication that concepts from Zoroastrianism found there way into Abrahamic faiths. I will rephrase this, but as I wanted feedback I was asking on the talk page first! I think you'd be pretty pissed if I just started restructuring the article - after all, I'm "ignorant" and have no valuable contribution to give on this article. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:54, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * You have a funny way of going about getting constructive responses. I see no such clear implication. You simply assert that there is. The passage, reasonably, presents that as a strong possibility. Paul B 02:49 11 June, 2005 (UTC)
 * Incidently, at the time I wrote my initial comments, we had that massively POV bit that is in italics at the start of this comment section. Are you saying that should have stayed there as it was written? It seems like you are. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:00, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * What a load of hogwash. I merely pointed out sections that I found to be POV. You could have just responded with a calm and rational, "No, I don't believe these to be issues because x, y and z." Instead, you came in all guns blazing and informed me that I am attempting to censor the article! Which clearly I wasn't because I hadn't removed a darn thing from the article at the time. You were most definitely out of line. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:43, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps I should clarify what you mean by:
 * "Of course evangelicals deny everything that does not accept the primacy and factual truth of the Bible. So, what? Does that mean we should delete all references to anything that might contradict the Bible? How POV would that be?"
 * So that I don't assume bad faith, I would like to ask you whether you beleive that the opposing POV of Evangelicals Christians should not be heard? - Ta bu shi da yu 07:06, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * It depends what you mean by "the opposing views of evangelicals". Evangelicals, atheists, neo-Nazis, Communists and anyone else have a right to express views on anything, of course, as long as they are reasonable, coherent and well-supported by the evidence. Does that mean we should articulate the specific views of all such groups in each article? No, I think that would be absurd. Many evangelical Christians, for example would believe Zoroastrianism, Hinduism etc to be false religions. Does that mean we should have a section within Hinduism saying "Many evangelical Christians believe Hinduism to be a false religion inspired by the devil." Such a passage would tell us nothing useful about Hinduism and would be very offensive to Hindus. The views of evangelicals or any other group as such are not, I think, relevant for this reason. I think arguments and information should be judged on their merits, not as "delegations" from an ideology. Paul B 01:13 12 June, 2005 (UTC)
 * Of course if an Evangelical opinion was not relevant to a story (let's say exploding whale) then it should not be included. However, there is a clear implication that Judaism and therefore Christianity had its roots in Zoroastrianism. Therefore, the opinions of those groups should be heard. That's all I'm saying. If you can't understand that, then I'm not sure what else I can say. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:54, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * If you can't understand the relevance of my comment, then I'm not sure what else I can say. The point was not that "evangelicals" can freely comment on exploding whales or the colour yellow or whatever. In such cases evangelism, presumably, is simply irrelevant to the topic. The point was that evangelism, or any other ideology, should not have an automatic right to articulate its point of view simply as a point of view. The criterion should surely be that relevant information is being presented. That was the point of the Hinduism illustration. Paul B 02:22 12 June, 2005 (UTC)
 * So if we have an article that states that Zoastrianism is the formative influence of Christianity and this is disputed by Bible believing Christians, what you are in effect saying is that this is not relevant to this issue at all, and that we should not note this. And you claim that I am a censor in Wikipedia! - Ta bu shi da yu 12:00, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, that is correct. My statement is a POV statement, and that's perfectly fine because talk pages don't follow NPOV policy! You should be aware that I have no problems with having the opinion of scholars on a page, but that's what it must be represented as: opinion. And it must be well sourced. I'd suggest you stop getting defensive and start fixing these issues. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:38, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Gee, thanks for pointing out the obvious. You may or may not have noticed that I tried to start a sensible debate about the content of the article by replying to a commentator in the section entitled "The Judaism tangent". I that I stated my own point of view, followed by an argument for the inclusion of the reference. Some informed discussion of content and phrasing is required, not grandstanding, unargued assertion and finger-wagging. Paul B 12:35 10 June 2005 (UTC)
 * And yet... you are doing the very thing you accuse me of doing. My concerns stand, and until someone can resolve them, I'm not budging. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:04, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Right, here's some references:

