Talk:Parsi/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 Stop 2 {{npov}} 2.1 Notice of attempt at external mediation 2.1.1 Refusal to participate in mediation 2.2 Post-refusal to participate in mediation 3 Informal mediation 4 Moving forward (starting with the Infobox) 5 Moving forward 2 (and Infobox: straw poll) 6 Introduction 7 Definition and Identity 8 parsis are indian! 8.1 Parsis are not Indian, they are Parsis 9 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. 10 Backing up, and I hope, moving on: first sentence 11 Material for a new section on etymology and signification of the term 11.1 Misidentifications 12 Taking stock 13 Definition and Identity (copied from article, for commentary here) 13.1 1.1 As an ethnic community (BTW, is this a good section title?) 13.2 1.2 Legal and Social definitions (BTW, is this a good section title?) 14 2. Demographic statistics 15 3. History 16 4. Factions, Sections and Sects (BTW, is this a good section title?) 17 Sections 5, 6, 7, 8

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)

Done. -- Fullstop 16:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

For the record, my edit comprises:

• Expansion of History section. This is by far the most significant edit.
• New section Demographics that incorporates and extends the demographic info formerly in the lede.
• Moved the existing top-level sections "Ethnic origins of the Parsis of India" and "Definition of Parsi" to subsections within a new top-level "Definition and Identity". The content of these sections has changed marginally but the substance has not changed.
• Moved top-level section "The Parsi calendar(s)" to a subsection within a new "Factions, sects, and sections". The content/substance is identical to what it was before.
• Two new additional subsections within "Factions, sects, and sections"
• Move old content from "Prominent Parsis" which was simply a very long list, to its own page.
• Use information from other WP pages to construct a new short "Illustrious Parsis" that also has a link to the long list.
• Cleanup lede. Substance remains intact.
• new Bibliography to list the many sources referred to by my edits.

-- Fullstop 10:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC) Not yet included are pictures of navjote, jashan, wedding, doorstep chuna/toran, sanjan stambh, "birthday boy" with ses/toran/cap/rice, of the gujarati transliteration of the Khordeh Avesta, row of donation boxes in an agiari, dinner at a gambahar, picture of the Bhikka Behram Well (Fort, Bom), fascimile of the first issue of the Fardunjee Marzban's 'Shri Bombay na Samachar', a Parsi master mason (with pugri) anno 1907. Maybe (its rather nondescript) outside view of the Udvada Atash-Behram. Maybe also a picture of a tan-darosti being performed inside the inner sanctuary (need to think about this and/or get permission though). -- Fullstop 10:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Stop

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)

The "drastic" changes are neither drastic, nor do they include the removal of any material. Besides, there is nothing on the old page (included in the new one) that didn't come from me originally. -- Fullstop 18:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

If you have an issue with any sentence on that page, then DISCUSS it here. -- Fullstop 18:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

{{npov}}

I've now flagged the article as {{npov}}. If you have an issue with it, DISCUSS IT. --Fullstop 18:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Summary of issue at stake: According to User:Spahbod: "The fact remains that Parsis are not indian"

Response: They are an ethnic group unbound by national borders. But as it says in the lede sentence, they are from (countries of) the Indian subcontinent. Whether they are considered Indians (they are), and whether they feel Indian (they do) is supported by citation throughout the article. No contradiction from the old version, nor from external sources:

^[i] Common use: Search Google.

^[ii] Encyclical use: Brittanica 2006/1911,Columbia, Catholic,Encarta, Yahoo, Routledge, not to mention Wikipedia de, es, fr, nn, pl

-- Fullstop 18:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I have already DISCUSSED IT, STOP VANDALIZING. you have deleted the Parsis infobox, deleted the Mercury image, deleted references, then you accuse me of asserting POV too? this is simply VANDALISM, i will now report you to administrators for vandalism. --Spahbod 18:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

1) I hardly will "vandalize" my own text. 2) So, I commented out the infobox, so what? 3) The mercury image was under Famous Parsis, which is now at Category:Parsis. 4) You say you've "discussed" it, but I see no sign of discussion. -- Fullstop 18:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

You wrote the text or not does not justify you vandalizing the article. Deleting infoboxed, images, references... You have been reported for vandalism. --Spahbod 18:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Again, you have have failed to cite a single instance of "vandalism". Again, if you wish to discuss your "Parsis are not indian", then by all means do so. But reverting articles is not the correct process for discussion. -- Fullstop 18:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

You never once discussed before vandalzing the whole article. I am going to show you the very same sources you showed me:

^[i] Common use: Search Google.

^[ii] Encyclical use: Brittanica 2006/1911,Columbia, Catholic,Encarta, Yahoo, Routledge, not to mention Wikipedia

And this UNESCO Parsi project website which already is in the article: http://www.unescoparzor.com/intro.htm

Please read them yourself, and you see Parsis are not Indian.

Furthermore i am gonna repeat myself about your vandalism: you have deleted the Parsis infobox, deleted the Mercury image, deleted references, then you accuse me of asserting POV? this is simply vandalism.--Spahbod 18:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I have again observed your changes, not only have you done all those things i said above, you have changed the article, inserting new pure POV text to it. Parsis are not "Indi", so simple is that. All encyclopedias conform that Parsis are not Indi, if you have doubt, please read about them again. --Spahbod 20:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Also Fredie Mercury is no Indi either, was a Parsi. --Spahbod 20:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

1. Please cite exactly where it says "Parsis are not Indian". I'm sorry, but none of the links I noted, nor the single one you did, say so.
2. As I've said before, nowhere in the article (new or old) does it say the "Parsis are Indian". It says (old and new), quote "A Parsi is a member of the close-knit Zoroastrian community in or from the Indian subcontinent." I repeat, it said this in the old and new versions. This is substantiated by every single reference I provided, as well as the link you did.
3. Moreover (and I've said this before too), the lede sentence is not the only text that was carried over from the old - every section that was previously there is still there. That the "List of Parsis" is now elsewhere is simply a question of organization and common sense. It hasn't vanished, and it continues to be linked to from the Parsi article, so I'm not certain what exactly your problem with the move is (you haven't said).
4. I'm not familiar with the term "Indi", whatever that is. Ergo, I can't respond to your assertion that "Parsis are not Indi" or to "Fredie (sic) Mercury is no Indi either". If by "Indi" you mean "Indian", well, see point 2 above.
5. Your repeated assertions of "vandalism" are perplexing. Quote: "Furthermore i am gonna repeat myself about your vandalism: you have deletetd the Parsis infobox, deleted the Mercury image, deleted references, then you accuse me of asserting POV? this is simply vandalism." End Quote.

Deletion of anything - even if it had actually occurred, and if the deletion actually made a difference, neither of which you have bothered to establish - is not vandalism, least of all, when it is my own text. As I have repeatedly noted, nothing of the substance of the old text has changed, and is, with the exception of the rephrase for clarity, just as it was before.

With respect to me "accusing" you of "asserting POV": its not an accusation but a statement of fact. It is your citable opinion that "Parsis are not Indian". An opinion, any opinion, is a point-of-view, short POV, which has neither a negative nor positive connotation.

Unfortunately, this particular opinion of yours is not substantiable for the very simple reason that an ethnic group, any ethnic group, is not bound by national borders. So, not only is it possible that a Parsi can also be an Indian, he/she could be Zanzibarian or Tuvaluvan or Briton or German or whatever.

However, it just so happens that the majority of them reside on the Indian subcontinent, and India in particular, and have done so for at least a thousand years. This is not fresh news, and amply documented in every modern english language dictionary and encyclopaedia there is. Even your "own" source says so.

--Fullstop 22:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

ps: Oh, by the way, did you notice that UNESCOPAR is headquartered in Delhi? (says so in the second sentence of the link you posted). Now please don't say its some massive world-wide conspiracy.

pps: Freddie Mercury, who continues to be listed in the 'Illustrious Parsis' section, happened to be both a Parsi and a Briton, born in Zanzibar. His parents were both Indians and both Parsis. That makes Freddie a British Parsi or a British-Indian Parsi. Simple enough now?

Look here, again it is very simple, you are clearly trying to push your POV of Parsis being Indi in this article. Vandalized it extremely. You changed the whole article from a Parsi ethnicity article, to a minor religious minority of India with Indi ethnicity. This is an encyclopedia, not a platform for pushing extreme POV. And showing websites that does not once say Parsis are Indian wont help you, so i advice you to stop doing that, instead read them and see what they say. --Spahbod 23:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC) Once again please read wikipedia rules and policies before you vandalize any more articles. You can find translation of POV and bias here: [1]. POV=Point of view. :) --Spahbod 23:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Answering your points one by one:

1. "you are clearly trying to push your POV of Parsis being Indi"

I am not "pushing a POV of Parsis being Indi", nor have I at any point said so. I have not once even used the word "Indi", since I don't know what it means, nor have you - though repeatedly prompted - qualified that term.

1. "You changed the whole article from a Parsi ethnicity article"...

this article has always been, and continues to be, a "Parsi ethnicity article". Neither my original edits, nor my last writeup have changed this. It has always - and continues to - say/said so in the lede sentence.

