Talk:Zoroastrianism/Archive 10

Edit Summary
The reasons for these edits are too vast to be summarized in the edit summary, since sources seem to be misrepresented (as adressed in recent discussions on this talkpage anyways). So, I want to use the talkpage for transparency reasons.

The claim "'Scholars and theologians have long debated how best to characterise Zoroastrianism theism; dualism and monotheism have historically been the most frequently used terms for the religion.'" was supported by "Ferrero, Mario (2021)", Boyd, James W. (1979), and Hintze, Almut (2013) in the following only referred by their publishing dates. (2021) mentions that Zorastrianism has been called "dualistic" and "monotheistic" over time, which is only partly true. The source states "Schwartz, with regard to the oldest texts of the Zoroastrian tradition, the Gathas, deﬁnes the religion as a “monotheistic dualism”4and Gnoli, who considers dualism to be incompatible with polytheism, as a “dualistic monotheism”5while Panaino considers Mazd¯ aism to be synonymous with monotheism because of Ahura Mazd¯ a’s sovereign role in the religious system.6By contrast, Skjærvø admits both dualism and polytheism but excludes monotheism.7" omitting polytheism entirely and gives undie weight to a minor opinion. All the others call it (monotheistic) dualism (note that "dualism" in this context is always monotheistic). The author cited who denotes it as monotheism does so only by pointing add Ahura Mazda as the venerated deity, which is not what "monotheism" means. Overall, the source itself seems improper to decide the classification of the belief-system, since it argues from within a theistic framework, not an external perspective, as seen here: "the difﬁculties arises from the fact that the notions of monotheism, polytheism and dualism are deﬁned not on the basis of Zoroastrianism but on that of other religions, in particular the Judeo–Christian tradition. Denoting the worship of ‘false’ gods in contrast to that of the one God of the Jews and Christians, the term ‘polytheism’ has had negative connotations from its earliest attestations onwards." For clarification, "polytheism" is by no means viewed in a negative light, but an academic term (you might agree with or not), except it goes against your own personal beliefs (which do not matter here). The source continues to hang on the idea that "non-monotheism" is a degaratory term (which it is not): In other words, the emic self-perception of the Judeo-Christian tradition has provided value-laden parameters for the etic scholarly discourse on monotheism and polytheism.12 In recent decades the suitability of such a monotheism – polytheism dichotom Until now, the source appears to be a mere essay without historical value. This, however changes later drastically, and the quality of the source improves. I would like to skip the details (everyone can read it freely online), but point at the conclusion. "Each of the monotheistic, dualistic and polytheistic features, mentioned at the beginning of this article and which Zoroastrianism presents to the observer, thus represents an essential constituent of the whole system. Taken together, their sum makes a self-contained theology with a remarkable degree of coherence and consistency. Notions of monotheism, dualism and polytheism are so closely intertwined in the Zoroastrian religion that it is difﬁcult, if not impossible to separate them from each other without causing the whole system to collaps" Here it becomes clear, that the source was not even about the question if it is monotheism or dualism, but how the view on Zorastrianism (including potentially polytheism) has changed over time. Now, it also makes sense that the author referred to the implied negative connotation of "polytheism". This is not the author's own interpretation (which would turn the paper into an essay and would very likely not be accepted for publication in the first place), but an overview of the terminology surrounding Zorastrianism. THe conclusion is that all these terms are a product of Western religious study discourse (not theology!) and none of them are appropriate. Since this source is about the usage of such terms and effectively a criticism on religious sciences and not about depicting Zorastrian cosmology, this can hadrly be used as a source to support Zorastian's qualification of being "monotheistic".

(1979) defines its aim in the abstract as follows: "'I. DUALISTIC INTERPRETATIONS 1. The View That Angra Mainyu Is Primordial But Lacks Omnipo- tence And Omniscience (Dhalla, Henning) 2. The View That Angra Mainyu Is Primordial But Lacks A Physical Nature (Shaked, Boyce) II. MONOTHEISTIC INTERPRETATIONS 1. The Created Spirits View (Zaehner, Fox, Gershevitch) 2. The Transformationist (Maskhiyya) View 3. The Zurvinite View 4. The View That Good And Evil Are Coeternal Only In A Logical Sense (Moulton, Bode and Nanavutty, Duchesne-G' (...) 'In brief, the interpretation we favor is that Zoroastrianism combines cosmogonic dualism and eschatological monotheism in a manner unique to itself among the major religions of the world. This combination results in a religious outlook which cannot be categorized as either straightforward dualism or '" After extensively elaborating why this cosmology is "dualistic" (including Zorastrian scripture), the paper continues with elaborating on the "monotheistic" view. Here, there is finally mentioning of scholars who proprosed "monotheism" in contrast to "dualism" properly forumalted: "'thodox. This historical judgment is made not only by Zaehner, Gershevitch, and Fox, but also by Rustom Masani, Jacques Duchesne-Guillemin, H. S. Nyberg, and others' (Zaehner, 1961:179; Fox:132; Masani:69; Duchesne- Guillemin" These scholars can be accepted as evidence for a monotheistic proposal throughout history. Their main point is supposed to be that there is a high God above Ahura Mazda who is God, and he created the spirit of good and evil: "'32). Gershevitch also interprets Yasna 44:7 as clearly meaning that Ahura Mazda is the sole creator of everything (13), and Zaehner is confident that Zoroaster proclaimed a doctrine of the creation that was in no way dualistic, but instead thoroughly monotheistic'" It has been, however, also pointed out, that they rely heavily on the Gathas: "'Fox admits as much when he says that 'to reach any conclusion' about Zoro- aster's 'view we must take widely separated utterances into account. In no single coherent statement does the prophet unambiguously proclaim mono- theism' (132). Moreover, the texts admit of other interpretations. The Yasna reference to 'twins' is ambiguous, as is shown by the variety of interpreta- tions being discussed in this paper. It need not be taken to imply a common father, but can imply rather a coeval status of the two principles of good and evil'" It is further pointed out that even those who advocate for a "monotheism" label, are critizized in this paper: "'then we have a kind of ontological dualism lurking behind the monotheism of Zaehner, Gershevitch, and Fox, a dualism which strikes more deeply into the nature of things than monotheism. This would bring us back to a position not all that different from the dualistic views discussed'" The source does mention that the author defended the "monotheistic" interpretation the same way Christianity (usually) does by stating "ty? Fox says that it is because the actualization of evil can be made to serve Ahura Mazda's "ultimate purpose: the creation of free but loyal persons" (137). This answer has some philosophical plausibility and provides some religious satisfaction, but Fox cites no texts", thus the author of the paper makes clear, this is the personal opinion, not what we actually find in Zorastrian beliefs. The next passage, which is the second interpretation in favor of monotheism, can be skipped entirely, because it is said to suffer from the same deficits as the previous one. The third one might be indeed monotheistic (and has been accepted as such by many academics), but is its own separate article (Zurvanism) and its mythology is also described as "recounted in various non-Zoroastrian sources, is as follows.". Additionally, it is critizized for not qualifying as a religion at all. The fourth monotheistic hypothesis faces several issues as the previous ones again. In the conclusion, while the author makes clear they do not want to make final claims for the sake of not upsetting anyone, there are pretty strong remarks not to be ignored: "'To see why this is so, we can consider each of the four criteria in turn, as it applies to this interpretation. To take first the criterion of historical continuity, it is evident that this interpretation shares with dualism an ability to uphold the continuity of the Zoroastrian religion through time. For it need not posit a sharp break between an alleged monotheism of the early Avestan period and the undisputed dualistic cosmogony of the later Avestan and Sasanian periods. According to this" The paper continues with pointing out how Zorastrianism never managed to leave dualistic cosmology behind, and can only be interpreted as "Monotheistic" in very specific circumstances and by relying on philosophical arguements outside of what we actually have textual evidence for.

