Talk:Zoroaster

Name of Article

sorry for the terrible formatting and also me kinda screwing up the whole name change proposal system, i'm not really sure how to do it (i'd be glad to read about it if anyone is interesting in giving me a link). I'd argue that the name of the article should be Zarathustra and not Zoroaster. Zoroaster is (as talked about in the article!) a name given by the greeks, and imo shouldn't be used. The reason i say Zarathustra as opposed to the other variants in various versions of the persian language is because it's more recognizable to the average reader than Zartosht, for example. Britannica also uses Zarathustra instead of Zoroaster Cahmad25 (talk) 23:39, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

@Cahmad25: If you want to suggest a change of article name (formally called "moving"), use the template {{Requested move}}. Go to the template page and follow the instructions on how to use it. Gaioa (T C L) 19:17, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 4 January 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not Moved Mike Cline (talk) 13:50, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

---

Zoroaster → Zarathustra – Zarathustra is more true to the original language, with Zoroaster being a Greek name given to him. This name is also basically just as recognizable as Zoroaster, and there's no reason not to use it. Britannica also uses it. Furthermore, the man is mentioned by the name Zarathustra within the article Cahmad25 (talk) 21:37, 4 January 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:43, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:COMMON NAME - vast majority of sources use 'Zoroaster'. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:42, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

just looking at the google search results, i think that zarathustra might be the more common name. searching for zarathustra -thus -spoke -spake -"also sprach" (zarathustra without "thus" "spoke" "spake" or "also sprach" if youre not familiar with the things on google search) yields about 3.1 million results, and zoroaster leads to 1.9 million. removing strauss and nietzche from the zarathustra query (so no usages of the word thus, spoke, spake, also sprach, strauss, and nietzche) yields 1.8 million. without subtracting anything it's 4.7 million results for zarathustra. given this, i think we can at least say that zarathustra is at least equally (but more likely more) recognizable as zoroaster. if it is equally, i don't see a harm in using the more accurate version. furthermore, searching for "zoroastrianism" and leaving out zarathustra yields 6.7 million results, and leaving out zoroaster yields 13.2 million. zarathustra is more common than zoroaster in articles specifically about zoroastrianism. putting all of them in quotes makes them equal. i think it's pretty clear that zarathustra is just as common as zoroaster, if not more. we should keep to the (seemingly) more popular and historically accurate name. Cahmad25 (talk) 00:41, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. Clear common name. It's Zoroastrianism, not Zarathustranism. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:38, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support – If I interpret these ngrams correctly, then the balance appears to have shifted in favor of Zarathustra. Favonian (talk) 16:57, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
  • How many of those are about the book or the tone poem, both of which are rather famous? -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:14, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Good question, especially if one has watched 2001 for the umpteenth time. How do we find out? Favonian (talk) 17:18, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Is there a way to exclude certain words, as one can with other Google searches (basically, can we see what it looks like without results that include thus, spoke, spake, sprach, Nietzsche, Strauss)? I don't think so for ngrams, but I could be wrong.--Yaksar (let's chat) 14:59, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

• Weak oppose. More of the references cited by the article seem to use the current title, so that makes me think it is likely the most common name. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:32, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. He is mainly notable as the founder of Zoroastrianism. The other name became common only after the film 2001: A Space Odyssey used the previously obscure piece of music Also sprach Zarathustra. It is unwise to assume that this fame will endure as well as that of the religion has. Andrewa (talk) 00:08, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Name and Etymology

The Name and Etymology section is way off base with any suggestion that ustra refers to camels based on vague but false phonetic correspondence. 'Zar' means gold( alternatively pure, Zar < Xvar < Xvarnah = Sanskrit 'Swarna' - Gold) in Old Persian ( cf section on Zirconium/Zircon < Zargun < Zar+Gun < Gold +Quality) , and Ustra is cognate with Ushas ( dawn) + tara is cognate with 'Star' ( cf Indo Aryan Sitara) ( ushtara - probably meaning starlight of dawn, also see Greek Astraea) and the name itself is a compound meaning 'Golden Light of Dawn' or more appropriately 'Pure Light(rays ?) of Dawn' or 'Pure Starlight of Dawn'. 2600:6C58:4300:3C11:7536:A2EB:774A:D5F2 (talk) 17:55, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

I am aware of both suggested etymologies existing, but clearly the camel one is well sourced. It seem likely that the 'golden dawn' is an etymology that was invented later within the religion by the priesthood as something that sounded more awe-inspiring. However, it would still be good to add (even if only to explain this) if a reliable source can be found for it. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:25, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

If an entire bunch of academic sources relies on a false premise ( namely a singular focus on the literal term ustra meaning camel- aka false phonetic cognates) , and completely overlooks meaningful and direct explanations as 'priestly creations' , then we are getting to a point where anything of history can be questioned as priestly storytelling - with modern historians/anthropologists/linguists being the new 'priestly class' with their own set of 'creations'. 2600:6C58:4300:3C11:7536:A2EB:774A:D5F2 (talk) 20:17, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

You can disparage modern scholarship all you like, but it is irrelevant. To add your alternative etymology, we need an Avestan scholar saying it. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:25, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

I knew I'd seen it on Wikipedia - it used to be on the page [1] - though noting it to be 'a wrongly presumed Avestic cognate of Vedic Sanskrit'. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:31, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Also see the etymology section here for a different explanatuon for ustra

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C4%92ostre#:~:text=%C4%92ostre%20(Proto%2DGermanic%3A%20*,and%20Old%20Saxon%3A%20*%C4%80steron. 2600:6C58:4300:3C11:4549:3CF:1E59:4E7B (talk) 21:54, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

References

Timeline

So when did Zoroaster live?

Wikipedia: "Before 500 BC, likely 1500–1000 BC".

Also Wikipedia: "There is little scholarly consensus on when he lived.[5] Some scholars, using linguistic and socio-cultural evidence, suggest a dating to somewhere in the second millennium BC. Other scholars date him to the 7th and 6th centuries BC as a near-contemporary of Cyrus the Great and Darius the Great.[6][7][8][9][10][11]"

Wikipedia on the Zoroastrianism page: "With possible roots dating back to the 2nd millennium BCE, Zoroastrianism enters recorded history around the middle of the 6th century BCE.[11]"

Aren't those first scholars given undue weight? Also - why would he have lived upto 1,000 years before his religion took off, rather than contemporaneous to it - (Buddha, Jesus Christ, Mohammed being examples)? This seems to be an attempt to down-date Zoroastrianism and Persian monotheism. 2001:1C00:1E20:D900:1480:8C46:A6E6:5251 (talk) 15:20, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

The dates are not well-known, however, on Wikipedia, we go by what reliable sources say, if there is no consensus among said sources, all their views should be represented with due weight.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:43, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree that there is no universal consensus on the dating of Zarathustra. Nevertheless, I think a few things can be said about the current state of scholarship with some degree of certainty. Firstly, the dating of Zarathustra to the 6th century BC was considered near consensus in the mid-20th century. Secondly, this consensus began to break down towards the end of the 20th century. Thirdly, most scholars today assume an earlier date. A date in the 10th century BC is most commonly cited here, but some scholars argue that Zarathustra may have lived somewhere between 1500 BC and 1000 BC. I think this should be better reflected in the article. I can write a short introductory paragraph on this and back up these points with the relevant quotes from the Encyclopedia Iranica and some recent textbooks on Iranian history. Kjansen86 (talk) 13:57, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

My edits

What is the reason for reverting my edits? 31.155.18.234 (talk) 17:10, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

The reasons I stated in my edit summaries. If you want to workshop changes here, could you start by articulating what exactly the problems are that you see with the lead as written? Remsense ‥ 论 17:11, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

These are not improvements, unfortunately. there's not any addition that seems helpful to the reader, and the new prose is filled with awkward sentences and outright grammatical errors

The source I added contains a short summary about the historicity of Zoroaster. It is also about his founding of religion, as added at the beginning of the article. Regarding Zarathustra's poetry, you are right about the removal of the phrase "But, generally speaking..." 31.155.18.234 (talk) 17:15, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

I have quoted directly from the source, but expressions that convey the same meaning can be added instead. 31.155.18.234 (talk) 17:16, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

These are all elements that were already present in the lead in some way; it seemed to me that you were mostly shuffling around the existing elements and rewriting them but less fluently. That is what I meant when I said I couldn't really identify any real additions in your edits. Remsense ‥ 论 17:21, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

And to reiterate, since the lead is meant to be a summary of the article body itself, it generally does not require its own inline citations, per WP:CITELEAD Remsense ‥ 论 17:26, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

I think the lead I added is more coherent, even Zarathustra's reformism seems open to discussion. It is highly debatable whether Zoroastrianism is monotheistic or not. 31.155.18.234 (talk) 20:51, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't really see what you mean by this, as no mention of monotheism or any other modality is mentioned in the present lead—unless "reformer" in itself is meant to imply that? Remsense ‥ 论 21:10, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi IP 31.155.18.234. You added "who probably lived in Eastern part of Greater Iran during the end of the second millenium BC" in the lede, but that contradicts the rest of the lede (and most of the article for that matter), which is also sourced. HistoryofIran (talk) 21:22, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

I see no problem in removing this part. 178.240.22.232 (talk) 08:31, 21 September 2024 (UTC)