Talk:Zoroastrianism/Archive 11

Plan to Remove Unsupported Section Making Fringe Claims

As far as I've been able to determine, there is no evidence (or academic consensus) for the idea that Zoroastrianism's ideas resulted in the creation of other religions (such as Islam, etc). The idea seems to be very WP:FRINGE, and most sources I come across say nothing about it. It is also massively controversial, and will be deeply offensive to members of said religions. Especially in light of evidence that those religions likely had a huge influence on Zoroastrianism during the Islamic conquest period (See: Jenny's work), and in the missionary period of the 19th century. I'm not really sure why would we assume the direction of influence based merely on common features, to be honest. Especially since (at the moment) the only two citations supporting it are from 1) an economist with no background I can see in Zoroastrianism, and 2) an Islamic theologian writing about art - who similarly has no background. In the latter case, the essay doesn't even mention most of the beings that the section claims it does. And I couldn't find anything discussing the claims made based on it. It also seems very gratuitous that such a controversial and unsupported section would be in the lead. When I arrived here, this section wasn't even cited - which doesn't bode well for it being a real theory. So I feel I have strong grounds to treat it as dubious. Especially in light of how it will be read. So I think my proposal will be to remove such sections, until it can be shown there is academic consensus for them - or, failing that, some kind of reliable evidence. If evidence can be provided, I suggest they be moved to a special 'controvercy' section with other such claims. Otherwise the claims should be weighed against conflicting information for neutrality. Either way, I don't think such an unverified claim it should be a core statement in the lead. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 09:02, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

I have moved the section down to its own area, for now- until we decide what to do with it- and added some clarifiers. 09:12, 18 April 2024 (UTC) Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 09:12, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

I will add that section again with reliable sources. Researcher1988 (talk) 09:24, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Even if you can find better sourcing than an art historian, I severely doubt any existing body of reliable sources for this claim will amount to WP:DUEWEIGHT to appear in the lead as such. Remsense诉 09:29, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Mary Boyce:

"Zoroaster was thus the first to teach the doctrines of an individual judgement, Heaven and Hell, the future resurrection of the body, the general last judgement, and life everlasting for the reunited soul and body. These doctrines were to become familiar articles of faith to much of mankind, through borrowing by Judaism Christianity and Islam; yet it is in Zoroastrianism itself that they have their fullest logical coherence. Since Zoroaster insisted both on the goodness of material creation, and hence of the physical body, and on the unwavering impartiality of divine justice." Researcher1988 (talk) 09:43, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

@Remsense why?

this part was in the lead for a long time and is supported by reliable sources. Researcher1988 (talk) 09:40, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

this part was in the lead for a long time

Wholly irrelevant.

supported by reliable sources.

The article has to proportionately represent its subject, we don't get to put claims we like at the top if their emphasis is not reflective of the whole body of sources on the subject. These claims belong in the body of the article, weighted appropriately in context. Just because claims are verifiable doesn't make them WP:DUE. You know this. Remsense诉 09:46, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

there is general agreement among Scholars for that claim.

Dr Stausberg:

"Zoroastrianism is one of the oldest living religions in the world. It has a very rich history and was the dominant religious tradition of pre-Islamic Iran. Zoroastrians lived in close neighbourhood to adherents of various other religions such as Jews, Christians, Manicheans, Buddhists, and others. It is generally held that Zoroastrianism made an impact on several of these religions — as well as on Islam in its formative period."

https://www.academia.edu/1792246/On_the_study_of_Zoroastrianism Researcher1988 (talk) 09:50, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Researcher1988 As near as I can tell; that section is somewhat WP:FRINGE, and was originally placed there with no sources. Meaning it was likely a WP:POV edit to begin with. Much later on (when it was challenged by me) you added two citations that don't really support it. While you have now come up with some different sources, the idea still seems WP:FRINGE and controversial. I don't think we have much of a solid WP:CONSENSUS or evidence to back it up. And I think it's too spicy/off-topic for the lead in any case. I think Wikipedia should be totally neutral on such controversial claims, and keep them in their own 'theoretical' section. Especially when the given citations seem weak, and clash with stronger evidence. For example; that Zoroastrianism went through a period where they were suppressed by Islamic Caliphate, and adopted Islamic ideas to survive. Later adopting more from Missionaries. And then, again, being interpreted and translated through a Western lens by Academics. Which is something of a known problem. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 10:22, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

TiggyTheTerrible I'd suggest opening a discussion at WP:FRINGEN, as this falls into the pseudohistory category and could use more eyes. Skyerise (talk) 10:34, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

@Skyerise That sounds like a good plan if this can't be resolved through conversation. I'm thinking that it's possible we should wait to see how the Admin thread resolves first, however, as I feel there may be rules about spamming those kinds of message boards. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 10:42, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