Boyce, Mary. Textual Sources for the Study of Zoroastrianism. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1984.
 * Bowker, John, ed. The Oxford Dictionary of World Religions. 1st ed. New York: Oxford
 * University Press, 1997.
 * Boyce, Mary. 1979. Zoroastrians. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
 * Duchesne-Guillemin, J. 1958. The Western Response to Zoroaster. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
 * Duchesne-Guillemin, J. The Religion of Ancient Iran
 * Herzfeld, Ernst. 1947. Zoroaster and his World. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
 * Jackson, William A. V. 1965. Zoroastrian Studies. New York: AMS Press, Inc.
 * Masani, Rustom. 1968. Zoroastrianism: The Religion of the Good Life. New York: The MacMillan Co.
 * Melton, J. Gordon. 1996. Encyclopedia of American Religions. Detroit: Gale Research.
 * Mistree, Khojeste P. 1982. Zoroastrianism: an Ethnic Perspective. Bombay: Good Impressions.
 * Nigosian, S.A., The Zoroastrian Faith: Tradition and Modern Research (1993).
 * Ramazani, Nesta. 1997. "Fire in the Temple: The Zoroastrians." Pardis. Spring: Vol. 1, Issue 2.
 * Writer, Rashna. 1994. Contemporary Zoroastrians: An Unstructured Nation. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
 * Zaehner, R.C. 1961. The Dawn and Twilight of Zoroastrianism. New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons.


 * Comment: R.C. Zaehner wrote that "we cannot say with any certainty whether the Jews borrowed from Zoroastrianism or the Zoroastrians from the Jews or whether either in fact borrowed from each other." (pg 57–58; The Dawn and Twilight of Zoroastrianism). So much for the general scholarly consensus that Zoroastrianism definitely had a formative influence over Judaism. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:42, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Duchesne-Guillemin writes that "the figure of Satan, originally a servant of God, appointed by Him as His prosecutor, came more and more to resemble Ahriman, the enemy of God. Secondly, the figure of the Messiah, originally a future King of Israel who would save his people from oppression, evolved, in Deutero-Isaiah for instance, into a universal Savior very similar to the Iranian Saoshyant. Other points of comparison between Iran and Israel include the doctrine of the millennia; the Last Judgment; the heavenly book in which human actions are inscribed; the Resurrection; the final transformation of the earth; paradise on earth or in heaven; and hell." Duchesne-Guillemin is also the author of the current Britannica article on Zoroastrianism. In this article you may read the following - "After the exile, the traditional hope in a messiah-king of the House of David who would reestablish Israel as an independent nation and make it triumph over all enemies gave way gradually to a concept at once more universal and more moral. The salvation of Israel was still essential, but it had to come about in the framework of a general renewal; the appearance of a saviour would mean the end of this world and the birth of a new creation; his judgment of Israel would become a general judgment, dividing mankind into good and evil. This new concept, at once universal and ethical, recalls Iran so strongly that many scholars [ah, 'many scholars!!] attribute it to the influence of that country. John R. Hinnells has seen this influence especially in the saviour's defeat of the demons, his gathering of men for the judgment scene, his raising of the dead, and his administration of the judgment." He adds "that the debt of Israel to its Eastern neighbours in religious matters is easy to demonstrate on a few precise points of minor importance but less so in other more important points, such as dualism, angelology, and eschatology." This is, of course, a reference to the well established claim that such debts exist. He states they can't be proved one way or the other. These arguments date back to the nineteenth century - see King and Moore The Gnostics and Their Remains (1887), in which is to be found the following: "it was from this very creed of Zoroaster that the Jews derived all the angelology of their religion...the belief in a future state; of rewards and punishments, ...the soul's immortality, and the Last Judgment - all of them essential parts of the Zoroastrian scheme."