1. "... to a minor religious minority of India with Indi ethnicity"

this article has always been, and continues to be, an article on a minor religious minority on the Indian subcontinent. Neither my original edits, nor my last writeup have changed this.

It has always - and continues to - say/said so in the lede sentence.

Next, again this bit about "Indi ethnicitity". I have never heard of this term before you made note of it (in informal English an "Indi" is something/someone independant, which is presumably not what you mean). Second, what on earth is "Indi ethnicity".

1. "This is an encyclopedia, not a platform for pushing extreme POV."

Since my point of view, nor that of the article, has changed, the question of my edits being a POV push are factually incorrect. If you disagree with the POV of the article, which does not warrant a revert since the POV has not changed, then please state clearly exactly what "POV" it is you are objecting to. Your objections thus far have been limited to putting words into my mouth.

1. "And showing websites that does not once say Parsis are Indian wont help you"

You keep repeating that I said "Parsis are Indian". I did not, and have repeatedly noted that I have not. What I did say, and continue to say, is/was "A Parsi is a member of the close-knit Zoroastrian community in or from the Indian subcontinent". This is the lede sentence of the article, and has existed in this form ever since the beginning of the article.

1. "Vandalized it extremely."

You have repeatedly accused me of vandalism, but have yet to cite a single instance of it.

-- Fullstop 08:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Notice of attempt at external mediation

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)

Actually people has already been invloved in this, including the administrator i reported you for vandalism. --Spahbod 12:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Please note your acceptance of mediation at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Parsi#Parties' agreement to mediate. -- Fullstop 12:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Refusal to participate in mediation

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)

Please, either list the acts of "vandalism" - per Wikipedia:Vandalism policy - that I am purported to have made, or desist from inflammatory, derogatory and otherwise completely defamatory remarks. Your continued incivility is neither enlightening nor constructive. -- Fullstop 14:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Post-refusal to participate in mediation

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)

---

Again:

1. "you vandalized this article"

   No, I haven't. You have been repeatedly asked to prove it, but have yet to do so.

2. "you also accused me of being user:khorshids sock puppet"

   No, I didn't. I stated that Khorshid may (incidentally) have become your sockpuppet/fleshpuppet following your inflammatory and inappropriate comment at a noticeboard unrelated to this article. Neither you nor Khorshid have ever contributed to this article, which makes your/his revert more than a little remarkable.

3. "accused me of incivility"

   See points 1 and 2.

4. "constantly repeating that i am pushing my POV"

   See points 1 and 2, your comment record, your edit record. And most importantly your revert, even though you STILL have not specified what exactly your problem is with my edit.

5. "You also have behaved in a blatant manner"

   As opposed to what?

6. "showing me links to websites such as google and telling me to search for the word Parsi there"

   And? Not only google to demonstrate common usage, but a number of other encyclopaedia. This is called "citation".

7. "You show furhter incivility by in an insulting manner showing me the meaning of POV as you put it"

   What precisely is uncivil in the sentence "An opinion, any opinion, is a point-of-view, short POV, which has neither a negative nor positive connotation." ?

8. "Such behavior is not tolerated in wikipedia"

   Until you can actually cite impropriety or violation of policy, this is your personal opinion, not Wikipedia's.

9. "and talk in a civil manner"

   I have yet to be uncivil. In fact, I have been extremely polite considering your repeated accusations of impropriety and vandalism, your thinly veiled threats, and your repeated putting words in my mouth.

10. "Like i said before i have reported you for vandalism"

    Yes, and? Your opinion of what "vandalism" is, is neither universal nor per WP:VANDAL.

    Since I have never vandalized an article, and you have repeatedly failed to establish that I have, I don't have anything to worry about.

11. "Furthermore your constant use of the word POV, and repeating that i am pushing my POV is strange to me."

    I'm sorry, that that is strange to you. Do you, or do you not, have a point-of-view that you are repeatedly expressing?

12. "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."

    Thank you for quoting me. I'm glad that we've mutually established that you/I know what a POV is, and perhaps you tell us what your constructive opinion - with respect to my edit my edit of the Parsi article - is?

13. "To give you an examlpe you are stating that Parsis are Indi, and that is your point of view"

    I have never stated that, nor is it my point of view. Besides, I don't even know what "Indi" is.

14. "I on the other hand do not claim anything"

    You most certainly are claiming that I am a vandal, that I am uncivil, that I behave badly. All of which remain claims since none have been established as fact.

15. "i am simply saying Parsis are Parsis"

    Well, so am I, something I have said repeatedly, and all my edits reflect. The question thus is what you understand by the word "Parsi". What I understand by the term has been repeatedly noted, and is noted again below. What you understand by the term has not been established.

16. "and let's leave it at that."

    I will not leave "it" (your revert) at that. You reverted my hard work, which neither changed the subject of the "Parsi" article, nor the meaning of the term "Parsi" as it is in that article, nor in any way changed the substance of the previously existing text. As such, I (and the editors of this article in general) are entitled to know WHY you reverted, something you repeatedly have failed to establish. The concrete issues you have mentioned, ie the infobox and the mercury picture, all within the bounds of cooperative editing and can be reinstated when I complete my modifications of the article (layout, more pictures etc). None of these warranted a revert.

I have repeatedly noted that:

1. A Parsi is a member of the close-knit Zoroastrian community in or from the Indian subcontinent, and is a descendant of people who, in the 8th century, emigrated to the west coast of India from Persia to escape religious persecution after the Islamic conquest.
2. The Parsi article has always been about point 1 above.
3. My edits with respect to the Parsi article have always reflected point 1 above.
4. Your assertion that 'Parsis are not Indian' is valid/invalid in that ethnicity and nationality are not equatable, and just as valid/invalid as "Adyghe are not Russian" or "Amish are not U.S. Americans" or "Bai are not Chinese". In all cases, the former are ethnic/religious minorities while the latter denote nationality. Moreover, I have never contradicted you in your assertion that a Parsi is not an Indian, for the simple reason that, like myself, they might not be. This does not however invalidate point 1/2/3 above, which are the subject of the article and the subject of my edits.

In your response,...

1. Please address points 1-4 above (without further putting of words in my mouth). This will hopefully determine what you think a "Parsi" is and what you think an "Indian" is.
2. Please list the issues in my edit that you have a problem with. Specifically and precisely. Begin points with '#' so these may be referenced in a rebuttal.
3. Either withdraw your accusation of impropriety and vandalism, or cite examples per WP:VANDAL.

If you wish, you may do so in external mediation, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Parsi. Failure to respond at all, or a response that continues to contain unsubstantiated accusations of impropriety, will force me to resort to the arbcom.

-- Fullstop 10:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC) ---

Informal mediation

Hello!

This doesn't appear to be going very well, does it? I'm more than happy to try to help work this out, given that I know nothing about the topic. I'd like to start by archiving all the previous talk. If there are no objections I'll do that quite soon.

Then I'd like to ask everyone to review the guidelines on being nice and suggest that comments on anything other than actual edits to the page not be discussed. Worry about the contributions, not the contributor. This is as much pragmatism as anything else. If one person says "You're pushing a bias" and the response is "No I'm not" we really don't have anywhere to go from there.

The things that we should be concentrating on here are facts and that means sources. After the lead, we abandon the normal citation method too, a bit oddly. I'll fix that up pretty soon. But any suggested edits should have sources that support them.

Oh, and please try to be concise if at all possible.

brenneman ^{L} 11:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I am on board :) --Spahbod 11:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for stepping in. Lets do it. -- Fullstop 11:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Greetings to you all. I'll also be watching the development of the page, and will be glad to share my thoughts as I have them. I also know next to nothing about the subject, but am interested in knowing more. (See my userpage for why, if interested.) Let's keep a focus on improving the article. As I said in my recent rv (to a version before the fighting started), perhaps substantial changes should be made more slowly, section by section, so that changes can be weighed and discussed bit by bit. Best, Anthony Krupp 12:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I fully agree with you Anthony Krupp, regarding taking it slow if there are any changes to be made. --Spahbod 18:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, since any mediation requires something to mediate, I assert that Spahbod's revert [2] was not warranted, and that his edit summary "rv, you have removed sourced material, images and made this into a POV, this is clearly vandalism" is not substantiatable. In my attempts to get a valid reason for the revert, I have asked (citation available if necessary):

1. what "sourced material, images" am I supposed to have removed?
2. in what way did I make "this into a POV"?
3. how is my edit "clearly vandalism"?