2021 sumamrizes how Persian religion moved from polytheism to Dualism. Here, it is critizized that Zorastrian dualism has been kinda frowned upon. However, the issue is not solved (contrarily to what the author inserted claims), by proposing that Zorastrianism is monotheistic, but rather that other "monotheistic" religions are actually dualsitic as well (it is known as mitigated dualism in Religious Studies btw).

Now I want to add that not only are the sources not in support of the claims, but there are good sources supporting the contrary view. According to "Skjærvø, Prods Oktor (2005)" in their "Introduction to Zorastrianism" states "Zoroastrianism is therefore a dualistic and polytheistic religion, but with one supreme god, 1 who is the father of the ordered cosmos"

Given that a basic work such as a simple introduction denotes it as Dualistic (or even polytheistic) while there is no source stating it is monotheistic (except to critize it or being critizized for doing so), there is no reason to call it "monotheistic" and definately no way to speak of "scholarly conensus". VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 00:34, 13 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I would like to invite @Simonm223 @TiggyTheTerrible, @Remsense to have a view over this and tell me their opinion on the sumamry of what @Wikaviani and @Researcher1988 have to say in defense that the advocated sources do not even support their claims. Maybe there should also be consequences for wasting the time of other editors, deceit to push their own agenda, and additionally the misconduct towards other Users during the related dispute. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 00:40, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @VenusFeuerFalle
 * You do not have any sources for your claims. your personal Opinions are irrelevant. you have to present sources that Zoroastrianism is dualistic and not Monotheistic. else, stop editing the page. there is no need for these long and meaningless talk page comments. just sources. thanks. Researcher1988 (talk) 01:22, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * What personal opinions did they even state? Their entire post was going through your and other sources. Remsense  诉  01:54, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * This is not my area of expertise at all and I really want to get it right, so I'm presently going through the sources myself to triple-check and get an idea of what it should say instead, but nonetheless it's clear from what I've checked so far + VFF's survey that the passage in question simply does not reflect the sources it cites.
 * From what I've read so far, a summary would seem to be, "Only one deity (Ahura Mazda) is worthy of worship. They are the creator deity, and more important than any other entity. However, they are not the cosmological source of evil; Ahriman is."
 * With this rudimentary working understanding on my part, the scholarly descriptions as dualism make sense to me, and the descriptions as monotheism have to account for this in a different and narrower way than with Christianity or Islam. Further claims of a consensus scholarly characterization being simply "monotheism" would seem to be either bad faith or a competence issue on any given editor's part, I'm afraid. I'll let everyone know if I come across anything that changes my mind on this, but it's hard to ignore the obvious body of opposing material when characterizing the opposing as consensus. Remsense  诉  01:53, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * He is interpreting the sources to his own satisfaction.
 * The main issue here is that Dualism does not stand against Monotheism. Religious Dualism is just another form of Monotheism. so that's why Zoroastrianism is Monotheistic or at least has a dualistic Monotheism. this is exactly what the VFF's own sources state too. (James Boyd) Researcher1988 (talk) 02:01, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Please stop referring to VFF as 'he'.
 * You are leaning on a broad definition that is even more obviously not the case. Since you cited Britannica earlier, I hope you won't mind my doing the same:
 * Remsense 诉  02:10, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * From Britannica:
 * "Some religions are in the main dualistic: they view the universe as comprising two basic and usually opposed principles, such as good and evil or spirit and matter. Insofar as the conception of a god and an antigod rather than that of two gods is encountered, this kind of religion can be considered another variation of monotheism."
 * "Some gnostic systems (ancient philosophical and religious movements based on esoteric knowledge and the dualism of matter and spirit and deemed heretical by orthodox Christians) came near to this idea: the demiurge who created the world and humanity is considered an evil being and contrasted with the good god. The most important instance of dualism within a religion is the Iranian religion Zoroastrianism, which emerged out of the teachings of the prophet and priest Zarathustra (also known by his Greek name, Zoroaster; died c. 551 BCE), in which Ahura Mazdā (the “Wise Lord,” or the good, supreme god) and Ahriman (Angra Manyu, the destructive spirit) are each other’s opposite and implacable enemy; at the end of time, Ahura Mazdā will defeat Ahriman. Dualism, the existence of two contrary and, as a rule, mutually inimical principles, must not be confused with the notion of polarity, in which both principles are mutually dependent so that the one cannot exist without the other. Within Zoroastrianism, this notion is also found. In Zurvanism, a movement that arose within Zoroastrianism and profoundly influenced its cosmology even though it was considered heretical, Ahura Mazdā and Ahriman both proceed from Zurvān Akarana (Limitless Time) and in the end..."
 * https://www.britannica.com/topic/monotheism/The-spectrum-of-views-monotheisms-and-quasi-monotheisms Researcher1988 (talk) 02:18, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Which sources ''do no not even support their claim" ? ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  10:48, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 1- George foot moore:
 * ""The religion whose adherents call themselves "Worshippers of Mazda," the Wise God, and which we commonly name after its founder Zoroastrianism, is in many ways of peculiar interest. is the only monotheistic religion of Indo-European origin, Judaism is the one independent Semitic monotheism."
 * ""By the side of these nature powers, the Immortal Ones become personal deities and receive divine worship... Ahura Mazda is the father and creator of them all; he brought them that they might be his ministers, and what he does is mainly done through their instrumentality. Each of them presides over a province of nature: Vohu Mano over animals, Asha Vahishta over fire, Khshatra Vairya metals, Spenta Armaiti is the goddess of earth; Ameretat are the genii of waters and plants respectively. the ecclesiastical calendar of later times each of these Amshaspands is regent of a certain month of the year and of a certain day of the month. All these divinities (Yazatas, modern Persian Izeds) are subordinate to Ahura Mazda; the theology is so far forth consistently monotheistic."
 * https://www.jstor.org/stable/1507426?seq=1
 * 2- Shernaz Cama:
 * ""For Zoroastrians, Ahura Mazda is the only one God. All good is comprehended within Him. Division and evil only appeared because of the hostile Spirit Ahriman. Evil is the disruption of the fundamental unity of Asha and because it negates, it destroys. Evil is the antithesis of good but the conflict between the two will end with the triumph of Asha, when evil shall ultimately perish."
 * 3-Dorothea Ludekens:
 * ""Zoroastrianism is a global religious tradition whose boundaries and ritual practices are challenged by changes in modern societies. As a religious tradition, Zoroastrianism traces itself back to the ancient Iranian Prophet Zarathushtra and identifies him as the origin of the authoritative Zoroastrian scriptures, liturgies, rituals, beliefs, and ethics. Zoroastrians call their religion Zarathushti Din or Mazdayasna Daena referring to Ahura Mazda (“Wise Lord”) as the creator of the world and their only God. While several kinds of positive spiritual beings, known as Yazatas, “[beings] worthy of worship,” support humanity…”
 * https://www.academia.edu/42395885/Zoroastrianism
 * 4-Erhard Gerstenberger:
 * ""In Zoroastrianism Ahura Mazda, the ‘Lord of Wisdom’ is considered a superior, all-encompassing deity, the only existing one, who may be venerated in all other god-manifestations. This certainly is a monotheistic concept."
 * https://www.academia.edu/27409859/Zoroastrianism_and_the_Bible_Monotheism_by_Coincidence
 * 5-Mario Ferrero:
 * "The prophet Zoroaster is credited with the founding of the first monotheistic religion in history sometime around the middle of the second millennium BCE, antedating the Israelites and leaving a lasting imprint on Second Temple Judaism and, through it, on later monotheistic religions."
 * "Dualism is one way for a religion to address the problem of evil which is inherent in monotheism—how can a God who is thought to be all-powerful, all-knowing, and wholly good tolerate evil? Zoroaster’s answer is a radical, unbridgeable separation between the two principles: God did not create evil, nor does he tolerate it; rather, evil has always existed from before time, uncreated and personified as the Hostile Spirit, but will meet its end at Frasho-kereti someday; and it is God’s purpose and unceasing work to fight it to its extinction with the help of all the divine and worldly creatures. So one could say that while God is not quite the One and Only so long as the present time of Mixture lasts, he will indeed “become” such at the End, as the final victory of the good over evil is not to be doubted; and with the disappearance of Angra Mainyu and his cohorts, dualism will leave the field to unqualified monotheism. Other monotheistic religions which, like Judaism, Christianity and Islam, posit that God is the creator of everything, including evil, were driven to explain evil by resort to fallen angels (like Satan) or inferior supernatural beings who vie with God for man’s soul, thus replacing a philosophical conundrum with another (Boyce, 1982, 195; Cohn, 2001, 182 ff.; Pagels, 1996)."
 * https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s41412-021-00113-4
 * These sources, among many others, claim Zoroastrianism is monotheistic and should be called monotheistic. Besides whats important to note here is that dualism does not stand in monotheism's way. belief in a separate source of evil is not against Monotheism. Researcher1988 (talk) 02:10, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * George Foot Moore and many of the others there openly contradict you. even in your quotes. Moore says "By the side of these nature powers, the Immortal Ones become personal deities and receive divine worship... Ahura Mazda is the father and creator of them all; he brought them that they might be his ministers, and what he does is mainly done through their instrumentality. Each of them presides over a province of nature: " Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 07:05, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Observations and proposal
with all due respect, your long detailed posts are simply an engagement in original research. This isn't really how Wikipedia discussions should operate. We should present, but not argue from, sources. What needs presenting here is an overview source that has reviewed all the sources you present and come to some sort of conclusion about them. It has to be an independent conclusion: then you just provide it, and assuming it's a quality reliable source, there in neither room nor need for argument.