@TiggyTheTerrible: I'll do it then. I have no confidence in anything being done on the admin thread, and content issues are distinct from behavior issues. Each in their place is fine. Skyerise (talk) 10:49, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

a note: I found about the edit conflict on this page due to WP:RS/N and also watch WP:FRINGEN. There is currently a debate there about how that noticeboard should engage with religion articles. So it may either get no attention or a whole lot of attention. LOL. Suggest establishing the sources are unambiguously fringe and not just misrepresented first. Simonm223 (talk) 11:38, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Here is an example of what I menan from the Kuehn source's abstract: Conclusive evidence points to the fact that the iconographic semantics of the medieval Western Asian equestrian dragon-fighter in its heroic as well as saintly incarnation owe much to ancient prototypes that germinated in the syncretistic melting pot of the great Near Eastern religions.

The Kuehn piece speculates on the influence of Zoroastrianism but finds evidence of syncretism between various Near Eastern religions. This isn't a fringe position - it's simply WP:CHERRYPICKING from a source that misinterprets its main thrust. Simonm223 (talk) 12:01, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Another quote from the Kuehn piece: Yet there is no evidence that would establish a direct connection, 7 since in none of the cases does the serpent seem to be a noxious beast nor does the rider seem to battle with the serpent. 8 On the contrary, in Mithraism, which became a widespread religion in the Mediterranean basin, Europe and the Near East, the serpent appears to have been “a symbol of beneficial, life-giving force.” - so, yeah, we have an issue here with selective quotation. Simonm223 (talk) 12:07, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

The statement may in large part be due to the influence of Zoroastrian and Iranian dualistic conceptions in which the final triumph of good is implicit on the religions of the Near East from the Achaemenid period to the early centuries of the present era. is cited to Boyce and Grenet, 1991, pp. 361–490; Gnoli, “Dualism,” EIr; Hintze, 1999, pp. 72–9, esp. pp. 75–6. Simonm223 (talk) 12:12, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

But note the double-qualifier "may in large part be due". Simonm223 (talk) 12:12, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Another key source for Kuehn is Saul Shaked here Simonm223 (talk) 12:15, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Here's the actual conclusion The iconographic semantics of the equestrian dragon-fighter – from the greater KhurƗsƗn region to Asia Minor – in its heroic as well as saintly incarnation, thus owe much to ancient prototypes that germinated in the syncretistic melting pot of the great Near Eastern religions. These were probably inspired to a large extent by ancient Iranian dualist notions, and specifically eschatological thought systems, which resulted in close parallels between Iranian and Jewish concepts, inherited, in turn, by Christianity and then Islam.

This is a far weaker claim than it was being used to support. However the essay does not appear to be fringe - it's just being used incorrectly. Simonm223 (talk) 12:18, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

The other source is literally just a bibliography. Here's nearly half of its non-bibliographical copy: Because of the introductory nature of this bibliography, one goal has been to be as broad as possible in scope. Because similar ideas can arise independently, some of the parallels between ancient Zoroastrianism and Jewish beliefs and practices are surely accidental. However, it is not the intent of this bibliography to provide original research or to identify which similarities are true instances of Persian influence on Jewish practices and doctrines and which are merely instances of two peoples who shared some cultural and religious traits developing in parallel. Simonm223 (talk) 12:31, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

From WP:RSPRIMARY Reputable tertiary sources, such as introductory-level university textbooks, almanacs, and encyclopedias, may be cited. so there's nothing wrong with using a tertiary source like a bibliography, and it doesn't look fringe at all, but it also fails verification for supporting the claim it was cited for. Simonm223 (talk) 12:36, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

I've noticed that as well that the sources from Reasercher1988 always turn out to dismantle their case once you read more deeply into them. 12:41, 18 April 2024 (UTC) Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 12:41, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

All this is to say that the removal of the claim from the lede was righteous but it wasn't because the sources were fringe. It's because the sources fail verification of the claim. Simonm223 (talk) 12:43, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

@Simonm223 Thank you. My removal of the art historian source was in large part due to similar reasoning, though I do also think there are many other reasons not to place it in the lead. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 12:58, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Mary Boyce says Zoroastrianism was influenced by Islam

According to Mary Boyce, one of the people on Reasearcher1988's list of sources, the Islamic Califate is the reason that the Yazad are sometimes called "angels". She has an entire chapter on this in one of her books. However, the specific page is 157. Wherein she says that: "Thus the religious vocabulary of both shows an admixture of Arabic words, witness to the pervasive influence of Arabic on spoken Persian after two and a half centuries of domination. In both communities, the word 'fereshte' or 'angel' is commonly substituted for 'yazad', the result no doubt of trying to counter Muslim accusations of polytheism." I think this makes it very clear that either 1) this author must be stricken from the page, or 2) we must add this information. Otherwise we are engaging in WP:CHERRYPICKING. 16:30, 16 April 2024 (UTC) Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 16:30, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

this means not that Zoroastrianism was influenced by Islam at all. Mary Boyce believes that Yazatas should be left untranslated and just be called Yazatas (Not angels, or gods).