but failed to get a coherent answer for any of these three points. --

Fullstop 16:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Fullstop, I should clarify: I am interested in helping with the development of this article. I don't care much about the fighting you and Spahbod have been doing. My suggestion is that you look at the major editing you did, and take things section by section. That is: refer to the page as it is now, suggest changes to that section you want to make, and then let us all comment on that. Is that ok with you? That sounds productive. Anthony Krupp 19:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Fullstop, since I've now read through both versions, I would not say that your edit is clearly vandalism, since there are many clear improvements. Whether you made this into a POV I have no idea, but I think the most productive thing is for you, I, Spahbod, and other editors to flag particular sentences or paragraphs that seem to be POV, and then discuss them like rational adults. A sentence can be POV without the author being a POV person... so let's all focus on sentences, rather than on authors/editors. Regarding removal of sources: if I read this correctly, I think there were references to legal rulings that had footnotes in the previous version; in your version, the footnotes are not there, but the references are listed in the bibliography. Perhaps this led to the appearance of the removal of sources. I'm not sure if that was the problem. In summary, I am assuming good faith, and I encourage Spahbod to do so with you, and vice versa, for this next phase of editing. I hope I am being helpful to you both. Now that I've read two versions of this article, I feel like I'm learning a lot, and also find that I have some questions that the two of you might be in an excellent position to answer. (And this may help take care of contentious issues as well.) Many good wishes, Anthony Krupp 20:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

If Spahbod has valid reasons for his revert, then those reasons will/(should) remain valid, irrespective of whether I edit section-wise or not. -- Fullstop 07:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I've reverted to a random earlier version and protected the page. As much out of a desire to keep anyone from doing a three revert violation as anything else. I'd strongly suggest that everyone have a nice cup of tea and a bikky. We're not going to get anywhere like this. Here are some things that help lower the tension: Don't refer to other editors by name, discuss motivations, or talk about what's gone before. We need to concentrate on sources, edits, and moving forward. - brenneman ^{L} 07:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Note left on Aaron Brenneman's talk page.Anthony Krupp 12:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Random version? never before seen a page get reverted to random version then protected. Beside the revert war ended some days ago when other parties got involved.

So basically anyone who requests for protection of a page like fullstop have done, gets what he wish for, even if he had vandalized it!

Fullstop keep saying he wrote the original text single handed, i have observed its history and seen that he did no such thing, the text was written by many. And besides even if he had written the original text, he seem to have had a huge change of heart regarding the Parsis in his last edit. :)

Mr bremmen i can't believe you actually reverted to his version and protected it! lol. If thats the way things are done around here then i guess there is not much i can do to save the article. Cheers. --Spahbod 16:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

He says he picked a random version, can't you simply trust his judgment as to randomness and move on with discussing how you will resolve this issue? (after all, unless you do so, the page will have to stay on the wrong version even longer...) He can't simply pick a revision before the edit war started, because doing so would endorse the view of whichever party had their say in the article first. --tjstrf 17:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Note, like i mentioned before i have not touched one word of this article, the only thing i did was to revert when i saw he had deleted the infobox, deleted the freddie mercury image and had made drastic changes to the text.

So yes of course he could pick a revision before Fullstop here had changed everything, because that revision wouldn't be mine or fullstops. But instead he reverted to fullstop's edit and protected it.

We even had agreed that if there would any changes, we would have to go through it slowly and bit by bit as Mr krupp suggested. That would mean we would have to start from the revision before the edits of fullstop. But we can't do that now can we. So if we want to settle this i suggest Mr bremmen reverts it back and let us start with the changes. :) --Spahbod 18:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I have requested unprotection of the article. I've actually printed out two versions -- Fullstop's revision, and the one before it, and have read through them both in detail. I can see things of value from both versions. In terms of images, I think it's ok to have the demographic information in a new expanded section, but if someone felt strongly that it is useful to have the infobox, then I think that could be retained. And in a subsection on prominent or illustrious Parsis, I think that the Freddie Mercury image could stay. In terms of content, I see many improvements in Fullstop's version, and I also see some passages that I could understand might need discussion. But that's the point of a talk page: to discuss new edits. Isn't it? If you all are amenable to this, I would propose the following. When the page gets unblocked, let me make a suggestion for the introduction here on the Talk page, and you two can each comment on it. When there is consensus, one of us can move it to the article itself. We can then do that for each of the eight sections following. Some sections will be easier to deal with than others, certainly. But I'm willing to try and help you both help this article. What say you?Anthony Krupp 20:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Just so this is perfectly clear: I also saw some things in the older version that struck me as needing discussion. That is, I do not think that one version is good and the other is bad. Both have things that clearly need discussion. We can talk specifics when you all let me know you're interested in doing so.Anthony Krupp 20:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

You said you've been comparing two specific versions? Which two are those? Just to make sure everyone's on the same page, it would be good to have the permanent links. --tjstrf 20:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah yes: (1) the current protected version and (2) revision as of 20:02, 18 July 2006. Anthony Krupp 20:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[3] and [4]? The only edit by you on the 18th is dated 13:02, 18 July 2006 by my computer. --tjstrf 20:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I am of course on board. Actually i believe this is the other version: 19:10, 18 July 2006 YurikBot, its after the bot edited it. There are only two versions: one version that is fullstop's edit, the one being protected now, and the other version is the one i put above. Once again i have not edited one word of any versions here. --Spahbod 21:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Moving forward (starting with the Infobox)

Parsis
Total population
c. 100,000
Regions with significant populations
c. 70% in India, 5% in Pakistan and Sri Lanka, 25% elsewhere.
Languages
Gujarati, English
Religions
Zoroastrianism
Related ethnic groups
Zoroastrians, Irani

The point of a random revert is to attempt to dissassociate any one version from being owned. Thus we don't have "his" version or "my" version or "their" version, or any permutation on that theme. Every version is everyone's version, so rather than continuing to focus on what went before can we attempt to move forward please?

The best thing to do right now is for whomever wants a change to the page to reproduce the exact section here, and then to state the exact changes they would like to make, complete with reasons for the change and sources as applicable.

For example, does this infobox belong in the article, and if so should it have

|related= [[Irani]]s, [[Persian people]]

or

|related= [[Zoroastrianism|Zoroastrians]], [[Irani]]

brenneman ^{L} 00:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

We had been moving forward before you reverted to the disputed version and now want to move on from this version. We were just about to start reviewing fullstop's changes, suddently you revert and protect. :). May i suggest you revert to the version that was not disputed nor changed by me or fullstop. Mr Krupp thinks the same. Thus this: 19:10, 18 July 2006 YurikBot.

And yes i think the box belongs in the article and was in the article before he deleted it. Cheers. --Spahbod 00:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I must ask, please, that no one speak for me. I did express those sentiments at one point, but that was before the protection policy was better explained to me. Thanks, and more from me tomorrow.Anthony Krupp 04:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

At some level this message is not getting through: Please stop personalising changes. Stop talking about what version was disputed, or who made what edit, or whom removed it. It's just not helpful. I've unprotected the article, but unless a higher standard of harmonious editing is applied, that's easy to change back. - brenneman ^{L} 01:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I would move we include Persians and Irani as related ethnic groups, as Zoroastrans are already mentioned directly above in the infobox. That's just me though. --tjstrf 01:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I second this suggestion. Anthony Krupp 04:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Lol Ok obviously i and Mr. Krupp are not getting through. Nevermind then, let us start from this version then.

See comment above; please allow me to speak for myself.Anthony Krupp 04:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with tjstrf, the persian and iranian related ethnic do belong here, and as i mentioned before so does the infobox. Deleting the box was in first place nothing more than vandalism. In my opinion there is no reason why the info should not be included, unless someone thinks they are not an ethnic group but rather a religious minority in india which is of course not true, the facts are there. :) --Spahbod 01:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I've reinserted the infobox, and Persian people seems right, but now I'm wondering if it's appropriate to have Iranis. Here's why: when you click on Iranis, this is the first sentence you can read: "Irani is a term used to denote Indian Zoroastrians whose ancestors emigrated from Iran within the last two centuries, as opposed to the longer residing Parsis." If the term Irani is opposed to the term Parsi, then it isn't appropriate as a marker for the article Parsi. Can someone clarify this point? Maybe we can get clarity on this before we move on. I, for one, have now only made one change, and won't make any more until I've gotten some answers to the question I just posed. Good night all, Anthony Krupp 04:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

"Iranis" are Persian-speaking but in general Parsis are not (they speak Gujarati). In my opinion you might want to put "Iranis" in a parentheses next to Persians, like "Persians (including Iranis)" or something. Khorshid 05:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

---

• Clarification of the understandably confusing use of the term "Irani" as it appears in the Parsi infobox:

1. Parsi, in the context of the Parsis of the Indian subcontinent, is not equivalent to the Persian language meaning of the term "Parsi". That is why there is (and has always been) a disambig at the top of the Parsi article.
2. The article Irani refers to Iranis of the Indian subcontinent. In that context, it distinguishes between the two groups of Zoroastrians on the Indian subcontinent, a subtlety only (Indian-)Iranis and Parsis recognize (I personally think the factionalism is silly, but its not for me to judge). The reference to Irani in the info-box at Parsi is thus a reference to the other Zoroastrians on the Indian subcontinent, and not a reference to the Iranians of Iran.