Because Wikipedia prohibits original research, you are never going to get the majority of editors to agree on taking any position in Wikipedia voice if it requires such argumentation to convince them.

As I see it, the underlying problem is that the article does not have a section on the evolution of academic views on Zoroastrianism. It is extremely difficult at the stage of development of the article to tell whether the religion may or may not have evolved to be more or less monotheistic, or whether academic opinions on the matter are what has changed over time.

My suggestion is that that section needs to be written: a history of Zoroastrian Studies. Then that section can be summarized in the lead. In religion, things are rarely only one thing. The old proverb about the blind men and the elephant comes to mind. Skyerise (talk) 10:26, 13 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I restored an old version of the article, before dispute. If I'm not mistaken, that version is the last stable and referenced version, it should remain as long as a consensus if found here, on the talk page. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  10:43, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Wikaviani
 * there are 2 editors here who hold different opinions:
 * 1- tiggy the terrible, who is insisting on his opinions for 4 months,
 * 2- Venus FF who (according to their own words) believes Zoroastrianism worships one deity, but thinks the religion should be called dualistic, without presenting any source on why It should not be called Monotheistic.
 * I suggest, first we deal with the second editor VFF and solve this problem, then the first editor Researcher1988 (talk) 11:03, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * You don't need to "deal with" any other editor. You just need to provide a source which details the history of the opinions in Zoroastrian studies and provides a summary and conclusion about those opinions. Skyerise (talk) 11:05, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I already provided several, the problem is that you don't care to check all the above threads. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  11:09, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Great. Use them to write the article section I've proposed so I can read a coherent paragraph or three on the topic. Skyerise (talk) 11:11, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Researcher1988 You want to 'deal' with us? Is that a threat? Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 08:32, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * should we provide sources to describe the meaning of English words to some users now? Researcher1988 (talk) 08:38, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Skyerise
 * I agree with your points. but the other editors (who hold opposite views) are doing the same thing: arguing from their own sources.
 * My point is that Wikipedia is not a place of discussion about whether this or that religion is Monotheistic, dualistic etc. Wikipedia should reflect the outside consensus.
 * According to these sources Zoroastrian is considered one of the oldest (if not the oldest) Monotheistic religions in the world:
 * 1-https://www.history.com/topics/religion/zoroastrianism
 * 2-https://www.worldhistory.org/zoroastrianism/
 * 3-https://study.com/academy/lesson/zoroastrianism-definition-beliefs-history.html
 * 4- https://www.britannica.com/topic/Zoroastrianism
 * there are enough reliable secondary sources to support this claim. why should a Wikipedia article reflect a different view?
 * thank you. Researcher1988 (talk) 10:48, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Those are crap sources and there is no reason we should follow them. Skyerise (talk) 10:57, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Is WP:ONUS still in our guidelines ? you should wait to achieve consensus before editing this article, so far there is no consensus. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  11:05, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * There is a clear consensus in the section above that there is no consensus to call Zoroastrianism monotheistic. Skyerise (talk) 11:13, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I restored a version before dispute, that version should stand as long as there is no consensus to change it. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  11:15, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * No, there is a clear consensus against stating that Zoroastrianism is monotheistic at this point. Recent edits implemented that consensus and should remain. Skyerise (talk) 11:19, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Researcher1988 @Wikaviani Why is the ancient aliens website History.com a valid source, but an academic specialist in languages not? Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 12:52, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't say we should follow them. but they reflect the Consensus and there are enough secondary sources to support their claim. Researcher1988 (talk) 11:05, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Those are not quality sources. Three are web sources and the fourth is a tertiary source. The only intellectually honest way to proceed is the find sources for and write the section I propose. Don't be lazy, you call yourself a "researcher"! Skyerise (talk) 11:07, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * are thes sources from prominent experts of Iranian history and Avestan studies crap too :
 *  ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  11:12, 13 April 2024 (UTC)  ---Wikaviani  (talk)  (contribs)  11:12, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Again, stop arguing from sources. Write a summary section on the topic without changing the rest of the article. Then all editors can read a coherent presentation rather than desparate talk page arguments extended ad naseum. Skyerise (talk) 11:16, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * "Stop arguing from sources" ? What are you talking about ? we go by what reliable sources say, not our personal opinions. I feel like I'm talking to a newbie while you're not. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  11:18, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Arguing from sources is a form of engaging in original research. If you had a clear unambiguous source, there would be no need to argue. When there are multiple opinions, we summarize them all: we don't choose between them. Therefore this sort of argumentation is a complete waste of other editors time. Write a summary section about all the opinions and how they have changed over time. The fact the someone in 1912 said something is simply a single data point. Where are the rest? Skyerise (talk) 11:20, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Skyerise
 * with all respect, Sources are not the problem. there are editors here who don't want to accept that they are wrong.
 * VFF edited theology section and removed texts with reliable sources, without providing any reason. their edits sure are a form of Vandalism.
 * they edited the lead and deleted sourced material without seeking any consensus or editors' opinion here. Researcher1988 (talk) 12:06, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * With all respect, they are not wrong. When there are sources which say X, and other sources which say Y, and yet other sources which say Z, you can't just say "I've got 3 sources that say X. Game over." The game is not over. You have to also include and summarize opinions Y and Z. You are failing to do that, because you want to support only one of the range of opinions. That's not what we do here. Skyerise (talk) 12:51, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Indeed. I'm still waiting to find out why "divine beings worthy of worship and sacrifice" are not considered gods. Never mind an explanation as to the well documented presence of Mithra etc in the Aveta, and his title being the same as Mazda. 12:54, 13 April 2024 (UTC) Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 12:54, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, and I want to know things like: X was the majority opinion in the 19th century, Y was the majority opinion in the 20th century, but Z is the majority opinion in the 21st century. I don't care which is X, Y, or Z, I want to know the history of the matter. Only then can we really give a summary in the lead that does the subject justice. I don't know why editors should be resistant to writing the necessary summary first so we can gain some clarity on the issue. Skyerise (talk) 13:01, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * This would be a very good good idea @Skyerise. It seems increasingly clear that Zoroastrianism has been primarily viewed through a Western lens, and that it has been influenced by both Christian and Islamic ideas. I truly doubt that the English edition of Avesta would contain such a large amount of specifically Christian terminology that does not exist in the original language if this were not the case. For example, calling one of the seven Immortals/virtues (Amesha Spenta) the 'holy spirit'. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 08:37, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Those texts contained other opinions as well. VFF is not against it being Monotheistic, they insists that it should be called Dualistic but presents no sources why. even one of their own sources says the religion can't be described as straightforward Dualistic:
 * https://academic.oup.com/jaar/article-abstract/XLVII/4/557/744081
 * "In brief, the interpretation we favor is that Zoroastrianism combines cosmogonic dualism and eschatological monotheism in a manner unique to itself among the major religions of the world. This combination results in a religious outlook which cannot be categorized as either straightforward dualism or straightforward monotheism..." Researcher1988 (talk) 13:01, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Unambiguous sources have been provided by me with quotes several times here and in the article, please check by yourself. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  18:02, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Jenny Rose says there is no widespread consensus on Zoroastrian Monotheism
I've been trying to contact researchers who deal with Zoroastrianism directly, and Jenny just got back to me. While I'm still waiting for a hard source I can share, her view is there is no consensus on Zoroastrian monotheism at all. Her exact words being: > "In this regard, there is no consensus among scholars as to how to define the Z religion, particularly as to whether it is ‘monotheistic,’ ‘dualistic,’ ‘henotheistic’ or ‘pantheistic.’ " I think this is very good news, and actually reflects our vote here on the topic. I'm hoping that once she gets back to me, we can finally put this to bed and make the page a lot more neutral. This should help a lot in terms of accuracy of the page, because the sources typically seem to reflect the idea that Zoroastrianism has changed wildly over the centuries. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 11:01, 16 April 2024 (UTC)