These arguments will be found in Religious Studies courses in universites throughout the western world. They are so standard and commonplace that you can even buy essays trotting them out. See http://www.essays.cc/free_essays/f3/nyv78.shtml [this one's free!] and http://www.student-papers.com/12790.htm [you have to pay to get more than a sample of this one]

And btw, an Islamic contributor on the Talk:Zoroaster page confirms what I said above about Muslim views of Zoroaster. See the (unfortunately misnamed) subheading "Zoroaster is the first mouthiest of written history."

To be honest, it seems from your own comments that you know nothing about this subject, but nevertheless seem to feel qualified to shout "POV", slap on a neutrality dispute, and say things need to be 'fixed' before you are satisfied. I'm inclined to say that you need to "fix" the "whole tone" of your comments. Paul B 20:50 9 June 2005 (UTC)


 * Oh please. Obviously the article needs work, or you would not need to provide a whole list of sources! I suggest you work on fixing these issues, not making personal attacks on myself! - Ta bu shi da yu 23:38, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * The logic of your first sentence escapes me. The sources are provided because you claimed the article is POV. The "personal attacks" were attacks on what you wrote and on the unwarranted manner of self-appointed judge and jury you adopt. Paul B 11:15 10 June 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry... your statement escapes me! You have just provided a whole bunch of sources which I was not aware that you used. Is that my issue? I came to this article expecting an NPOV article, and this is not what I have found. See above, where I will respond to the weasel word comments. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:04, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Further to your comments: "Traditional Jews and Christians typically seek to place Zoroaster's life at as late a date as possible, so as to avoid the conclusion that much of the theology and morality of the non-Torah parts of the Old Testament derive from Zoroastrianism, the ideas having flowed into Judaism during the Babylonian captivity which happened shortly after 600 BC." This is clearly the author's POV. I'm going to bring in others to this conversation. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:08, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The writing obviously needs some improvment, such as removing unsourced statements about what Jews and Christians might think, but Paul B is basically correct that many scholars see Zoroastrianism as having a foundational influence on other religions that came out of the region. It is hardly surprising that the founders of a new religion would incorporate aspects of what came before. In some cases it occurs openly, such as the relationship between Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. With Zoroasatrianism, which is basically dead in most of the world, most people aren't aware of the parallels or the influence it had, but I believe there is fairly good scholarly agreement that subsequent religious traditions did incorporate beliefs originally attributed (as far as history records) to Zoroastrian teachings. Dragons flight 04:03, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

P.S. An inspection of the google search on Judaism Zoroastrianism Babylon (9750 hits) clearly shows that the disputed section is not original to contributors here though the tone encountered in my cursory inspection of those websites seems to run from "and some Jewish teaching were influenced by contact with the Persians" to grossly defamatory remarks which belittle Judaism as entirely unoriginal. I believe that the relationship between Zoroastrianism and Judaism needs to be discussed, but I don't really have the right background to say what the balance ought to be. Dragons flight 04:50, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

Let me try another angle here. First of all, I don't know of any Jewish scholars who doubt that Zoroastrianism influenced Judaism during the Second Temple period, and continued to influence Judaism for some time (and of course, in the Middle Ages n\Gentile folk-lore and beliefs also influenced Judaism). At leat, all my profs. at the Seminary had this attitude (Trachtenberg wrote a good book on this theme). What I take issue with is this statement:
 * Traditional Jews and Christians typically seek to place Zoroaster's life at as late a date as possible, so as to avoid the conclusion that much of the theology and morality of the non-Torah parts of the Old Testament derive from Zoroastrianism, the ideas having flowed into Judaism during the Babylonian captivity which happened shortly after 600 BC. Even the first commandment reflects the henotheistic nature of early Judaism. "Thou shalt have no other gods before Me" implictly accepts the existance of other gods."''