The essential difference between the two is that Parsis have been on the subcontinent for a thousand years, while the Iranis have been there since the 1850s when the "Persian Zoroastrian Amelioration Fund" (see Parsi#History) first sponsored some of the Zoroastrians of Iran to come over. Even then, the first ones continued to be called Parsis, and it was not until the 1909 legal ruling (see Petit vs. Jijibhai in Parsi#Bibliography), that anyone cared. That the (Indian-)Iranis were not Parsis (legally Parsis, i.e. under the jurisdiction of the Parsi courts) was only "established" in 1966 (Irani vs. Irani, also listed in Parsi#Bibliography).

The 1966 ruling, which had to determine whether (Indian-)Iranis were subject to Parsi marriage and divorce laws (divorce in this case) ruled that the (Indian-)Iranis were not. Ergo, legally, (Indian-)Iranis were not Parsis. Of course, by that time (the 60s), the descendants of the 19th-early 20th century immigrants had been completely assimilated into the Parsi community, so the ruling was (in the larger picture) just hair-splitting. But it continues to this day.

~

Thus, as is evident by the confusion in the comments preceding this one, the linkage to "Irani" in the info-box is absolutely misleading if the casual reader is not familiar with the subtlety behind it. Ditto the linkage to "Persian people", which is an amalgamation of several ethnic groups "who speak the Persian language and share a common culture and history" (article lede) - a description darn difficult to apply to a people to have been away for a thousand years.

In any case, the statement over at Irani that the (Indian-)Iranis speak Persian is not quite correct. The "new" arrivals do of course, but those that have been there for many generations do not. Just like immigrants anywhere else.

~

Thus, if one were to actually concentrate on Related ethnic-groups as it says so in the info-box, there would be nothing suitable that could go in there, because neither "Zoroastrians", nor "Iranis", nor "Persian people" is an ethnic-group per WP definition of ethnic group. "Zoroastrian" is a religion tag, "Irani" and "Persian people" are (at face value) geographic tags.

~

From a general-knowledge point of view, the subtleties that Iranis are also Indian-Zoroastrians, or that 40+ generations ago the Parsis had a common heritage with the "Persians" (in all its numerous ethnic groups), are both way too complex for the average joe. They would in any case require the establishment of some (perforce arbitrary) parameters of what actually defines "ancestry".

-- Fullstop 08:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• But ... none of this actually is actually "moving along" to resolve the problem, i.e. the revert. I have repeatedly asked for specific citation of "troublesome" sentences, but have yet to see one. I have repeatedly asked for specific citation of "vandalism", but have yet to see one.

The reason why this has to be resolved is because I have not changed my position of what a Parsi is (nigh impossible since I am one) and which is the one the article has always had (since the substance of the article is from my keyboard). Thus, the reasons for the revert would apply to all versions of the article: past, present and even future (if the subject is not changed altogether).

The "objections" would also apply to all WP articles that use the term "Parsi" as defined in the Parsi article, including the edit war presently underway at Freddie Mercury.

-- Fullstop 08:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the extensive reply. I agree that subtleties cannot be captured in an infobox, but that can then be the job of the article. Actually, according to ethnic group and its related list, Parsi, Irani, and Persians are listed as ethnic groups. That term being defined as a population of people that identifies with each other. Maybe our solution could be to see that the box does not say "Identified as" but rather "Related." So even if there are notable differences between Parsi, Persians, Irani, etc., the common history can justify listing these "related" (not "identical") ethnicities. What do you (and others) think about this?Anthony Krupp 14:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Meanwhile, see Talk:Freddie_Mercury/Archive_1#Iranian.2FPersian_or_Indian.3F. I take it that Parsi editors are split on whether "Persian" is a good term: some say that Parsis are proud of the Persian heritage, others say that Parsis sometimes self-identify as Persian simply to spare themselves a 20-minute conversation (the one we're having, I guess), and other say that the term isn't a good one, given the 1,000-year absence from Persia: like calling Steven Spielberg an Israeli Hebrew, vs. an American Jew. Does this sound right to you, that this is the source of contention?Anthony Krupp 14:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I've struckthrough the following sidetrack. THE ISSUE HAS BEEN MISIDENTIFIED. Attempt to re-track follows after struckthrough section.

Strikethrough didn't seem correct. Talk page is for talk, not for editing others' comments. I could be wrong. Have undone strikethrough.Anthony Krupp 23:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

---

Mr. Krupp wrote: So even if there are notable differences between Parsi, Persians, Irani, etc., the common history can justify listing these "related" (not "identical") ethnicities. Couldn't agree more. And i had no idea Spielberg is jewish :). --Spahbod 14:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

It just says they are related, which at least in my mind can mean by history as easily as it can genetics. One thing that would be useful here would be if the current extensive bibliography were put into the in-line reference format. I can't tell what's sourced and what isn't right now. Also, would a more neutral term than "illustrious" for the final section heading be helpful? Certainly, I don't think anyone will start having a fit over it, but it's not the most encyclopedic language. --tjstrf 16:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes perhaps illustrious is not the best word here. To move to the next step, we should reinstate the deleted image of Freddie Mercury, all agree? --Spahbod 14:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest "Prominent Parsis" (I like the alliteration, and it seems a standard term), but if that reflects a bias of North American English, then someone please say so. About Freddie Mercury, I think he could stay. He's one of two Parsis I can immediately name, so his image next to this subheading would be nice.

About further development, I'll make a suggestion on Monday about the introduction/first four paragraphs. Basically, I have created an amalgamation of the former one paragraph and the newer three paragraphs. I will have one or two questions, but I think this version will contain the best of the two previous versions. Look forward to discussing it with everyone. Cheers,Anthony Krupp 15:15, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Prominent sounds good to me. And i am looking forward to see your suggestion about the first paragraphs. Cheers --Spahbod 17:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

This is not that important but is it really necessary to put no iranians there. Some might even take that as an insult. Furthermore both persians and iranis are of course related to rest of the ethnic iranians. So i believe we should only cut not iranians from the box. Agreed? --Spahbod 19:59, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course my intent would not be to insult. It just seems that Irani is the right link, and another user mentioned that the average reader could easily confuse Irani with Iranian. That's the problem I was trying to address. One could also write Related: Irani. For Iranian, see Iranian. But that's getting long for an infobox, no? Hm, I'm wondering if this box does not create more problems than it solves. What do others think?Anthony Krupp 20:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

You forget, those are links, not merely listings. Anyone who clicks the Irani link will discover that they are not the same as Iranians. The entire purpose of having wikilinks --not to mention a see also section-- is so that we need not explan every single term every single time it appears. --tjstrf 22:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Tjstrf. --Spahbod 23:10, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

== MOVING ALONG by (again) identifying what the heck this is all about.

To Anthony Krupp (14:35, 21 July 2006)

• "I take it that Parsi editors are split on whether "Persian" is a good term"

Thats a bad take. :)

a) Over at Freddie Mercury, no Parsi editor has expressed an opinion as to whether 'whether "Persian" is a good term' or not. For the very simple reason that there are no non-anon Parsi editor involved in any discussion of the sort over there. Indeed, there is no discussion at all of whether 'whether "Persian" is a good term' or not. The discussion is about quite something else, and I'm not even going to summarize it for fear that it will again put a spin on this discussion that again has nothing to do with the reason for the revert of THIS article.

b) A revert over at Freddie Mercury triggered the revert of my edit at this article. But beyond that the two articles have nothing to do with each other. Certainly nothing from talk there.

c) I understand how you came to the conclusion that they were connected - I initially fell into the trap myself. The reason for that (not going to cite to not confuse the issue of THIS article) was a misunderstanding on Afghan Historian's part because the Freddie-is-Iranian-he-said-so-himself pov is particularly persistant/prevalent and the minute anyone says Freddie is not-xyz, it is automatically put into the same rubric.

• "Does this sound right to you, that this is the source of contention?"

No, it doesn't sound right at all. :)

a) As I said above, the two have absolutely nothing to do with one another. If you scan the comments in the {{npov}} section you'll find that the word "Persian" doesn't appear at all. Indeed, the "source of contention" is identified at the very top of the {{npov}} section (18:36, 17 July 2006 ) and reads "The fact remains that Parsis are not indian".

That this continues to be the bone of contention is repeated throughout the conversation - search for the phrase "Indi" and look at boldface type. Even the last comment has it: "someone thinks they are not an ethnic group but rather a religious minority in india which is of course not true" 01:22, 21 July 2006. Notable is also that the position appears to have morphed significantly: from the initial "is not Indian" through "is not Indi" through "is not ethnically Indian" to 'is not "a religious minority in india"'.

b) The horrendous lack of logic notwithstanding, what is even more remarkable is the assertion that I introduced this idea with my edit.

c) All requests for evidence (that I introduced any bias OR that ethnicity/nationality are mutually exclusive OR that I vandalized) have gone unheeded.

-- Fullstop 10:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for addressing my question about what is contentious. To the extent I've understood your comment, you seem to be saying it has to do with claims about whether Parsis are Indians or whether Parsis are not Indians. Is that correct? To the article: (A) should the infobox list Indians, Iranis, and Persians? (B) Just Indians and Iranis? (C) Or is the situation so complicated that a brief infobox is a bad idea? I'm interested in whatever is the best presentation of the information. Please give me a short answer. Thanks!Anthony Krupp 23:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

• "To the extent I've understood your comment, you seem to be saying it has to do with claims about whether Parsis are Indians or whether Parsis are not Indians."

- Spahbod's assertion from the beginning (continuing even in this "moving on" section), has always been "Parsis are not Indians" and has nothing to do with the info-box and affects all Parsi-related articles even as we speak.

- Spahbod's assertion establishes a far more serious and fundamental issue at stake, which we have to discuss/establish first. Its not particularly useful to discuss whether apples are red or not if one of the participants is talking about oranges.

-- Fullstop 06:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• To the article. Or rather, to the info-box (again. *sigh*).

With respect to (A) and (B): "Indian" would have no place there. "Indian" is either a geographic/national specifier or a non-homogenous "cultural subcontinent", but not the name of an ethnic group. Just like "American" or "European" or even "Persian" (cf. Greater Iran) for that matter. But then again, what does it matter?

With respect to (C) Yes, the issue is really very complicated.

With respect to "I'm interested in whatever is the best presentation of the information": Can we discuss this in another section? I have a couple of ideas, but don't want to distract from what follows. -- Fullstop 06:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

PLEASE STAY ON TOPIC. I realize that this may sound like I'm trying to go backwards, instead of "moving on", but as I have noted before, the revert (or rather the "reasons" for it) have ramifications that are not immediately obvious. There are a number of pages influenced by decisions made here, so PLEASE lay off the carping about whether one word has more merit than another, and try to establish the legitimacy (or not) of the revert. If this does not happen, the war is going to move elsewhere (with my next edit). And in case you haven't noticed, I'm being sniped at continuously (example). So, if you really give a darn, please put the academics on the back burner for a week, and actually help resolve this problem.

A final note on the rather academic info-box discussion: Before the next "absolute" opinion comes down the pipeline about how something must be seen, in such-and-such a light, I suggest you all take a step back and start to think about how someone who had been persecuted/driven out of a "homeland" is going to feel about such "homeland". Revolutionary wars have been fought on such a basis. We have had a world war because of it and people still die everyday because of their religious beliefs or just because they happened to born to the "wrong" tribe. So, please pipe down about absolutist statements and start to review issues in the context that they occur.
-- Fullstop 15:15, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
ps:I realize that you all don't give a damn one way or another, but ever since a particular nasty piece of trolling subsequent to the Parsi revert war, my edits everywhere are been whittled away, with associated and continuous, unwarranted, attacks on my person. So, please, get to work.

Please reread strong suggestions by aaron brenneman about moving on (i.e., forgetting about requiring satisfaction about a revert in order to save face or whatever). If you have an issue with another user, go to their talk page. This is the talk page for the article. Let's stay on topic. You should understand that my interest in discussing (not carping) about the correct word to use is in the interest of improving the article. I'm not sure what you mean by putting the academics on the back burner, but I don't take that language well (being an academic). Your threat of another edit war doesn't sound to me like you're interested in cooperating. Perhaps that will prove to be not the case. If it does, then of course you can be blocked, and the article can be improved without you. But because I see that you made many significant improvements to the article, I hope that this will not be your attitude. I'm still assuming good faith all around, until I have evidence that there is no reason to do so.Anthony Krupp 23:24, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

• Anthony, you misunderstood.

Re: carping vs discussing. Bad choice of words. Mea culpa. Write it off as Frust.

Re: academic. I meant "academics" in the sense of "academic discussion". I'm an academic too. :)

Re: "Your threat of another edit war": Again, you misunderstood. I'm not threatening to destroy the cooperation here (which I think is wonderful). There is a lurking threat of another edit war, but not directly to do with this article (to quote myself: "the war is going to move elsewhere"). To explain: Spahbod's continuous sniping suggests that he'll revert anything just because I wrote it - and not because there are good reasons to do so. The edit war will re-erupt the minute I post an edit anywhere, and his revert of my edit here was (may be) symptomatic of a much greater problem.

-- Fullstop 06:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey, thanks very much for clarifying, Fullstop. I think tone can often be misunderstood in wikipedia. From my earliest involvment with a contentious article, I know all about frustration, so can empathize. I will say (cautiously) that if you feel someone is following you around reverting you for being you, then you should alert an admin who can look into it. That's way beyond my competence to deal with (and I have little free time, truly), so I'll be focusing on this article only. Anything I see that seems incorrect, I will call as incorrect. I remain unpartisan here. Am just trying to identify issues as I scroll through the article. And the infobox was item #1, which is the only reason I began with it. Does that make sense? Cheer,Anthony Krupp 11:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Fullstop wrote: ps:I realize that you all don't give a damn one way or another, but ever since a particular nasty piece of trolling subsequent to the Parsi revert war, my edits everywhere are been whittled away, with associated and continuous, unwarranted, attacks on my person. So, please, get to work.

I am getting real tired of your personal attacks. --Spahbod 23:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Most interesting that you should interpret it as such. -- Fullstop 06:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Moving forward 2 (and Infobox: straw poll)

(snip from another page to get the ball rolling again)

Also, is this edit war seriously about whether the Parsi can be considered Indian? Because that's just lame. Can't you just say it's at least slightly contentious, cite someone who says they are Indian, cite someone who says they aren't Indian, and move on with the article? Of course, it never goes that simply in actual practice... --tjstrf 17:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

tjstrf: its contentious only inasfar as Spahbod's sad assertion makes it so. I suspect that this is because his understanding of the word differs from what the article is all about. Can't say for sure though because he keeps reciting his mantra but won't actually explain his assertion.

Incidentally, nowhere in the article does it state anything other than "Parsis are from the Indian subcontinent", and this it has done for, oh, forever. Cf: eb 2006, eb 1911, Columbia, Catholic,Encarta, Yahoo, Routledge, Merriam-Webster, not to mention Wikipedia de es fa fr id it nn pl fi.

Quite sad really. -- Fullstop 11:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

First, thanks much for the links. They will be helpful. Second, see new infobox. Let me take a quick straw poll from the editors (most involved recently: Spahbod, Fullstop, and anyone else reading this): is this agreeable? I can see that related=Indian and related=Persian both seem contentious. Maybe the thing to do is just have related=Irani (similar situation, i.e., Persian Zoroastrians from Iran emigrating to India, just at different times from the Parsi). Is that something we can agree on? Looking forward to moving on to the introduction later.Anthony Krupp 12:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Sure, thats fine. Can also add Zoroastrians in Iran if you like.

But can we move this info-box discussion to another section PLEASE?

-- Fullstop 13:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll retroactively flag this discussion as about the Infobox, and the next one as being about the Introduction. That will make this page easier to navigate. OK? Anthony Krupp 13:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

From my Talk page:

Greetings, regarding your cut of the word persian from the infobox. Why would we cut away thousands of years of persian history the Parsis had, because a user like fullstop think so. My friend like i mentioned in the parsi talk the encyclopedia Britannnica article about the parsis which fullstop himself provided says this: The Parsis, whose name means “Persians,” are descended from Persian Zoroastrians who emigrated to India to avoid religious persecution by the Muslims. Of cource they are related to the Persians, the word itself means Persian, i also think you should change the head of the article from: the people who emigrated to india to: the persians who emigrated to india. I know you don't want it to get more messed up than it is, but he can't argue with facts and sources, if he refuses to cooperate he will be blocked. We don't have to satisfy his needs to change the article as he wants it. --Spahbod ☼ 18:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, then we have here an argument that "Persian" is a related ethnic group. I've now seen one argument for and one argument against including the term "Persian" in the infobox. So we have to figure this out. I'd be interested in hearing from another neutral editor on this point, at this point. Cheers, Anthony Krupp 18:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

On another note: I think it would be helpful if editors can try to make sure that their own POV (we all have one) does not interfere with collective discussion. That is, if one of you feels strongly that Parsis are really Indian, and another of you feels that Parsis are really Persian, then if you only follow your feelings, you won't be able to talk or work together. My feeling is that the word "people" in the introduction is the best choice, since we can't argue about whether Parsis are people. It's a good word for that reason: it leaves it open for further information to follow in the article whether these people should be considered really Indian or really Persian (or something else, like really Parsi). Since the word Persian does appear twice in the introduction as I've revised it, I don't think it's accurate to state that thousands of years of Persian history are being removed. We still have the question of the infobox.Anthony Krupp 18:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Krupp you do make a good point there, however we know for a fact that the people who emigrated from persia to india were persian, as the Britannica source shows. If we leave that open one might believe that the Parsis were not even persians in the first place. Also i agree with you that many people let their own POV blind them from the truth. Cheers --Spahbod ☼ 19:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Um, so is this discussion now no longer about "Parsis are not Indian" but about "Parsis are not Persians"? I'm really confused now.

I've asked this question before: What on earth does an ethno-religious community have to do with nationality/citizenship? (Apples and oranges).

"one might believe that the Parsis were not even persians in the first place". Thats redolent of Judenpass all over again. "In the first place" is not only arbitrary, "in the first place" everyone here is a Hominini. :)

The "one might believe" appears to assume that a reader might fail to read the first sentence.

-- Fullstop 10:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Spahbod, you appear to understand something by the word "Parsi" and "Indi"/"Indian" that is not in accord with the general/wikipedia english language definitions of an ethno-religious minority (Parsi) and of nationality/citizenship (Indian), and you appear to conclude that the two are mutually exclusive [5].

Thus, would you please explain what you understand by the words "Parsi" and "Indi"/"Indian"?

This would surely help to understand/address what bothers you.

Perhaps to better understand this, could you also please explain (by way of example) what an "American" is?

-- Fullstop 10:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Introduction

As you'll see, I shortened the introduction. Introductions are supposed to be short anyway. (1) The one significant change I made is replacing "in the 8th/10th century" (since "century" is singular but 8th/10th is plural) with "between the 8th and 10th centuries." If this is inaccurate or needs adjustment, someone please say so, and we'll change it. (2) Also, I moved one paragraph to a lower section. It probably needs tweaking. Oh yes, two questions: I found it more informative to state that the spelling Parsee is British colonial. One question: do we have a citation for this? I just want to make sure this is documentable. If it is, I think we should keep it over the previous formulation "Parsi or Parsee." And finally, if Parsee is British colonial, then who came up with the spelling "Parsi"?Anthony Krupp 13:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Um, why exactly are you changing the introduction? Don't mean to be rude, but do you feel you know enough about the subject to actually tackle the substance?

I'm doing my best here to mediate (remember?). Am responding to all reasonable discussion here on the Talk page. See below.Anthony Krupp 18:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

On to your questions:

1. Both Parsi and Parsee are used interchangeably and are pronounced the same way.
   • Both are presumably transliterations from one and the same local language word (presumably Gujarati). The -ee was British custom, its just the way they did things for all words with an -i suffix (usually an appurtenant), so also "Bengali"->"Bengalee", "Marathi"->"Marathee" etc. You have to keep in mind that - at the time - those words were alien to the english language.
   • According to the Oxford English Dictionary ( "Parsi". The Oxford English Dictionary (second) XI. (1989). ISBN 0-19-861185-2.), the first reference to Parsi dates to 1615: "There is one sect among the Gentiles ... called Parcees" (Thomas Coryate & Edward Terry in Purchas, Samuel (1625, repr. 1905). Hakluytus Posthumus or Purchas His Pilgrimes (Vol. II). Glasgow: MacLehose. ).
   • The -i form the term first appears in the Penny Cyclopaedia ( "Parsi". Penny Cyclopaedia. (1840). Vol. XVII 479/2).
   • In 1630, over a century before Anquetil-Duperron's "discovery" of Zoroastrian texts among the Parsis of Surat, Henry Lord, in his The Religion of the Persees, first equated Zoroastrianism (which did not yet have that name) with the Parsis (Lord, Henry (1630). The Religion of the Persees: As it was compiled from a booke of theirs.... ). The term Parsiism came after Duperron's Zend-Avesta where he called it Parsiismé. (Remember that Surat was once a French colony)
2. "between the 8th and 10th centuries." No, thats not how its meant. Its either 8th or 10th, but this is such a hot potato you don't want to rephrase it any other way than it was before. <quote>: three possible dates - 936 CE, 765 CE and 716 CE - have been proposed as the year of landing, and the disagreement has been the cause of "many an intense battle [...] amongst Parsis" <end-quote>
3. Your move of the second paragraph (use of the word Parsi to mean Zoroastrian) is more troubling. It should be precisely not in identity because that second paragraph is about the alternate (archaic) use of the term (in German for example, Parsismus instead of de:Zoroastrismus and Parsi as equivalent of de:Zendsprache). If you want to, kill the second paragraph altogether, but for gawds sake don't start a section on identity with something that should not be equated. :)

-- Fullstop 16:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for this; my recent edit should respond to your point #2. I find your research regarding point #1 to be very interesting. Perhaps this could become a section of the article in itself? If you like that idea, please just use the information you brought here now, and draft that section.Anthony Krupp 18:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I see what you mean about the relationship between that paragraph and the heading. The paragraph is only obliquely about identity, since it is really about what is not Parsi identity. Do I get that right? I think it's interesting information and would prefer to see if moved to a better location than deleted. What do you think? A subsection on Confusions about Parsi Identity, or something? In the meantime, please delete it if it feels awful, or move the paragraph to this page. If we find a better place to put it, we can reinsert it. Ok?Anthony Krupp 18:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I did just make another change, trying to reflect the majority concentration in India (70%) and the Indian subcontinent (75%) as well as another 25% located elsewhere. Comments on accuracy welcome. Anthony Krupp 14:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Um, your edit makes the lede awfully ambiguous. The principal attribute of the Parsis, i.e. Zoroastrianism gets lost. I suggest you don't change the lede. It had been fine-tuned over the course of two years. But if you have to (why actually?), I suggest something along the lines of what any one of the encyclopedia/dictionaries has it. My Random House has "an Indian Zoroastrian descended from a people who went to India in the 7th and 8th centuries to escape religious persecution."

The second sentence "The majority are members of the close-knit Zoroastrian community in the Indian subcontinent" is terrible. What happens to the rest (non-majority)? Are they suddenly not members anymore when the leave the Indian subcontinent? :) The majority Parsis are the close-knit Zoroastrian community in in/from the Indian subcontinent.

-- Fullstop 16:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

OK; how does it read now? Better? Needing improvement?Anthony Krupp 18:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Definition and Identity

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

parsis are indian!

i'm parsi so i'll say this. Parsis are indian zarathushtris as they've been there more than a millenia. mix or no mix, our culuture's turned indian, our mother tongue's indian and our dress is indian. any parsi will tell you this. with regards to freddie mercury, his was a messed up case. whatever he says, doesnt define majority view. Sohrab Irani 17:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Relax Sohrab. :) Freddie doesn't play a role here, and that the Parsis are Indian Zarthustris is amply documented (even elsewhere on wikipedia). Nonetheless, your opinion as another reader is certainly useful. -- Fullstop 11:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Parsis are not Indian, they are Parsis

To be clear, whether some parsis think of themselfs as indian does not change a thing. The fact remains that they emigrated from Persia to India. Fullstop you seem to never give showing links that proves you are wrong. Every one of these links Fullstop provided proves that Parsis are from Persia, the name means persian, and that they are not indian whether they live in india or not. This is the links Fullstop provided and what he wrote before the links: Incidentally, nowhere in the article does it state anything other than "Parsis are from the Indian subcontinent", and this it has done for, oh, forever. Cf: eb 2006, eb 1911, Columbia, Catholic,Encarta, Yahoo, Routledge, Merriam-Webster

To quote it in your own words, quite sad really! However i thank you for providing the links, they were very usefull. :)

This is takes from one of Fullstop's links, Encyclopedia Britannica: The Parsis, whose name means “Persians,” are descended from Persian Zoroastrians who emigrated to India to avoid religious persecution by the Muslims .

Furthermore i have adviced you to behave civil, but you seem not to understand and repeatedly sending persnoal attacks, instead of being cooperative to improve up this article. Fullstop wrote: its contentious only inasfar as Spahbod's sad assertion makes it so. . Again after the links he wrote: Quite sad really.

Again to quote it in your own words it seems to me that you are the one with sad assertion: [6]. Fullstop's sad assertion. This is just one his several deletions of categories from persian mythology and zoratostranism articles. Note that he has deleted the category persian gods from an article about a persian god. What do you say of something like that. Like i mentioned before you can see for yourself that he refuses to be cooperative, instead sending personal attacks after so many warnings. In my opinion only thing that can change his mind is a block, Mr. Bremmen if your hearing this and saw his several personal attacks please let us know. --Spahbod ☼ 18:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Oi vey, I'd taken my eyes off the page for a little while, it seemed to have gone calm. I'll pay more attention. - brenneman ^{L} 23:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

"What do you say of something like that"

Well, I say I have good reasons for doing things I do. In comparison to, say, reverting things just because they are a particular person's edits. [7][8][9][10][11]

-- Fullstop 11:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

In the subject of this sub-section you noted: "Parsis are not Indian, they are Parsis". Please tell us what "Parsis are ... Parsis" means? -- Fullstop 11:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

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.

Everyone please read or reread WP:VER. Thanks!Anthony Krupp 18:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Lol, exactly. --Spahbod ☼ 18:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Backing up, and I hope, moving on: first sentence

The first sentence currently reads as follows (I'll call it version A):

A Parsi is a descendant of people who, in either the 8th or the 10th century, emigrated to the west coast of India from Persia to escape religious persecution after the Islamic conquest.

Here is another version (I'll call it version B):

A Parsi is a descendant of Persian Zoroastrians who, in either the 8th or the 10th century, emigrated to the west coast of India to escape religious persecution after the Islamic conquest.