 * where is the direct text and source? there are others who say exactly the contrary Researcher1988 (talk) 13:10, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * This was over email, but I'm working on it. But if I can produce it, will you accept it? Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 15:43, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * No. I wont accept it. because there should be a reliable source for this claim. not an email Researcher1988 (talk) 16:21, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Researcher1988 I think I made it clear that I was not referring to the email. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 16:31, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Only reliable sources. Researcher1988 (talk) 16:36, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Do you find this source Jenny sent me reliable? Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 18:51, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * This looks like a reliable source based on a surface read but I haven't had time to review in depth. Simonm223 (talk) 19:06, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you @Simonm223. Let me know if you think it would be enough to push for full neutrality on the monotheism/polytheism issue and explore both topics evenly. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 19:23, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Summary of Zoroastrian studies
I hope it helps:

Overview of Zoroastrianism: 

1-Zoroastrianism believes In one single creator deity who is all-good, omnipotent and omniscient.

2-Zoroastrianism believes that the Evil principle has an origin separate from god; this dualism is cosmological, and thus Zoroastrianism is both Monotheistic and cosmologically dualistic.

3-In Zoroastrianism, material creation is considered holy, and every beneficent and holy creation is Considered “Worthy of worship” or a “Yazata.” thus, while Yazatas are divinities created by God, and should not be considered a “god”, they are considered worthy of worhip or veneration. Even in (Yasna 3) prophet Zoroaster himself is called a Yazata.

Summary of Zoroastrianism studies:

1700

Orientalist Thomas Hyde, concluded that Zoroaster was a strict Monotheist sent by god to repeat the work of Abraham among the ancient Iranians and he supposed that his teachings was misinterpreted by Greeks and other people. This Judeo-Christian interpretation of Zoroastrianism established itself firmly in the academic world for three-quarters of a century.

Mary Boyce – Zoroastrians, Their religious beliefs and practices - Pub: Routledge (december 14, 2000)

1860

Martin Haug, German Philologist suggested that In the Gathas, Zoroaster rejects every divine being other than Ahura Mazda, and the Dualism is merely philosophical and the Amesha Spentas were nothing but Abstract Nouns and Ideas.

Mary Boyce – Zoroastrians, Their religious beliefs and practices - Pub: Routledge; (december 14, 2000)

1912

George Foot Moore, American Historian of Religions, calls Zoroastrianism, the only Monotheistic religion of Indo-European Origin. He believes that in the Gathas, Ahura Mazda has no partner or rival, the Yazatas or Zoroastrian Divinities, are subordinate to Ahura Mazda and believes this is certainly a Monotheistic Doctrine.

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

Early 20th 

Maneckji Dhalla, a Zoroastrian Theologian and priest, describes Ahura Mazda as, “the Being par excellence. Who sits at the apex among the celestial beings of Heaven. He is not begotten, nor is there one like unto him. Beyond him, apart from him, and without him nothing exists. He is the supreme being through whom everything exists. He knows no elder, he has no equal and There is none to dispute his supremacy and contest his place, Nor is there one to struggle successfully with him for the mastery of the heavens. He is the first and foremost. He is the most perfect being. He is almighty and the absolute sovereign.

Maneckji Nusservanji Dhalla – history of Zoroastrianism

1979

James Boyd, believes that Zoroastrianism combines cosmogonic dualism and eschatological monotheism in a manner unique to itself among the major religions of the world. This combination results in a religious outlook which cannot be categorized as either straightforward dualism or straightforward monotheism. Zoroastrianism proclaims a movement through time from dualism toward monotheism, i.e., a dualism which is being made false by the dynamics of time, and a monotheism which is being made true by those same dynamics of time. The meaning of the eschaton in Zoroastrianism is thus the triumph of monotheism, the good God Ahura Mazdä having at last won his way through to complete and final ascendancy.