Specifically, I take issue with two claims. First, that "traditional" (I think you mean "Orthodox; Conservative and Reform Jews claim to be traditional as well, they simply draw on different traditions) Jews etc. What is the proof for this?  At issue here is not (in my opinion) NPOV but rather Verifiability and  No original research.  If you cannot produce acceptable sources that substantiate this claim, then you are violating the first policy, it must be deleted, period.  If you have talked to Orthodox Jews and they have expressed this view to you (frankly, I doubt it; I don't think Orthodox Jews spend much time thinking about when Zoroaster lived), your statement must also be cut, as it violates the second policy.  Moreover, if you are simply supposing this, or making what you consider a logical inference (for example, by writing "Orthodox Jews would take issue with this because..."), you are nevertheless violating the second policy, and again, it must be deleted.

I also take issue with the comment on monotheism. It is likely that at an early stage of their history, Jews were henotheistic, and elements of those traditions are included in the Torah. However, this does not mean that the Jews who wrote or edited the Torah were not monotheists. If you (Paul) are personally using the first commandment to make this point, you are once again violating the NOR policy. Are their reputable scholars in peer-reviewed journals that claim that Jews in the Babylonisn Exile were henotheists? I know of none; if you do, cite your sources. In any event, this is simply tangential to the article. Henotheism is not the same thing as Zoroastrianism and that some Jews may once have been henotheists is certainly not the result of contact with Zoroastrianism. Moreover, you are assuming you know what monotheism means to Jews. Yehezkal Kaufman's work, still held in high regard by all critical historians and Bible scholars (even if they take issue, as scholars always do, with specific points) makes a compelling argument that the Jews who wrote the Torah were most definitely monotheists, and other scholars have argued that the key to Jewish monotheism is not simply in the number "one" but in how they understood their one God and its relationship to the world. In any event, I just don't see how this is relevant to an article on Zoroastrianism. Slrubenstein  |  Talk  19:53, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Slrubentein, if you take the trouble to read the sub-section entitled "The Judaism Tangent" you will see that I did not write this sentence, nor did I restore it when it was deleted by an anonymous editor.

I apologize, thank you for clarifying this for me.
 * In fact I said I was 'in two minds' about it. However, as it happens, I do agree that the first commandment is henotheistic. Indeed I think it's is as much of a "text book" instance of henotheism as is likely to be found.

Well, as I mentioned, this is simply irrelevant and does not justify you or anyone putting this statement in the article &mdash; Wikipedians do not put their personal views (even if they happen to be correct) into articles. See No original research and Cite sources and  Neutral point of view. The only way anyone can insert the henotheism claim is to write something like, "According to x,y, and z, this is evidence of early henotheism, although a, b, and c provide the alternate interpretation that ....."Slrubenstein  |  Talk  01:54, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * As for your question ("Are there reputable scholars in peer-reviewed journals that claim that Jews in the Babylonisn Exile were henotheists?") the answer is yes. Are they right? Well, who knows?

I agree with you (if I understand you correctly) that it doesn't matter whether these scholars are right or wrong. But I do think that it is important not only to name the scholars, but their qualifications (i.e. received what kind of degree from what institution from what university (or yeshiva or seminary).Slrubenstein  |  Talk  01:54, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * As for how relevant it is to Zoroastrianism, I'd say, yes, it is relevant, because what makes Zorostrianism more than just a minority faith of obscure historical interest. Its great importance lies in its "formative links", as the article puts it, to both the Eastern Dharmic and the Western Judeo-Christian faiths. I think it's important to flag up this fact at the beginning of the article so it can be explored in more detail later.

Paul, as I am sure you understand, I do agree that Zoroastrianism has influenced Judaism. I really thought I had made myself clear about that. Slrubenstein  |  Talk  01:54, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * This article has been heavily rewitten over the past few months because it was signalled in the "Countering systemic bias" Category:CSB Articles section as being in need of revision, having been neglected on Wikipedia because of systematic bias towards Jewish and Christian traditions. It's rather ironic that the alterations that have been made in consequence of that Judeo-Christian bias now receive these outraged responses from Jews and Christians. That's not to say that the article is perfect. It sure aint. But, imo, it needs to be improved by people who care about fairly representing Zoroastrianism, not people who are primarily preoccupied by a desire to protect their conceptions of Judaism and Christianity.

