Talk:Parsis/Archive 1

message: It seems everyone's forgotten about this page. It's in really bad condition. Somebody please fix it up and add more information. Also, direct the list to a separate page on its own.  Thanks! Sohrab Irani 21:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Like i said before, removing sources and refrences, making drastic changes without discussion or any source, deleting images, is against wikipedia policy, and is simply vandalism. --Spahbod  18:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Stop

message: Since noone else appears to want to be involved in this "debate", and I am disinclined to let  Spahbod put words into my mouth, nor simply clobber what is otherwise hard work, 
I will open an Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Parsi.
-- Fullstop 08:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Notice of attempt at external mediation

message: Your mediation is rejected, this is nothing more than clear vandalism. You have been reported to an administrator for uncivility and vandalism, if you continue to revert and vandalize you will also be reported for accusing me of being user:Khorshid sock puppet. I highly recommend that you discontinue your constant vandalism, not only to this article, but to all articles regarding persian mythology and Zoroastrianism, you have repeatedly deleted categories, inserted biased material, deleted parts or whole sections of those articles. Failure to do so is against wikipedia policies and guidlines. See Wikipedia:List of policies and Wikipedia:List of guidelines for more info. Thank you for your cooperation. --Spahbod  13:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Refusal to participate in mediation

message: In the future i suggest making your replies short to get peoples attention, and having them read it!
Aside from the fact that you vandalized this article, you also accused me of being user:khorshids sock puppet, accused me of incivility, and is constantly repeating that i am pushing my POV.
You also have behaved in a blatant manner, showing me links to websites such as google and telling me to search for the word Parsi there. You show furhter incivility by in an insulting manner showing me the meaning of POV as you put it. Such behavior is not tolerated in wikipedia, i highly recommend you stop with that, and talk in a civil manner. That kind of behavior wont help you here and can get you blocked from editing, see WP:NPA and WP:BP for more info.
Like i said before i have reported you for vandalism, so i suggest you refrain from reverting or vandalizing any more articles.
Furthermore your constant use of the word POV, and repeating that i am pushing my POV is strange to me. I have not touched one word of the article, instead i have reverted your edits, the edits that took the Parsis from an ethnic group of their own to an Indian people minority. And strangly you were explaining the meaning of POV. I am not sure you know what POV is. I am now going to explain the meaning of POV. POV is short for: ""Point Of View"". Point of view is a position or a point from which people see things or view things. To give you an examlpe you are stating that Parsis are Indi, and that is your point of view. I on the other hand do not claim anything, i am simply saying Parsis are Parsis and let's leave it at that. --Spahbod 18:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Post-refusal to participate in mediation

message: In this space, let's discuss section one of the article.Anthony Krupp 13:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition and Identity 

message: Everyone please read or reread WP:VER. Thanks!Anthony Krupp 18:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: For purposes of wikipedia, Parsis are Indian if you have a reference saying so; Parsis are not Indian if you have a reference saying so; Parsis are Parsi if you have a reference saying so.

message: Parsis follow the Zoroastrian faith, but not all Zoroastrians are Parsis. Following the 18th century discovery of Zoroastrian texts among the Parsis it was incorrectly concluded that the Parsis were the only remaining adherents of Zoroastrianism, with the result that the religion of the Parsis was equated with the Parsis themselves. This led to Zoroastrianism being erroneously termed Parsiism and the language of the texts of the Avesta also being misnamed "Parsi". Although this use continues to persist even in the English language (Random House Unabridged, 2nd ed., 2003; Merriam-Webster, 2006; cf. National Geographic Maps, 2006), it is particularly prevalent among speakers of other European languages that, in some cases, still do not have a word for "Zoroastrian(ism)" and instead use a local language variant of the word "Parsi".
</div>
But meanwhile, I'll look forward to responses from Fullstop, Spahbod, and others about my suggestion for a section on the term Parsi. Once we figure out whether/how to elaborate that section, we can move on to the "identity" section.Anthony Krupp 15:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Misidentifications

message: First, I notice this talk page is getting very long. Would it make sense for someone to archive it on 31 July 06 or 1 Aug 06? I don't know how to do that, so would have to ask someone else to do so.
Second, I would like to ask whether the dablink, introduction, and infobox are more or less okay with everyone. We can always still return to them, of course, but I think we could also move on for now. (About the infobox: from all arguments I've seen here, it seems to me that listing Iranis makes sense. By the way, the infobox on the page Iranis lists Parsis as a related ethnic group, so that's more evidence on the appropriateness of this. I think that the article, rather than the infobox, can deal with the obviously contentious question of the Indian-ness and Persian-ness of the Parsis.)
Third, even though I've suggested that we generate a new section on the term Parsi (etymology, etc.), maybe we can wait on that for now. Since there is already a composed version of the other sections (identity, history, demographics, etc.), my suggestion is that we now move on to the current section #1. I'll get to this within a day or so myself, but perhaps someone (Spahbod? Others?) would care to comment on this section, as it currently reads, first.
Cheers, Anthony Krupp 18:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Taking stock