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

1995

Prods Oktor skjærvø, claims Zoroastrianism is Dualistic and Polytheistic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Researcher1988 (talk • contribs) 07:57, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

2011

Erhard Gersenberger, American Theologist and professor of old testament studies, writes that: “In Zoroastrianism Ahura Mazda, the ‘Lord of Wisdom’ is considered a superior, all-encompassing deity, the only existing one, who may be venerated in all other god-manifestations. This certainly is a monotheistic concept."

https://www.academia.edu/27409859/Zoroastrianism_and_the_Bible_Monotheism_by_Coincidence

2012

Almut Hintze, professor of Zoroastrian studies in university of London, writes that: “The rejection and demonisation of the Daivas and their cult in the Avesta has all the features which characterize a monotheistic movement whereby the elevation of one deity, in our case Ahura Mazdā, is concomitant with the rejection of all other gods.”

https://eprints.soas.ac.uk/16952/1/073%202013%20Change%20%26%20Continuity.pdf

2013

Almut Hintze, in another article investigates the Monotheistic, Dualistic and polytheistic features of Zoroastrianism and comes to conclusion that: Zoroastrianism is Monotheistic, but “Zoroastrianism has its own particular form of Monotheism: Monotheism, the Zoroastrian way.

http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S1356186313000333

2020

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

https://www.academia.edu/42395885/Zoroastrianism

2022

Dr. Shernaz Cama, Honorary Director, UNESCO Parzor Project for the preservation and promotion of Parsi Zoroastrian Culture and Heritage, writes that: “For Zoroastrians, Ahura Mazda is the only one God. All good is comprehended within Him. Division and evil only appeared because of the hostile Spirit Ahriman. Evil is the disruption of the fundamental unity of Asha and because it negates, it destroys. Evil is the antithesis of good but the conflict between the two will end with the triumph of Asha, when evil shall ultimately perish.”

https://www.academia.edu/100018445/The_Dawn_of_History_Zoroastrianism_Ideas_and_Impact

2022

Professor Mario Ferrero, Economist and expert on religious subjects, claims that: “The prophet Zoroaster is credited with the founding of the first monotheistic religion in history sometime around the middle of the second millennium BCE...” Ferrero believes that Zoroastrianism’s Religious dualism will be resolved at the end of the world, and interprets the Yazatas as divinities similar to angels and saints in Judeo-Christianity who are subordinate to godhead.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s41412-021-00113-4 Researcher1988 (talk) 11:49, 14 April 2024 (UTC)


 * @Researcher1988 Among other problems, Angels are NOT worshiped or offered sacrifice, so the comparison makes no sense. There's also the problem that Mazda himself is a Yazata, and there are two other Ahuras. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 14:14, 14 April 2024 (UTC)


 * The issue I see here is these sources seem to have been cherry-picked for their opinion. I know there are also sources that reject the view that it is monotheistic. For the section to be NPOV, these positions must be sought out and included. Who comes down in favor of Dualism - they have to be included. Are there more qualified positions, do any sources use "Dualistic monotheism" or "Monotheistic dualism" to describe it? These also must be included. Also, even if it is a minority opinion, sources that suggest polytheism should also be addressed. This list should be developed with an attitude completely without bias for one position or the other so we can write a decent summary. Skyerise (talk) 13:28, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * And reading more of this talk page, it seems some sources call it Henotheism or perhaps Monolatry. I don't see those listed here either. Skyerise (talk) 13:39, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * these are some of the most famous sources. Almut hintze did one of the best researches in this field, and also, Dorothea Luddeckens entry in "the sage encyclopedia of sociology of religion" can be considered the current Scholarly consensus. Researcher1988 (talk) 01:56, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Also James boyd that I have included is in favor of calling the religion "Monotheistic dualism" or "Dualistic Monotheism." I tried my best to include all sources. inside the articles, for example Almut Hintze article, many of these so called sources are reviewed. Researcher1988 (talk) 02:00, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I've added skjærvø to this list. as far as I remember, he is the only person who is against calling the religion Monotheistic. Researcher1988 (talk) 07:58, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Researcher1988 So now we're back onto sociology being okay after it was rubbished earlier? And you are ignoring the parts of those sources that say things like the religion was no one thing over its history? And you ignore me too. How are the Yazata Angels when Angels are NOT worshiped or offered sacrifice, but Yazata ARE? And how can the three Ahuras also be Yazata if the Yazata are just created angels?
 * @Skyerise I think Researcher just ignores anything that contradicts them. But since we have the results of the vote, we should simply move forward with making the page neutral on the subject of monotheism.Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 07:00, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * no. these are the Majority of sources. The religion is Monotheistic. there is a scholarly Consensus about that. if we can't reach a Consensus here, we should call Admins and other editors for their Opinion. Researcher1988 (talk) 07:06, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Researcher1988 The consensus is neutrality on the issue, and your sources make clear there are other gods in these religions. Mary Boyde, who you cite, says that they were only called angels because they were under Muslim occupation. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 08:22, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @TiggyTheTerrible
 * No. it is not. According to majority of Sources Zoroastrianism is Monotheistic and there are no Gods in Zoroastrianism. Researcher1988 (talk) 08:31, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Researcher1988 Your own sources debunk you.
 * Mary Boyde says: the Zoroastrians had "lesser gods".
 * George Foot Moore says: "By the side of these nature powers, the Immortal Ones become personal deities and receive divine worship..."
 * Professor Mario Ferrero, Economist "Zoroaster carried out a “reform” of Iranian polytheism, asking his followers to change their ways and beliefs but not to throw away all they had. Consequently, lesser divine beings or “gods” and many old rituals remained, to the dismay of modern European Christian scholars who were looking for a “pure” monotheism."
 * Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 08:47, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * No. You totally miss the point. Zoroastrianism is Monotheistic. Yazatas are not gods. the old "Gods" became "Yazatas" or angels of the new Religion. Researcher1988 (talk) 08:50, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * All those sources call Zoroastrianism Monotheistic. Worship of Yazatas is not against Monotheism. because they are not worshipped as gods equal to Ahura Mazda. It is clear and very simple. Researcher1988 (talk) 08:52, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

The issue was debated at length by Almut Hintze. See HINTZE, ALMUT. “Monotheism the Zoroastrian Way.” Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society 24, no. 2 (2014): 225–49. , which also contains a summary of the scholarly controversy. I wouldn't say that the point of that article is that Zoroastrianism' is 'Monotheistic, but “Zoroastrianism has its own particular form of Monotheism: Monotheism, the Zoroastrian way. An excerpt might be helpful.

[...] The religion thus seems to involve monotheistic, polytheistic and dualistic features simultaneously.

In the ongoing scholarly debate on the classification of Zoroastrianism according to the terms just mentioned views differ according to which of these features is given most prominence, and usually the labels attached to Zoroastrianism combine two features out of a possible three (or four).Footnote 2 For instance, Boyd and Crosby's answer to the question posed in the title of their article “Is Zoroastrianism Dualistic or Monotheistic?, is that the religion starts from a cosmogonic dualism, but over time moves towards an eschatological monotheism.Footnote 3 Schwartz, with regard to the oldest texts of the Zoroastrian tradition, the Gathas, defines the religion as a “monotheistic dualism”Footnote 4 and Gnoli, who considers dualism to be incompatible with polytheism, as a “dualistic monotheism”Footnote 5 while Panaino considers Mazdāism to be synonymous with monotheism because of Ahura Mazdā's sovereign role in the religious system.Footnote 6 By contrast, Skjærvø admits both dualism and polytheism but excludes monotheism.Footnote 7 As far as the Gathas are concerned, Kellens accepts cosmic dualism for the opposition between a a- ‘order’ and druj- ‘deceit’, but not for that between the two mainyus or ‘spirits’ which in his view denote right and wrong human mental forces.Footnote 8 Regarding the terms polytheism and monotheism, Kellens, while emphasizing the pre-eminent role of Ahura Mazdā, comments that the two alternatives are “just as absurd as that of the half-full or half-empty bottle”, and rightly notes the inadequacy of any of these terms on its own.Footnote 9

One of the difficulties arises from the fact that the notions of monotheism, polytheism and dualism are defined not on the basis of Zoroastrianism but on that of other religions, in particular the Judeo–Christian tradition. [...] Having been defined from the scholarly perspective of the Judeo-Christian tradition since the period of the Enlightenment, the two terms came to constitute a dichotomy of mutually exclusive opposites. Consequently “monotheism” was claimed as the label of the Judeo-Christian tradition and endowed with greater prestige than the “polytheism” attributed to some non-Judeo-Christian religions and perceived as both challenging to and in opposition to monotheism.