Let me ask the two most vocal editors, and anyone else, two questions. First, is there anything factually incorrect with version A? Or with version B? If nothing is factually wrong with either one, then we can move on to my second question.Anthony Krupp 19:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

No there is nothing factually incorrect with them. However it is not clear of what they were, it says people from persia, it doesn't say Persians. People from persia could be anything. Aa the time of Sassanids many different people lived in Persia, not just Persians. So i beleive we should follow Britannica and call say that it was the persians who emigrated from persia and are now called parsi.

Cheers, --Spahbod ☼ 20:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

We should start citing sources right from the begining. The phrase "either the 8th or the 10th" is a bit awkward. I hesitate to edit inside someone's comments, so if we feel free to work on the set-off section below until we're happy. - brenneman ^{L} 23:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the "in either 8th or the 10th" is awkward. Its no improvement over "in the 8th/10th century", which allows for all three disputed dates (936, 765 and 716) for one group, and allows for the possibility of a the 10th century arrival by other group(s).

Like I said before, the lede has been fine-tuned over the course of two years and took a whole slew of icky subtleties into account (i.e. don't fix what ain't broken ;). Another example, the use of the term "India" is troublesome to the India-before-1947-etc-etc faction, thus "Indian subcontinent".

My suggestion therefore is to leave it as it has been for 2+ years and first determine in Talk what needs fixing (rather than "fixing" it first, and then asking whats broken).

That said (if "fix" it you must, but why?), there are three key terms that have to be included in the lede since these are the means by which they are defined. a) Parsis are Zoroastrians, b) they are a close-knit community c) they are not indigenous to the Indian subcontinent.

I'll leave you to figure out how to put that in a lede (cf Amish) :) -- Fullstop 11:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Fullstop, every article can be improved for clarity. If you felt the article was fine after 2 years, you wouldn't have improved it the other week. Can we get beyond that level of discussion? The phrase "in the 8th/10th century" is confusing. Thus it can be improved. The question is how. Now, I would appreciate if you would follow Brenneman's suggestion and adjust the following text to be as you think it should. Others can then comment on it. I think this would be more productive than waiting for me to make a change based on discussion, then tell me that I'm wrong to make a change. Just edit, here, now. Thanks. The first two sentences follow.Anthony Krupp 14:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

 

Anthony, I didn't say the "article was fine". I said the lede was fine. I didn't even touch the lede.

Incorporating all three of the three points previously defined, and avoiding the the 8th/10th bit, I get:

Next para (and just because you asked for citation)...

 

Bibliography:

* Mama, Arnavaz S.. "Cultural renaissance". Parsiana (1. April 2004). 

* Jhabvalla, Darius S.. (1973). "Parsi". Encyclopedia Americana: Vol. 21, pp. 347. New York: Americana Corp. ISBN 0-7172-0104-X.

I picked Americana because a) because it cites its sources; b) because it uses "presumably" when it should; c) and because the article is by a Parsi :).

-- Fullstop 14:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for putting this forth. I think we're getting somewhere. :) I like adding the IPA thing (the more info the better). I have just a question or two: this latest revision defines a Parsi as a member of a community of the Indian subcontinent. Is this accurate? If a Parsi lives in London, is s/he still of the Indian subcontinent? I guess the question is: how should this opening sentence define Parsi first and foremost? Through descent, through belief, or through geography? It seems you're voting for the latter two. My question is whether all three factors are more or less equivalent in relevance. I like very much the "over 1000 years ago" bit. The main article can deal with the dispute over actual years and centuries. Good job on this!Anthony Krupp 15:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

"If a Parsi lives in London, is s/he still of the Indian subcontinent?"

if you're asking if other Parsis consider him/her to be a Parsi, the answer is yes. See also, next answer.

"Through descent, through belief, or through geography?"

Numero Uno: community! Everything else falls into place automatically:

• The Parsi community is defined by the (common) religion of its members. Consequently, the cardinal feature of the community is Zoroastrianism. In turn, the community - by virtue of its size and clout - is a defining factor of Zoroastrianism everywhere (both whithin the community as well as everywhere else in the world). Examples available on request. :)
• Geography is only relevant inasfar as the community happens to be where it is. If the refugees had, say, gone to Hong Kong, then the Parsis would be speaking chinese and eating with chopsticks.
• descent...: endogamy among the Parsi community is a subject you do not want to touch with a 10-foot pole. I am not kidding. I've hinted at it in the identity section and in the "exclusion versus inclusion" section, but thats a road you really don't want to go down. I'm sure you can infer why (think very small population and very nasty words/stories that put Peyton Place in the shade), but if you want to know more, use mail. If this were a private article that you were writing, that would be one thing, but in a publicly edited article its uneccessarily incendiary.

-- Fullstop 18:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, how about this. I think it removes my concern about connotations of "of":

I reinserted one specific about the persecution, but I think that could also be removed for the sake of brevity, as long as it is discussed in the article per se. Either way is fine with me. What do others think now?Anthony Krupp 15:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Foin. As you say, the post-conquest stuff is not strictly necessary (its chronologically at least 2 centuries before they migrated), but it doesn't hurt. -- Fullstop 18:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Britannica is the most reliable source here and like i mentioned before it says: The Parsis, whose name means “Persians,” are descended from Persian Zoroastrians who emigrated to India to avoid religious persecution by the Muslims. And almost all sources say the same thing, so my suggestion is:

Also in the infobox please reinstate Persians.--Spahbod ☼ 16:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I think EB is a reliable source. (Why is it the most reliable one? Is that a wikipedia policy?) I think that the information about the term Parsi meaning Persian should be in the article, as Spahbod states, but since I've recommended there be a section on the term Parsi, including its signification and spelling in various languages, this bit of information should, I think, go there. Once can even quote directly from the 1911 EB on this! But if one were to stick the phrase into a relative clause, it would look as though someone were trying to push a POV and state that the Parsis somehow really are Persian. The term Parsi may have referred to Persian when the first emigrants arrived over 1,000 years ago, but to simply state that the term means Persian seems too strong for the introduction, or for the article for that matter. Isn't it more accurate that the term Parsi meant Persian, whereas now it means various things to various people? Do you see my concern here?Anthony Krupp 18:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

"The Parsi, which literally means "Persian"^{(ref goes here)}, are the modern descendants of a people group who emigrated from Persia to the Indian subcontinent during the 8th or 10th century." If you distinguish the literal meaning as opposed to the commonly understood meaning, and cite it, you should be fine. --tjstrf 18:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

It sounds NPOV to talk about referring to the literal meaning, but there seems to be a problem here. Literal means according to the letter, that is, the non-metaphorical meaning of a term in a language. My question is: whose language? The term Parsi seems to have one meaning in Persian and another in English. Also, Parsi/Parsee tells us whether one's English is British colonial or not. And Parcee tells us whether the English is 16th-century or not... My point is that the issue seems complex, and for that reason it should be treated responsibly, in a section on the lingustics or etymology of the term. That is, where such a section seems warranted (it sure does here, to me), it seems to oversimplify to claim that a given term means X. I'm just asking for good research.Anthony Krupp 18:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Another attempt at the introduction, combining two recent suggestions:

Ok, I've tweaked the above further. Is it possible this will be satisfactory? If not, then of course let's discuss further. I hope we're getting closer, though... Anthony Krupp 18:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

One note: the reference to Jhabvalla, 1973 should be a footnote rather than text, right? We can fix that later, of course.Anthony Krupp 18:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes i understand your concerns about it may seem to be a POV pushing to include the meaning of Parsi in the intruduction. Therefore your last suggestion seems fine to me. --Spahbod ☼ 18:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Great! In the hope that I'm not being too bold, I'm going to move this sentence to the head of the article. Of course it can always be changed -- that's the beauty and curse of wikipedia. In the interest of moving on, I'm going to make this suggestion: that Fullstop, who has done some research on the history of the uses of the term (Parcee, Parsi, Parsee, etc.), draft a section using that research. Something like The term Parsi or History of the Name (I like that) or whatever. I think it would be a very useful first section. I suppose it could also be a first subsection of the History section. Whatever seems right. So my proposal is that Fullstop draft something, post it here using

this cool code,

and then we can start commenting on that. OK with all?Anthony Krupp 19:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Sure, seems OK with me. Also no i don't think there is any policy regarding which is the most reliable, however most sources say the same thing about parsis, the very same thing as Britannica says. Cheers, --Spahbod ☼ 19:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Material for a new section on etymology and signification of the term

I copy the following from Fullstop's research above:

1. Both Parsi and Parsee are used interchangeably and are pronounced the same way.
   • Both are presumably transliterations from one and the same local language word (presumably Gujarati). The -ee was British custom, its just the way they did things for all words with an -i suffix (usually an appurtenant), so also "Bengali"->"Bengalee", "Marathi"->"Marathee" etc. You have to keep in mind that - at the time - those words were alien to the english language.
   • According to the Oxford English Dictionary ( "Parsi". The Oxford English Dictionary (second) XI. (1989). ISBN 0-19-861185-2.), the first reference to Parsi dates to 1615: "There is one sect among the Gentiles ... called Parcees" (Thomas Coryate & Edward Terry in Purchas, Samuel (1625, repr. 1905). Hakluytus Posthumus or Purchas His Pilgrimes (Vol. II). Glasgow: MacLehose. ).
   • The -i form the term first appears in the Penny Cyclopaedia ( "Parsi". Penny Cyclopaedia. (1840). Vol. XVII 479/2).
   • In 1630, over a century before Anquetil-Duperron's "discovery" of Zoroastrian texts among the Parsis of Surat, Henry Lord, in his The Religion of the Persees, first equated Zoroastrianism (which did not yet have that name) with the Parsis (Lord, Henry (1630). The Religion of the Persees: As it was compiled from a booke of theirs.... ). The term Parsiism came after Duperron's Zend-Avesta where he called it Parsiismé. (Remember that Surat was once a French colony)

Fullstop, do you mind if I assign you this homework assignment? :) If you agree, please turn this into a paragraph or three, and perhaps also incorporate the information on the Persian-language meaning of the term. I'll be glad to give other homework assignments to others as they occur to me. :) Greetings, and now I must get back to work. Will be back tomorrow. Anthony Krupp 19:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I really wouldn't want to get into etymology if you don't mind. There are several contesting theories about the origin of the word, but none of them are attested, none of them have been academically reviewed, and each of them has its share of hobby philologists citing reasons why the everyone else's theories are wrong.

Some of the theories are actually sometimes stated as fact, but the EB is not among them - the EB doesn't say anything with respect to etymology, and that is the position I am inclined to as well.

Moreover, if the WP article is to remain serious, all candidates would have to be couched in "perhaps" and "presumably".

The fact, plain and simple, is we do not know how the Parsis got their name - the pre-colonial accounts have them being called Zoroastrians (primarily), Khorasanis, Kohistanis, Sanjanas, Anklesarias, Surtees, and a slew of other city/village/region names in both Iran and India. Then along come the French and we have the first attested "Parsi". Voila, French?!?! (see summary in Menant, Delphine (1889) Les Parsis I/II. Paris). Well, yes. Did they pick it locally? Maybe. Did the British get it from them? Maybe. Does the name have to do with European concepts of Persia? Maybe. Does it have anything to do with Persian language "From Pars". Maybe. Is it from Indic/Sankrit "charity/refuge"? Maybe. Is it from Gujarati meaning Persia (accompanied by hand waving in the general direction)? Maybe. Is it because the priesthood could write Persian? Maybe. Did they give the name to themselves? Maybe.

In short, "maybe". I've heard so many versions of "IT *WAS* XYZ" (add wild gesticulation and collar-grabbing here) that I'm seriously disinclined to believe any of them.

There are no independant authoritative scholastic sources that have determined how the Parsis (of this article) got their name. Ergo, none warrant review. Just like the EB does it.

-- Fullstop 08:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be a shame to say nothing, since people might well wonder where the term comes from, or what it signifies to various people. Surely there are examples of wikipedia articles that navigate similarly touchy waters but remain with a neutral POV. Would it be possible to say something like the following (a very rough draft):

Comments?Anthony Krupp 14:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Whoa! Anthony. You appear to have inadvertantly removed the dablink at the top of the page. Disambiguation is a service to other articles and to the reader. Put it back, please. -- Fullstop 09:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Done.Anthony Krupp 14:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I've effectively reverted the body of the article to a version of several days ago. That is, I removed a new section I created since it was just a shell on the term Parsi. I also removed the following paragraph, which I'll copy here now, so that we can reinsert it if/when we can determine where it best belongs:

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)

Taking stock

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)

Definition and Identity (copied from article, for commentary here)

1.1 As an ethnic community (BTW, is this a good section title?)

I had a question about two phrases that are not in the current version, but were there before.

1. 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.
2. 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)

1. I've unblanked one comment (in bold, above). Why was it blanked? Should it be unblanked? Please clarify.
2. Another question: the sentence following the Quintana-Murci citation, in both versions I'm looking at, seems in need of attention. Both versions are speculative and seem to be original research. I'm not saying they are, but the last sentence needs to be reworded, I think, and perhaps a citation would help a great deal. Can anyone verify that this migration model "is improbable"? Can anyone verify that this "is simply the result of a self-selecting process" etc. as per the previous version? I think this last sentence needs more research and some revision.Anthony Krupp 14:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

1.2 Legal and Social definitions (BTW, is this a good section title?)

Definition and Identity section seems pretty good and neutral to me. --Spahbod ☼ 18:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The above seems fine. (Much more than fine: it's a significant improvement on the former version.) I only have minor concerns:

1. Should "many Parsi Zoroastrian priests" be "many mobeds (Parsi Zoroastrian priests)" as in the previous version?
2. I note that the following sentence is missing in the current version: "Those Zoroastrians whose ancestors emigrated from Persia (Iran) to India within the last two centuries are generally called Iranis, and very often have Irani as a surname." Should this sentence be reinserted? Should it be reinserted here? Or elsewhere?
3. Other than that, I would just say that the footnote structure should be reintroduced.Anthony Krupp 14:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

1. Thats legacy from a time when mobed was linkage, but the linked article turned out to be more specious than not. IMO, its gratuitous - that is, it doesn't explain anything, and indeed needs explanation.

2. It is elsewhere in parentheses. It warrants a proper explanation somewhere though and since its referred to in that section, it may as well be there.

3. Be my guest. Tough to provide page numbers in WP footnotes though. While you're at it, you might wish to add the pictures that are in this talk section.

-- Fullstop 16:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

2. Demographic statistics

This section of the article is much better than the previous version. I only have a question about this paragraph:

Since wikipedia doesn't like the passive voice, as it raises suspicion of weasel words, I might suggest that this read as follows instead:

What do you think?Anthony Krupp 14:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

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)

3. History

This is a significant expansion. I think that more is better, so that's great. Just a few thoughts on this:

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. the second image of the Parsi family can go, since it's the same image as in the infobox
4. 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)

4. Factions, Sections and Sects (BTW, is this a good section title?)

I wonder about this section. Specifically, I wonder if the calendrical differences bit shouldn't be its own section. No strong feeling there, just it seems like it could be its own thing. Also, the bit on exclusion vs. inclusion (currently 4.3): doesn't that belong above, with the definition and identity section? It covers much of the same material, and I think perhaps could be moved to that section. I'm not sure, if these changes are made, how 4.2 should be packaged, but we can deal with that when we get to that point.Anthony Krupp 14:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

4.0: then come up with a suggestion for a title. Thats all I came up with (and "Divisions in the community")

4.1: no. read it carefully. It splits the community in three.

4.3: is not the same as identity. They are tangentially related, but everything in the community is about identity.

4.2: exactly.

4.x: more to come.

-- Fullstop 16:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course I'll think about the titles. I always rethink titles when I do revisions of my own work, and think that can apply here as well. No criticism of former titles intended. Just wanting to improve. :) --Anthony Krupp 17:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

1. I think that sentence of mine came out wrong. :)
   I had originally thought about "Sects and Sections" (for the alliteration :). But I felt that that stressed doctrinal (4.1, 4.2) differences, while 4.3 (social difference) is significantly more brisant than either of the others. That led to the idea for "Doctrinal and social divisions", but then again, there are no other kinds and "social divisions" implied "divisions by social status". That led to a reduction to "Divisions", which sounded a tad too terse, thence "Divisions within the community". As you see, I've really thought about these things. :)
2. The rename of "Within the community" to "Legal and social definition" is not accurate.
   The section begins with the sentence that makes clear this is a matter "within the community". As such the definition in that of the second sentence of the section. Notwithstanding the influence of the judicial process (on the community's perception), the judicial one that comes later in the text is not "legal" because it has since been overruled (multiple times on each point) and declared an obiter in its entirety.
   I suggest renaming it to ===In the community's perception=== and replacing the sentence "This definition has since been overturned several times." with "Notwithstanding the influence of the judicial process on the community's perception of how they define their own, the above-mentioned court ruling is not legally binding as it has since been overruled (multiple times on each point) and declared an obiter in its entirety."
3. Incidentally, you had asked whether Parsis in London are still Parsis...
   See "Parsis: The Jews of India (New Society 22/1/88)"
   Its the 2nd article on that page (you may need to scroll down). "New Society" was a London Paper (now the "New Statesman")

-- Fullstop 07:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

are you reading your mail? -- Fullstop 16:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Oops, no. I tend to compartmentalize and keep wikipedia work to wikipedia. Sorry, Anthony Krupp 17:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

ah, ok. Understandable. -- Fullstop 07:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Sections 5, 6, 7, 8

Seem fine to me. Except that as brenneman suggested, I think footnotes should be used.Anthony Krupp 14:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

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)

I pretty much agree with all your suggestions and changes Mr. Krupp. I had another suggestion in mind: if we are to include that a certain Parsi saw himself as an Indian, then we might as well include that Freddie Mercury saw himself as a Persian and also reinstate his deleted picture of course. I dunno why it was removed in first place. --Spahbod ☼ 02:48, 29 July 2006 (UTC)