message: Although the Parsis of India originally emigrated from Persia, they no longer have social or familial ties to Persians, and do not share language or recent history with them. Over the centuries since the first Zoroastrians arrived in India, the Parsis have integrated themselves into Indian society while simultaneously maintaining their own distinct customs and traditions (and thus ethnic identity). This in turn has given the Parsi community a rather peculiar standing - they are Indians in terms of national affiliation, language and history, but not typically Indian (constituting only 0.006% of the total population) in terms of consanguinity or cultural, behavioural and religious practices. 
I had a question about two phrases that are not in the current version, but were there before. 
#How does this sentence compare to the one above: "Although the Parsis of India originally emigrated from Persia, they no longer have social or familial ties to Persians, and do not share language or recent history with them. Generally speaking, Indian Parsis have taken Gujarati as their principal language." Is this last statement true or false (or rather: verifiable)? Is there some reason one should not mention this? If not, then that should go back in.
#The second change, which I think I agree with, has to do with Parsis being Indians in terms of national affiliation -- the two versions I'm reading agree on this, but then there is a difference. The current version states that Parsis are 
::(A) Indian in (i) national affiliation, (ii) language, and (iii) history, but 
::(B) not typically Indian in terms of (i) consanguinity, or (ii) cultural, (iii) behavioural and (iv) religious practices. 
:The former version states that Parsis are 
::(A) Indian in (i) national affiliation, but
::(B) Persians in terms of (i) ethnicity, (ii) creed, (iii) traditions and (iv) customs.
:So that is quite a difference!
:My two cents, and then I'll ask you all to comment: it seems more accurate and neutral (to me) to state that Parsis are "not typically Indian" rather than claim they are "Persians" (or even "Persian"). So that seems good to me. What do you all think about (i), (ii), (iii), and (iv)?--Anthony Krupp 13:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 1.1 As an ethnic community (BTW, is this a good section title?)

message: This section of the article is much better than the previous version. I only have a question about this paragraph:
While most demographic statistics, even official census data, rarely differentiate between Parsis and Zoroastrians (which frequently leads to counts of Zoroastrians being mistaken as counts of Parsis), the following Government of India census data is believed to accurately reflect information on the ethno-religious community.
Since wikipedia doesn't like the passive voice, as it raises suspicion of weasel words, I might suggest that this read as follows instead:
While most demographic statistics, even official census data, rarely differentiate between Parsis and Zoroastrians (which frequently leads to counts of Zoroastrians being mistaken as counts of Parsis), the following Government of India census data gives the following information on the ethno-religious community.
What do you think?Anthony Krupp 14:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have a census form that has a little checkbox next to the word "[ ] Parsi"? No, neither do I.  :) -- Fullstop 16:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 2. Demographic statistics

message: This is a significant expansion. I think that more is better, so that's great. Just a few thoughts on this:
#the former version had a bullet-point summary in advance of the actual text. Given the current length of this section, that might be a good idea to use that format here as well.
#the image of "Persians of Bombay" has a caption in the previous version, but lacks it in the current one. Why is this? I think that information should be reintroduced.
#the second image of the Parsi family can go, since it's the same image as in the infobox
#my only content dispute is in the last paragraph. Currently, the last sentence reads as follows:
::Moreover, even while maintaining their own cultural identity they did not fail to recognize themselves as inherently Indian, as Dadabhai Naoroji, the first Asian to occupy a seat in the British Parliament would note: Whether I am a Hindu, a Mohamedan, a Parsi, a Christian, or of any other creed, I am above all an Indian. Our country is India; our nationality is Indian (1893).
The word "inherently" seems a problem. What the heck does that mean? A way to avoid ambiguity is to simply take a cue from the quote, which is the supporting evidence for any previous claim, and rewrite this last sentence as follows (change in bold):
::Moreover, even while maintaining their own cultural identity they did not fail to recognize themselves as nationally Indian, as Dadabhai Naoroji, the first Asian to occupy a seat in the British Parliament would note: Whether I am a Hindu, a Mohamedan, a Parsi, a Christian, or of any other creed, I am above all an Indian. Our country is India; our nationality is Indian (1893).
Comments?Anthony Krupp 14:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 3. History

message: Seem fine to me. Except that as brenneman suggested, I think footnotes should be used.Anthony Krupp 14:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At this point, I think I've indicated everything I have to say about this article, having compared the two versions I mentioned a long while ago. So that's it for me! I will of course look forward to much feedback on the many questions I've posed within the last hour. Will look forward to helping you  all edit this article into a consensually accepted form. (Did I mention I'll be giving a conference paper on G.E. Lessing's understanding of the Parsi in October?)Anthony Krupp 14:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sections 5, 6, 7, 8