[...] An adequate characterization of Zoroastrianism is obviously not possible by imposing terms the contents of which have been defined on the basis of other religions. Rather than asking whether Zoroastrianism is monotheistic or polytheistic – a question the legitimacy of which has rightly been doubted – in what follows I hope to throw light on and suggest an explanation for the mixture of seemingly monotheistic, polytheistic and dualistic features mentioned above, which Zoroastrianism presents to the observer.

[...] Each of the monotheistic, dualistic and polytheistic features, mentioned at the beginning of this article and which Zoroastrianism presents to the observer, thus represents an essential constituent of the whole system. Taken together, their sum makes a self-contained theology with a remarkable degree of coherence and consistency. Notions of monotheism, dualism and polytheism are so closely intertwined in the Zoroastrian religion that it is difficult, if not impossible to separate them from each other without causing the whole system to collapse.

Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:12, 16 April 2024 (UTC)


 * "She adds that Zoroastrianism has its own form of Monotheism: the Zoroastrian way." as you said this can be very helpful. Researcher1988 (talk) 05:12, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I was quoting your summary of Hintze's article, which I don't believe is entirely accurate. Here's my summary:
 * Zoroastrianism can be described (and has been described by reliable sources) as monotheistic, dualistic, and also polytheistic. According to Hintze, each of these terms provides an incomplete and potentially misleading characterisation of Zoroastrianism, whose main feature is the way these elements are combined into a coherent doctrine. Hintze argues that debating whether Zoroastrianism qualifies as strictly monotheistic (or dualistic, etc.) is pointless, since the question is meaningful only in the perspective of our Judeo-Christian notion of deity, which emphasizes the idea of "one true God."
 * As WP editors committed to neutrality, we must "describe disputes, but not engage in them" (WP:VOICE), "fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources" (WP:UNDUE) and "describ[e] the opposing views clearly, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint" (WP:BALANCE). Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:19, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Gitz6666 I think that's essentially my view on the subject too. The question of what it is does really seem to depend, also, on the era you are talking about. I'm pretty sure they went more towards Monolatry after the Islamic & Christian missionary period and up into the modern day. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 19:26, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Regarding "votes" and !votes
Wikipedia does not operate via up or down vote - instead we build consensus by discussion on talk page of sources and of associated Wikipedia policy. This is why the general nomenclature is !vote - which implies a non-vote. I think everybody on this talk page would be wise to remember this. Simonm223 (talk) 12:05, 15 April 2024 (UTC)


 * @Simonm223
 * I Provided a summary of Zoroastrianism studies, is it helpful in reaching consensus? Researcher1988 (talk) 12:17, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Not particularly. It was very long and seemed like a lot of WP:SYNTH - I would strongly recommend you step away from this article for a week or two and get some distance. Simonm223 (talk) 12:26, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Simonm223
 * It was a summary of Zoroastrianism studies, as far as I had access to. Researcher1988 (talk) 12:41, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, but as I've repeatedly said, what we need is a overview source that summarizes the opinions; you summarizing the opinions is simply not the way it is done, because you have an agenda and that makes your summary potentially unreliable because you leave out sources. Even if that wasn't the case, we can't count sources to derive the majority opinon (that's original research). You must find a source that clearly states: the majority opinion is X. Again, for Wikipedia editors to draw a conclusion by counting sources is not admissable, it's original research. So please stop wasting our time doing it and just find a source that makes the statement. Skyerise (talk) 19:52, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Skyerise
 * Is this enough?
 * Almut Hintze (2013):
 * “There is general agreement among scholars that there is one supreme god in Zoroastrianism, Ahura Mazda. From the oldest sources, the Gathas and Yasna Haptanghaiti, to present day religious practice, all worship, both ritual and devotional, is focused on him…” Researcher1988 (talk) 02:56, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Also, please read this Article by Almut Hintze to get a better understanding of the Zoroastrian theology. this study sums up the Opinions of Theologians regarding Zoroastrianism.
 * https://www.researchgate.net/publication/271934655_Monotheism_the_Zoroastrian_Way Researcher1988 (talk) 03:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * This source looks valuable and provides the kind of "overview" Skyerise is looking for. Please read this excerpt. We could use it to expand/rewrite the Zoroastrianism subsection, or at least add to it the following text: Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:42, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes. Thank you. All three views have to be acknowledged. In classical times, the general consensus was dualism. I thnik I was misunderstood that I wanted a history on the talk page. A history of academic studies and views needs to be added to the article. Only then will we be able to include the appropriate balance in summaries in the lead. Skyerise (talk) 10:12, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Also, I added an overview under theology. Seems since it is complicated it would be best to introduce the views first. Some of the theism subsection might need to be integrated there, and these above statements should also be added. We can discuss the ultimate placement of the materials if there is disgreements about where I put it. Skyerise (talk) 10:40, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Almut hintze Calls the religion Monotheistic, but a Monotheism unique to Zoroastrianism which combines dualistic and polytheistic elements. Is it not enough for editors here to label the religion as monotheistic? Researcher1988 (talk) 13:13, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I think its better to move that overview, to theism subsection and mix it with the already existing texts. Researcher1988 (talk) 13:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * That really doesn't sound like monotheism to me. That sounds like Monolatry. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 19:28, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * That really doesn't sound like monotheism to me. That sounds like Monolatry. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 19:28, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Totalling Consensus on Monotheism
The stats for the people currently editing this page thus far are against Monotheism as an explanation if Dualism is counted as an objection to it. However; if 'Objection' and 'Support' votes both cancel each other out to become "No consensus" votes, then the true majority vote is to remain neutral on the topic of Monotheism and represent both views equally. I'm sure this will cause another massive debate, but I would prefer it to be down here instead of in the middle of the vote itself. However, I'm hoping the 'Support' side will see this as an olive branch. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 10:33, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Objections:; 2
 * No consensus on monotheism: 2
 * Support Monotheistic view: 2
 * Dualism: 1


 * Wikipedia is not a WP:POOL, we don't vote, the WP:BURDEN is on those who want to change the article, that makes edits like this one unwarranted. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  17:58, 15 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Notwithstanding our difference of opinion about how to accurately reflect the academic consensus surrounding Zoroastrianism I would concur, as I mentioned below, wikipedia parlance uses !vote in place of vote for a reason. Simonm223 (talk) 18:00, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you, but I'm considering to step out this mess and let people here label this religion as they want, since this talk page is turning into a battleground and I'm not interested in fighting other Wikipedians. I advise you to do the same, this article seems to be owned by some editors who refuse to ackowledge WP:CON, WP:BRD, WP:ONUS and so on, let them label Zoroastrianism as polytheistic if they want, we both did our best to avoid that, but who cares ... ---Wikaviani  (talk)  (contribs)  18:11, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Wikaviani The user known as Researcher constantly tells us we need 'consensus' on the page, and has launched multiple versions of this vote, so pelase talk to them rather tham me. Page votes are a common tool. I find it very interesting that you warning Researcher about other people engaging in [WP:OWN]. Researcher very much treats the page as if they own it, to the point that I cannot even make superficial grammatical or aesthetic edits. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 07:34, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Wikaviani
 * I suggest it is time for a RFC.
 * There are users here who really think they own the article and change it whenever they want and put anything they want in it. Researcher1988 (talk) 20:37, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Consensus Updates
Because people keep starting debates with the voters, I am going to summarise the votes without the explanations in the hope that this will make things readable Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 10:38, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Objection to calling Zoroastrianism monotheistic. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 17:23, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Zoroastrian is monotheistic whether you agree with it or not:
 * "Zoroastrianism is a global religious tradition whose boundaries and ritual practices are challenged by changes in modern societies. As a religious tradition, Zoroastrianism traces itself back to the ancient Iranian Prophet Zarathushtra and identifies him as the origin of the authoritative Zoroastrian scriptures, liturgies, rituals, beliefs, and ethics. Zoroastrians call their religion Zarathushti Din or Mazdayasna Daena referring to Ahura Mazda (“Wise Lord”) as the creator of the world and their only God. While several kinds of positive spiritual beings, known as Yazatas, “[beings] worthy of worship,” support humanity…”
 * https://www.academia.edu/42395885/Zoroastrianism Researcher1988 (talk) 11:09, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Please stop trying to turn votes into fresh debates by repeating debunked points @Researcher1988. 12:49, 13 April 2024 (UTC) Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 12:49, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * No consensus that Zoroastrianism should be labeled as unambiguously monotheistic. GretLomborg (talk) 21:21, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * No consensus that Zoroastrianism is monotheistic - the academic literature variously describes it as monotheistic, dualistic or a hybrid of polytheistic and monotheistic elements. It would seem reasonable to describe it as monolatrous in wiki voice. Other statements should be attributed. Simonm223 (talk) 11:45, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Monotheistic view As per the compelling sources I provided before. I would like to remind everybody that "votes" should be argumented with legit rationale and sources in this kind of situation, since the burden is on you to achieve consensus for inclusion. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  12:21, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * My response is based on the reliable sources shared by other editors on this page. Simonm223 (talk) 12:46, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * All the problem here is that none of you guy provided a single expert source that explicitly supports Zoroastrianism to be polytheistic, not a single one, while we have several of the best sources available for this topic saying that this religion is monotheistic. You are on shaky ground, for the least. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  16:31, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Noone said it is poltheistic lol VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 19:03, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * You will note that I did not, once, suggest that Zoroastrianism is explicitly polytheistic. Rather I said the academic literature variously describes it as monotheistic, dualistic or a hybrid of polytheistic and monotheistic elements. Furthermore your argument that expert sources don't exist to support this depends on a particularly narrow view of expert sources that treat the religion solely in historical terms. Simonm223 (talk) 19:58, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * If you would actually read the source, you would know they do not support the claim. It is strange that you want to support someone without even going into that matter. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 00:41, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Monotheistic view As sources which I have provided and provide enough compelling evidence to support this claim. Zoroastrians view themselves as Monotheistic, An the Academic Consensus is that they are Monotheistic:

"The prophet Zoroaster is credited with the founding of the first monotheistic religion in history sometime around the middle of the second millennium BCE..."

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s41412-021-00113-4 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Researcher1988 (talk • contribs) 01:38, 14 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Objection to call it monotheistic: As showed above multiple times, the general consensus is that Zorastrianism is dualistic, which is a sub-type of monotheism. All sources saying that Zorastrianism is "monotheistic" are also covered by the sources saying that Zorastrianism is "dualistic". Also, the definition of Cosmological Dualism applies to Zorastrianism while the term "Monotheism" does not (see the definitions in the source provided, those who say Zorastrianism is monotheistic never offered a definition of the term but cherry picked what they liked).
 * VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 19:02, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Dualism as showed above is just another form of Monotheism. Being Dualistic does not contrast with bein Monotheistic at the same time. totally disagree. you should provide sources that it is Not Monotheistic and instead, Dualistic. but you have not provided any source for that. you are just insisting on your personal opinions. Researcher1988 (talk) 01:19, 13 April 2024 (UTC)


 * The balance of the sources seem to support Dualism. I might reconsider this position if there is a scriptural source that states that Ahura Mazda created Angra Mainyu. But it appears that most of the scriptural sources for the creation of the world says the two created it together. If there are sources that say that it became more monotheistic over time, then those views should be balanced against sources with other opinions. A source that summarizes the various polarized opinions seems to be what is needed here. That avoids the cherry-picking of one opinion vs another. Skyerise (talk) 10:01, 13 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Summarizing this, we have 1 2 editors supporting monotheistic, 2 editors objecting to calling it monotheistic, 2 editors noting there is no consensus to call it monotheistic, and 1 editor (myself), supporting dualistic. That's 1 2 for monotheism against 5 saying no or not now, so any edits changing it to monotheistic are against consensus and disruptive editing. Continuing to make disruptive edits against consensus will earn escalating warnings followed by a block. Skyerise (talk) 01:28, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Skyerise
 * I support It being Monotheistic too, and @Wikaviani
 * There are 2 Researcher1988 (talk) 01:31, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Nonetheless, the clear consensus is against calling it monotheistic at this time. I've indicated what could be done to change this. If you want to convince me to change my mind, you will write a section including such facts as: what was the first academic work considered to have started the field of Zoraastrian studies? What position did that writer take? Did his contemporaries agree? Was there a majority consensus? During the next century, did different opinions arise? Was there a change in consensus? In the 21st century, what is the current consensus - because the latter is what we will use on the article: not the 19th century opinion, not the 20th century opinion. Without the history of Zoroastrian Studies laid out clearly, I don't have the data necessary to change my mind, and neither do the other editors. Skyerise (talk) 01:37, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Ok, I will write that. but Dualism doesn't have enough support, so why should we call it Dualistic now? Researcher1988 (talk) 01:40, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I see no opposition to dualism. As you yourself have indicated, there is such a thing as dualistic monotheism, so a !vote for monotheism can't be read as an oppostion to dualism. Skyerise (talk) 01:43, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * ok, But according to Britannica, Religious dualism itself is considered another form of Monotheism, so a vote for Dualism can be read as confirmation of Monotheism too:
 * "Some religions are in the main dualistic: they view the universe as comprising two basic and usually opposed principles, such as good and evil or spirit and matter. Insofar as the conception of a god and an antigod rather than that of two gods is encountered, this kind of religion can be considered another variation of monotheism..."
 * https://www.britannica.com/topic/monotheism/Monotheism-in-world-religions Researcher1988 (talk) 02:15, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * And this is exactly why we need to know the history of Zoroastrian studies and the evolution of opinions on the matter. You are again engaging in original research: not all dualism is considered monotheistic, and using synthesis of sources isn't permitted either. The only relevant sources are those directly discussing Zorostrianism. Skyerise (talk) 02:31, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Skyerise Agreed. Part of the problem is that a large chunk of the sources on the page admit that the religion was polytheistic in a historical sense. However, certain editors here are keen to keep its evolution out of the article. Especially in the top part that people might read. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 08:27, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * not a single source admits that. stop with this misinformation. Researcher1988 (talk) 08:41, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * A 3 vs 2 is now a consensus ?? the more I interact with you, the more I'm baffled by what you say and your behaviour ... ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  18:00, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * but it is not 3 vs 2, it is 5 vs 2. The "no consensus for monotheism" also count as against votes. Skyerise (talk) 19:47, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't see a 5 vs 2 but still, even 5 vs 2 is not a consensus, thus the stable version of the article before dispute should stand, especially when the 2 have provided several high quality sources for their claim while the 5 have not been capable to provide a single one (or at least a single expert source to challenge the others). Anyway, as I said I'm out, go ahead and label this religion as you want (that's already what you did before ...).
 * And for your information, "no consensus" is not a valid "vote", as the Burden is on you guys to achieve consensus for inclusion, not on me and Researcher1988. I'm tired of discussing this matter for 4 months with some editors who don't know what they're talking about and refuse to ackowledge our guidelines to focibly impose their prefered version against what our best sources say. So far we have one who gives his own interpretation of Avesta, another who says that 'humanities sources" are ok for this topic no matter if they are contradicted by stronger expert sources, you who reverts back to a non-consensual version of the article, and so on ... enough with this. You guys want to own this article ? granted.20:08, 15 April 2024 (UTC) ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)   ---Wikaviani  (talk)  (contribs)  20:08, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I believe the consensus is broadly for neutrality on the issue, since there is no agreement. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 17:07, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Sub-section merge?
Isn't the "classification" (formerly "theism") subsection just 80% repeating the same debate mentioned in "Abrahamic religion"? Apart from that the term "Abrahamic religion" also has become subject to sever criticism in academical discourse, though popular in political discourse, this is the same debate on whether or not Zorastrianism is a form of proto-monotheism or not. Is it just me, or should the upper section be integrated into the lower one? An entire section about the debate also seems to be unbalanced given that there is hardly a contest about it being dualistic in real academic discourse. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 20:06, 16 April 2024 (UTC)