I did not think I was expressing outrage. Nor was I trying to "protect my conception of Judaism." I was only checking to make sure our policies (NPOV, NOR, Cite sources) are being observed, and that claims being made are accurate (I do not mean that with reagard to a sentence like "Professor Smith of Harvard University has explained that Zoroastrianism influenced Judaism in this way..." we can judge whether Professor Smith's claim is accurate &mdash; only that the claim that this is what Professor Smith said is accurate. Slrubenstein  |  Talk  01:54, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC) For example, some of your comments bear little relationship to anything I've written.  You write, "Henotheism is not the same thing as Zoroastrianism and that some Jews may once have been henotheists is certainly not the result of contact with Zoroastrianism." I don't want to over-personalize this.  Someone brought up henotheism.  I am sorry if I falsely thought it was you, but actually I don't care who brought it up &mdash; I just wonder why it was brought up if (as you and I seem to agree) it has nothing to do with Zoroastrianism? Slrubenstein  |  Talk  01:54, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Neither I nor the article never said anything so absurd. "Moreover, you are assuming you know what monotheism means to Jews." Neither I nor the person who wrote the sentence ever assumed any such thing. What was said, rightly or wrongly, is that the wording of the Commandment is henotheistic. Paul B 11:55, 13 June 2005 (UTC)

Again, you are wrong to make this claim. There are many ways to interpret this verse, but of all the different interpretations of this verse, the only ones we cannot insert into the article are our own. Cite a verifiable and reputable/appropriate source that claims this interpretation, fine (but again, if it has nothing to do with Zoroastrianism, why are we talking about it? It ought not even be mentioned). Then, to comply with NPOV, we have to include mention of those authorities who interpret it as signifying monotheism, not henotheism. That is our NOR and NPOV policies at work. Slrubenstein  |  Talk  01:54, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And, to return to my main point, this claim "Traditional Jews and Christians typically seek to place Zoroaster's life at as late a date as possible, so as to avoid the conclusion ... " must be backed up with verifiable sources. Slrubenstein  |  Talk  15:19, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I can't remember now when the "Traditional Jews..." passage appeared or who added it. I think the term "traditional" is just an inclusive and non-judgmental label designed to cover various Christian groups, including Fundamentalists, and some Orthodox Jews. The point is certainly true of many Christian factions. As for footnoting, yes, it is desirable, and I will add material when I get time, probably at the weekend, but I do feel there is a bit of a double standard here. I have read many, many Wikipedia articles in which numerous assertions are made without references or footnotes. The great majority of assertions in Wikipedia articles are unreferenced. I was just looking at the Moses article in which all sorts of unsourced statements are made. If it were consistently the case that in order to "comply with NPOV, we have to include mention of those authorities who interpret it as signifying monotheism, not henotheism" then why is this statement in the Moses article unsourced and unsupported?


 * Moses's greatest legacy was probably expounding the doctrine of monotheism, which was not widely accepted at the time, codifying it in Jewish religion with the 1st (and most important) Commandment, and punishing polytheists.


 * Surely, to comply with NPOV, we have to include mention of those authorities who interpret it as signifying henotheism, not monotheism. Given that the view that the first commandment is henotheistic does exist, why do I see no demands that this assertion be supported by lists of scholars pro and con? Paul B 16:02, 14 June 2005

Paul, your comments are entirely reasonable. I still think they are academic, since Jewish henotheism doesn't belong in this article (I thought you felt the same way, if I am mistaken please tell me). You are right that many claims are unsourced. But please remember that Wikipedia is an ongoing project, which means that no article is ever "complete." If there is an article with no sources, hopefully someone will eventually put them in. However, I can give you a basic explanation for why this happens quickly in some cases, and slowly in others. There are some articles that are so uncontroversial that no one ever asks for sources or verification. This does not mean that the articles should not have verifiable sources, only that no one ever asked for them. Other articles may be more controversial, or have within them controversial elements that soon lead other editors to ask for verifiable sources. In short, I have a right to ask you for verifiable sources (to claims you yourself have made, of course, not to things written by others that you may know nothing about). Similarly, you have a right to make similar demands on the Moses page. Now, as far as the Moses page &mdash; I have never worked on it, so I can't tell you anything about it. It seems to me that the quote you provide expresses the Orthodox view. It should be labeled as such, and sourced. And other views (not just from other Jewish movements, but from critical scholars) should be represented at well. If you cannot do this research yourself, you certainly have a right to make a comment on the talk page insisting that for NPOV purposes other views be provided, properly sourced. The reason you see no such demands on that talk page is because you haven't put it there! (and apparently, no one else &mdash; yet &mdash; cares. But so what?  All it takes is one person.  Wikipedia is a huge project, all contributers are just that, contributors, and the idea is that sooner or later (often later) someone will come along to point out problems in an article or even to change it.  The key is never to think that an article is anything more than a draft; everytthing is a work in progress. (PS "traditional" still isn't accurate, applied to Jews; Orthodox is much more accurate and precise) Slrubenstein   |  Talk  21:10, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Hear hear! Well said, Slrubenstein! *cheers from sidelines* That's what I've been trying to get happen here: get sources and make the article more verifiable and NPOV! - Ta bu shi da yu 23:36, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Slrubentein, thanks for yor comments. The question at the end of my last message was rhetorical. I thought it was fairly obvious why no-one has demanded that the henotheistic reading be properly represented. As we all know, there are no Evangelical Henotheists out there, dedicated to the defence and promotion of Henotheistic beliefs. So there is no critical mass of editors committed to insisting that Henotheistic interpretations be given prominence in various religion-related pages. Indeed this has been one of the problems with the Henotheism article itself, since devotees of the various faiths discussed there have strenuously argued that their traditions have never been henotheistic. Wikipedia is, as you know, a "Darwinian" realm in which the state of articles is determined in great part by the number and persistence of editors with distinct POVs. Quoting of rules, guidelines etc is not done by objective Pan-Dimensional Beings. It is done by people with POVs, because they feel strongly about particular positions. The demand for NPOV is often in practice motived by resistance to one POV or the desire to promote another one. It is hardly a coincidence that you, Guy Montag and "Ta bu shi da yu" have been challenging particular passages and insisting on references is it? This is surely the very problem of systemic bias. People with strong religious opinions tend to be very committed to promoting or defending those views.

You are being very unfair to me. You know practically nothing of my religious or spiritual beliefs and it is rude to accuse me of bias when all I am doing is asking for verifiable sources, and encouraging you to ask for verifiable sources. Plus, I have no idea what you think my bias is, since I have repeatedly said that the ancient Israelites were at some point in their history henotheistic. Where is my bias in this statement, which I had said at least twice before? Slrubenstein  |  Talk  01:08, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Engaging in this debate has been one of the most bizarre experiences I have had on Wikipedia. I feel like I'm in a looking-glass world in which what is written gets completely inverted when it is read! I did not accuse you of bias. You are clearly a fair minded and reasonable person. I referred, as carefully as I could, to the problem of systemic bias caused by the fact that there are simply more people with specific interests in, knowledge of and commitments to certain points of view than others. Of course a "point of view" (POV) is not the same as "dogma", even though the acronym POV is sometimes used on Wikipedia as if it means just that. But a point of view is what allows us to see some things and not others. It is the scope and limit of our "vision". So it is relevant to what we all, as participants, see as a "normative" or as an "abnormal" statement, and thus to what we actively demand support for and what we tend passively to accept unchallenged. Paul B 16 June, 13:54, 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Paul B seems to assume motives for asking for better sourcing, etc. He has also been extremely unfair to myself. As I've said on WP:AN, I'm bowing out of this article - it's now going off my watchlist. Perhaps if Paul could stop implying that I am so deadly biased against this article then I might contribute further. This whole experience has been horrible to say the least. Paul's aggressive behaviour (ironically the behaviour that he says he found objectionable in my initial comments), his inability to see that the NPOV, OR and citation policies are essential to this project (he says they are "ambiguous") and his attacks on my motives (implying that I am trying to censor the article &mdash; by asking questions no less! go figure) along with his accusations of bias when he had no idea who I was has made me reconsider whether this article will ever become as excellent as I know it can be. Signing off... Ta bu shi da yu 02:49, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Wrong. I said that the NPOV policy contains ambiguities, as I'm sure many people will agree. I did not, nor have I ever challenged the need for a neutral point of view or that it is central to the project. I have never challenged the OR policy either. Find anything that I've written that challenges these policies. I can see nothing in the article counts as Original Research. The only issue has been footnoting which I have said is desirable. However, I have indeed objected to the claim that it is especially or to be demanded in this rather than other instances. Paul B 14:02, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * As for whether this debate about henotheism and Judaism is relevant to Zism, surely, as you acknowledge, it is relevant, because of the longstanding claims about the influence of Zism on post-exilic Judaism. I think it is important to establish in principle that references to the first Commandment could be legimately made in this article as part of a discussion of the relationship between the two faiths. I don't think such references should be ruled out as necessarily irrelevant. I have certainly never stated or, I hope, even suggested, that the Zism Artcle is "finished" in some sense. I've said several times that it is far from perfect and have invited constructive (rather than restrictive) contributions. That is one reason why it is important to establish the principle that further discussion of the Judaism/Zism relationship could legimately be added at a future stage, and that such discussion might include reference to the henotheism/monotheism issue or to the first commandment, if it facilitated understanding of the issue. Paul B 17:40 15 June, 2005 (UTC)

I doubt that you have reliable historical sources to back this up. Note: I agree that Zoroastrianism influenced Judaism. The only think I do not agree with is that it influence Judaism to be henotheistic. Most critical scholars claim that the Israelites were henotheistic long before their encounter with Zoroastrianism, and that by the time they encountered Zoroastrianism, they were monotheists. I say this because I have researched the topic, not because of any preconceptions on my part. Slrubenstein  |  Talk  01:08, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * This is more of the looking-glass world! As I have already written to you, no-one has ever claimed - in these Talk pages or in the article - that Zoroastrianism "influence[d] Judaism to be henotheistic". The article says now, as it has always said (i.e. since before this debate) the following:


 * The timing of Zoroaster's life is significant for understanding the development of Judeo-Christian beliefs. Should it be before 1300 BC (prior to Akhenaten), then Zoroaster would be the earliest monotheist known in any religion. Even a later date could make Zoroaster a template for Biblical figures who introduce monotheism over henotheism.


 * In other words the wording suggests the opposite of what you say it does. The viewpoint referred to is that Zoroastrianism may have influenced Jews to move from henotheism towards unambiguous monotheism. Note, it says that Zoroaster could be a "template" for this move. It does not say "Jews were henotheists until they encountered Zoroastrianism". Such a statement would certainly be unacceptable. As you rightly say liberal theologians and secular writers would say that Jews were henotheists in the earlier stages of their religious development. How much stress they would place on Zoroastrianism as a motivation for later developments varies from writer to writer. At one point this article contained a reference to the 1st (or second, of course) "Commandment", interpreting the 'no other god's before me' phrase as evidence of this early henotheism. This was part of the section debating whether Zism has influenced the absolute monotheism of the post-exilic period. It was this passage that seemed to be the most significant spark for the POV dispute. Paul B 14:20, 16 June 2005 (UTC)