and I have no problem with adding Mary Boyce to the article. Researcher1988 (talk) 16:35, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Researcher1988 Do you have an issue with me adding sections involving the quote I have put in bold above? Incidentally, one of your sources for the Zoroastrians influencing Christianity only talks about the art. It doesn't mention angels, heaven, hell, free will, judgement, or most of the others - bar demons. It's written by an artist and Islamic Theologian - not an expert on Zoroastrianism. Never mind a famous one. The other source here is an economics journal. I feel both should be stricken out. Though I am quite interested to see that the first source calls the Zoroastrian Mithras a god. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 16:53, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

the text in bold is already present in theology section. Researcher1988 (talk) 17:24, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Sara kuehn is a researcher and expert on religious and cultural studies:

"www.sarakuehn.com I am a researcher, writer, and lecturer, presently teaching at the Department of Islamic Theology, University of Vienna, working at the interdisciplinary juncture of (art) history, anthropology, theology, religious and cultural studies." Researcher1988 (talk) 17:34, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Researcher1988 Yes. Art history. Theology. Cultural studies. Doesn't that fall rather short of your strict demands for specific experts in Zoroastrianism that you say preclude me from including a linguist who is an expert in the local languages? And, again, the other is an economist who we have not seen to have specific expertise here? Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 18:45, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

no Researcher1988 (talk) 21:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

FunFact, some researchers believe that the Zorastrian religion is alrgely lost, since Persians only started to be interested in their religion again, after the embraced Islam and then, most of their ancient language was lost. Works such as the Shanameh, often celebrated as resistance against Islamization, are actually relying heavenly on Islam. Can't give a source, since it was in a discussion with an expert on research of Persian history who introduced me to the Middle Persian language. (but since this turned into kindof an exchange and this talkpage is a mess anyways, maybe this is an interesting note) VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 01:19, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

@VenusFeuerFalle If you could track something down about that, it would be very illuminating. I believe the Islamic period is critical to understanding the claims of monotheism.

@Researcher1988 A one word answer implies you cannot actually oppose what I said. If you cannot, then I will be adding the word 'art' to that section or removing the source. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 16:57, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

She is a highly trusted academic.

"Dr. Sara Kuehn is a researcher writer and lecturer, presently teaching at department of Islamic theology, university of Vienna, working at the interdisciplinary juncture of art history, anthropology, theology, religious and cultural studies." Researcher1988 (talk) 09:08, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

If I meet something along the line, I will surely add this. I did not finish my seminar due to the whole situation around COVID a few years ago, and have no contact to the teacher anymore. If I stumble upon something along the line, I surely want to add this. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 14:21, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

@VenusFeuerFalle

Funfact: Zoroastrianism is one of the world oldest continuing practiced religions. nobody believes that nonsense.

Iranisns were forced to accept Islam. they didn't embraced Islam. you need to read more about subjects you don't know anything about. you don't know anything about Zoroastrianism. your personal opinions are irrelevant.

Michael Stausberg:

"Zoroastrianism is one of the oldest living religions in the world. It has a very rich history and was the dominant religious tradition of pre-Islamic Iran. Zoroastrians lived in close neighbourhood to adherents of various other religions such as Jews, Christians, Manicheans, Buddhists, and others. It is generally held that Zoroastrianism made an impact on several of these religions — as well as on Islam in its formative period."

https://www.academia.edu/1792246/On_the_study_of_Zoroastrianism

This is pure hatred against Zoroastrians. you should be reported for your racism. Researcher1988 (talk) 08:56, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Strike this entire reply, it's nothing but tendentious bile. You've very quickly shed any appearance of editing in good faith in your last few days of remarks. Remsense诉 09:18, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Why you think like this? these users hate Zoroastrianism, they are attacking the Religion and me who want to defend it. you know this very well. Researcher1988 (talk) 10:05, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

It is an impudence this user is still allowed to reply. It is a gree-card for the most obnoxious behavior. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 14:19, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

As said, I am gonna ignore you until you apologize for your misconduct. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 14:17, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

@Researcher1988 So you are admitting that your concern is in protecting an ideological position, rather than about factuality or following Wikipedia's guidelines? And you do so by pushing for a section that you cannot source which Muslims, Jews, and so on would be upset by? Do you think that Muslims or Jews might find that racist at all? Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 15:58, 18 April 2024 (UTC)