 * why are you editing the page before we reach a consensus? you behave as if you own the page? Researcher1988 (talk) 20:44, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * VenusFeuerFalle is an experienced editor in the area of religion. Their neutrality is not in doubt. Skyerise (talk) 20:51, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Skyerise
 * Experienced or not experienced, doesn't make any difference. we haven't reached a consensus yet, but he is editing materials related to debate. without presenting any sources to support his claim that Zoroastrianism is not Monotheistic. Religious dualism is just another form of Monotheism. Removing Monotheism from the lead is unacceptable.
 * I think we need a RFC. we need more editors give their opinion regarding this matter. Researcher1988 (talk) 21:02, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Of course it matters. They are editing to the consensus not to call Z monotheistic, which you keep pretending isn't already decided. Skyerise (talk) 21:07, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * but how you can decide when there are (for now 2) users against it? can it be called a consensus? Researcher1988 (talk) 21:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * consensus is not equivalent to unanimity. Stop. Simonm223 (talk) 21:19, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Because there are 5 editors opposed. That's more than twice as many against calling it monotheism. As Simonm223 states, consensus is simply a clear majority, it doesn't require unanimity. Skyerise (talk) 21:21, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 1- we need more time to reach the consensus.
 * 2- the opinions of the users involved in this consensus is not supported by the majority of sources. so we should take the case to administrators and ask more editors give their opinion here. Researcher1988 (talk) 21:41, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * If I were you, I'd pay more attention to WP:ANI. There is a proposal with several for votes that you be banned from the topic. It would be in your own interests to take your defeat in this consensus more gracefully. Of all the editors involved, your behavior has been judged the worst and the most disruptive. It's pretty clear to me that the issue will be better resolved and the article more quickly improved without you being involved in the process. Keep this up and I will also add my for vote. Skyerise (talk) 21:45, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * With that behavior, the user should be blocked entirely. I have seen Users been deleted for less. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 00:27, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Since you intentionally misgendered me for the third time, I refuse to talk to you until you give a proper apology. In some countries you might even be brought to court for that by the way. But do not get your hopes up, your edits will nonetheless be reverted if they break the guidlines, and if you keep up with that I will get your account (including your potential sockpuppets) get banned. Usually, I do not waste my time with things but you really have a check list to be impudent. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 00:26, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The things I edited was just routine stuff. Debating them is pointless since the outcome is clear. In that case, someone (I don't want to name anyone) had misinterpreted the source (totally accidentally), so I corrected the mistake for them (as nice as I am). When something is potentially subject to dispute, I bring it to the talkpage first. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 00:24, 17 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Good work. Yes, they should be merged. I think right under the Theology heading, rather than as a later subsection. It seems inevitable that there will be some duplication with discussion about the relation with Abrahamic religions. Skyerise (talk) 20:49, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree. Theology seems the appropriate target to merge this material. Simonm223 (talk) 22:42, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * may I ask exactly merging what materials together? Researcher1988 (talk) 23:03, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Would you or be willing to do that? I just found out that Muhammad in Islam is GA without holding barely any GA criteria, and I would like to prioritize that one. I would prefer you Smonm223 to do this, since I already requested Skyerise to keep an eye on the jinn article, as I might not be able to be online the next few days. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 01:24, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I can do this, but not right away. I'm having to fill in for someone out sick at work, and it conflicts with my usual editing time. Skyerise (talk) 10:21, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I'll see what I can do. Simonm223 (talk) 12:18, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Do we have a citation for In the 19th century, through contact with Western academics and missionaries, Zoroastrianism experienced a massive theological change that still affects it today. The Rev. John Wilson led various missionary campaigns in India against the Parsi community, disparaging the Parsis for their "dualism" and "polytheism" and as having unnecessary rituals while declaring the Avesta to not be "divinely inspired". This caused mass dismay in the relatively uneducated Parsi community, which blamed its priests and led to some conversions towards Christianity. or should I cut it? Simonm223 (talk) 12:32, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It seems interesting, but I don't know a source for that. If a quick google search does not reveal anything, it probably lacks notablity and is not a generally agreed notion, and should be removed. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 14:01, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Simonm223 The Jenny source says that they were both influenced by and disparaged by Islam, who saw them as polytheists. And I believe the economist source says it evolved. The 'Gods in Hindu Garb' paper says it. In fact, a lot of our sources at least imply it. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 15:59, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It's more specifically about the John Wilson history piece I'm concerned about. I did find this but have not had a chance to review. Simonm223 (talk) 18:08, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * There is also this source that might be useable . Simonm223 (talk) 18:08, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Ah, that seems like a good find. I have a feeling that missions like that are important to the story here. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 18:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Vote on Edit Conflicts
Mary Boyde is a source accepted by @Researcher1988, but when I try to add a specific quote from her to the page stating that the word "'angel' is commonly substituted for Yazad" in order to "counter Muslim accusations of polytheism" he reverts it, demanding consensus. Therefore I would like to call a vote. Should we be allowed to cherry-pick and quote-mine sources, or must the whole source be used? Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 08:55, 15 April 2024 (UTC)


 * We should wait till we reach a consensus. besides You totally changed the lead in a way it wasn't supported by the sources. Researcher1988 (talk) 09:00, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Researcher1988 Stop using votes as forums. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 09:05, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * In addition to that, those material belong to theology section, not the lead. Researcher1988 (talk) 09:05, 15 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Editors should be allowed to edit outside the area of discussion. That said, we must try to avoid using the word "claim": it implies doubt and thus is not WP:NPOV.


 * I'd also like to suggest that it would be helpful to slow down on the reverts - wait an hour or two so other editors might have a chance to see the change and perhaps improve it. Skyerise (talk) 10:22, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * but he tried to change the lead in a manner that was related to the area of discussion. Researcher1988 (talk) 10:57, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything wrong with the changes besides the use of the word "claim"... I've restored part of it. Skyerise (talk) 11:31, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I've put it back into the lede pending discussion on article talk about the appropriate place to put it. Simonm223 (talk) 12:05, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I've put it into theology section again. this text in unrelated to lead and should be part of Theology section. Researcher1988 (talk) 12:11, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Researcher1988 Thank you for not removing it, but I find it interesting that every citation conflicting your beliefs about Zoroastrianism ends up buried as far down the article as possible. 18:20, 17 April 2024 (UTC) Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 18:20, 17 April 2024 (UTC)