First &mdash; as I have said before &mdash; people interpret the first commandment different ways. Provide your sources for the henotheism interpretation. Second, what scholar claims that Zoroastrianism influenced the development of montheism in Judaism? What is your source? Slrubenstein  |  Talk  15:09, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

More information that needs updating
From my reading of Bakers' Evangelical Dictionary of Theology I see that the statement: "According to internal and external histories, Zoroaster lived in Iran / Persia no earlier than 1700 BC and no later than 600 BC (although Plato believed that Zoroaster lived some 6000 years previous to himself)." is disputed. According to their entry on Zoroastrianism (page 1310, 2001) they state:
 * "The date of Zoroaster's birth has been given variously as 6000 BC, 1400BC, and 1000BC, but Herzfeld accepts the traditional date, approximately, as now confirmed (Herzfeld, 570-500BC; Jackson, 660-582BC)."

The sources of these statements are Herzfeld's Zoroaster and His World and A.V.W Jackson in Jewish Encyclopedia). Shouldn't we update the article based on this and add a note to the article about where I am getting this information from? - Ta bu shi da yu 06:31, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Update the article?! Herzfeld's book dates from 1947! Your reference clearly confirms the accuracy of the statement above - which you claim is "clearly the author's POV" (i.e. "Traditional Jews and Christians typically seek to place Zoroaster's life at as late a date as possible, so as to avoid the conclusion that much of the theology and morality of the non-Torah parts of the Old Testament derive from Zoroastrianism, the ideas having flowed into Judaism during the Babylonian captivity which happened shortly after 600 BC."). The Evangelical Dictionary and Jewish Encyclopedia presumably represent the views of 'traditional Jews and Christians' who have a vested interest in this dating. They do not represent all scholarly opinion, nor do they contradict the dating statement as given in the current article, unless you think that rough end date of 600BC is 'contradicted' by the 570-500 position. However, I accept, as does the current article, that this late date is a legitimate possibility. Paul B 14:04, 10 June 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes. Again, this is a sourcing issue (who stated 6000BC? Why, Plato). Yes, this should probably be updated. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:00, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * P.S. "The Evangelical Dictionary and Jewish Encyclopedia presumably represent the views of 'traditional Jews and Christians' who have a vested interest in this dating. They do not represent all scholarly opinion" I never said they did. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:01, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * btw, the original version of this passage (added by user 138.88.151.133) was, imo, POV, which is why I altered it from its original form. Paul B 13:14, 10 June 2005 (UTC)
 * And? I never mentioned your own good self. I was looking at the content of the passage, not implying anything about you. To be honest, I really couldn't care who added it, I just know that it needs to be fixed. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:57, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

widely regarded
Wikipedia's Mona Lisa article states:
 * The Mona Lisa is, perhaps, the most widely known portrait in the Western world. It has acquired iconic status in popular culture, similar to Edvard Munch's The Scream.

It's not ''widely regard as' the best known portrait, for 2 reasons:
 * It _is_ (or probably is) the best known one.
 * The section goes on to give evidence for this view, in detail.

Let's all adhere to encyclopedic standards here. And since there is clearly a dispute, let's describe the dispute fairly, so that advocates on each side will readily agree that "their" side has been fairly described and that there is no bias toward the "other" side.

Fair enough? -- Uncle Ed (talk) 02:37, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid I fail to see the profound superiority of "probably is" over "widely regarded as". If anything, the latter assertion is less "weaselish" since it does not assert something as a given truth and then abstractly qualify it. Paul B 03:00, 12 June 2005 (UTC)


 * What do you want? A named source? Jim Beam says the Mona Lisa is "extremely well known"? That ought to scotch all those rumors of obscurity! Cheers. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 04:13, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)


 * No, of course not! I was saying the opposite - that there is no obvious superiority of one phrase over the other, but that the use of the other does not automatically imply that it should be footnoted to a source or tht it is "weasely". Paul B 10:34, 12 June 2005 (UTC