message: In the fourth sentence in the section headed "Current population", we read:
:"These figures are based on data from 1996, in particular that of the Indian census of 1981, which counted 71,630 Parsis in that country. The latter figure is based on revised reports of Parsis in the diaspora, and on the results of the Indian census of 2001, which counted 69,601 Parsis in that country..."
I am a non-expert in this field.  However, I know when something is not clear.  It is not clear what "the latter figure" refers to, nor what "the diaspora" encompasses.  Is the diaspora India, ie., "that country" at the previous sentence?  Or is it all countries outside of India where Zoroastrians are found?  If "the diaspora" means "in all countries outside of India where Zoroastrians are found", then how could the figure of 71,630 be the number of Parsis in India ("in that country" in the previous sentence)?  If "the diaspora" is India, then how could the figure of 71,630 be "based on...the results of the Indian census of 2001"?  It's all very confusing.  Could someone work on this and clarify it?  I know what "diaspora" means, but, unless it is defined in the article, it could refer to Parsis in India (and Pakistan) who fled their original homeland centuries ago or Parsis who have left India and settled in other countries.CorinneSD (talk) 17:34, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: That sentence (and much of the article) has been bungled by indiscriminate editing. An earlier version of the article (e.g. 25 December 2009 referred to two sections above this one) has sentences that make sense ("only" the citations are mangled). -- 77.183.176.134 (talk) 23:26, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current population 

message: I noticed that "sudre" and "kusti" are mentioned in both the "Initiation" section and in the "Funerals" section, but I do not see any mention of what they are.  If it is not secret information, perhaps someone could add a brief definition or description.CorinneSD (talk) 01:21, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: See Sedreh and Kushti. -- 77.183.176.134 (talk) 23:26, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Initiation 

message: In the second and third paragraphs of the section headed "The Ilm-e-Kshnoom", there is inconsistency in the naming of the followers of this sect.  We find:
::the followers of the Kshnoom;
::the Kshnoom; and
::the followers of Kshnoom.
It would be nice if someone who knows the topic made some edits to ensure consistency.CorinneSD (talk) 19:53, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: why don't you just use the term you used yourself ("followers of the sect")? :-) -- 77.183.176.134 (talk) 23:26, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Ilm-e-Kshnoom 

message: In the first paragraph in the sub-section headed "Arrival in Sindh/Gujarat" in the "History" section, "Qissa" is spelled two ways:  "Qessa" and "Qissa".  Is that deliberate, or should "Qessa" be "Qissa"?CorinneSD (talk) 18:02, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: "Qissa" is common place, and the Wikipedia article on the text itself says (or used to say) "Qissa". -- 77.183.176.134 (talk) 23:26, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: This section needs a little more information to make it clear.  The first sentence of the paragraph reads:
:"At its core, the conflict is a manifestation of centuries-old anxieties and fears of assimilation and the loss of identity."
Just saying "the conflict" does not make it clear that the conflict is one between exclusion and inclusion.  If, indeed, it is a conflict between exclusion and inclusion, that should be added to the sentence:
:"At its core, the conflict between exclusion and inclusion is a manifestation...(etc.)"
Actually, first, there should be a sentence stating that there is (or was, or has been) a conflict.
However, even that doesn't make the subject clear for the general reader.  "Exclusion" and "inclusion" need to be defined, and the precise nature of the conflict needs to be made clear.  Also, the connection between the later sentence,
:"In any event, the Zoroastrian faith does not prescribe worship in a fire temple, so – in principle – a Zoroastrian who has been banned from entry to a particular temple could worship from his or her own home."
and that conflict should be made clearer.  What is the connection between being banned from a particular temple and the conflict?  Right now, it is not clear.CorinneSD (talk) 20:03, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspect that these sentences are, like many others in the article, separated from the context in which they originally appeared. -- 77.183.176.134 (talk) 23:26, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exclusion versus inclusion 

message: Pakistan has less than 1,700, thats not significant 
In India, Mumbai is their center of it all, that should be specified  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krisxlowry (talk • contribs) 07:21, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regions with significant population 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Parsi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080509041600/http://www.ajhg.org/AJHG/abstract/S0002-9297%2807%2964352-3 to http://www.ajhg.org/AJHG/abstract/S0002-9297(07)64352-3
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061108091153/http://www.unescoparzor.com/project/parsis.ppt to http://www.unescoparzor.com/project/parsis.ppt
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101201001542/http://www.parsijourney.com/index.html to http://www.parsijourney.com/index.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:26, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified