Talk:Parsi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive

Archives
1

Contents


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

The following (copied, but not cut, from the archive, and altered insofar as questions have been answered) represents remaining questions I have or issues I see that need addressing. Cheers,--Anthony Krupp 15:42, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] As an ethnic community

Although the Parsis of India originally emigrated from Persia, they no longer have social or familial ties to Persians, and do not share language or recent history with them. Over the centuries since the first Zoroastrians arrived in India, the Parsis have integrated themselves into Indian society while simultaneously maintaining their own distinct customs and traditions (and thus ethnic identity). This in turn has given the Parsi community a rather peculiar standing - they are Indians in terms of national affiliation, language and history, but not typically Indian (constituting only 0.006% of the total population) in terms of consanguinity or cultural, behavioural and religious practices.

I had a question about a change, which I think I agree with, having 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)

The "Persian" bit was stuffed into the article on 2 July 2006 by an anonymous user. Previously (and as long as the text has been in the article), the word there was "non-Indian". Here is the diff.

Well, if an anon added "Persian" without a cite, I'm disinclined to take it seriously. "Not typically Indian" seems to fit all I know, and seems preferable.--Anthony Krupp 13:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

<pointless remarks/abusive language by anon redacted> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.195.96.46 (talk) 17:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Please see this core policy: WP:NPA. If you have concerns about the article, state them here on the talk page, and various editors will work with you. If you had bothered to read any of this page carefully, you would have seen that I was trying to help resolve an edit war between two editors.-- Anthony Krupp (talk) 22:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Anthony, please don't feed the trolls :-) -- Fullstop (talk) 16:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Demographic statistics

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

While most demographic statistics, even official census data, rarely differentiate between Parsis and Zoroastrians (which frequently leads to counts of Zoroastrians being mistaken as counts of Parsis), the following Government of India census data is believed to accurately reflect information on the ethno-religious community.

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

While most demographic statistics, even official census data, rarely differentiate between Parsis and Zoroastrians (which frequently leads to counts of Zoroastrians being mistaken as counts of Parsis), the following Government of India census data gives the following information on the ethno-religious community.

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

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)
Well, can someone suggest how to reword this or provide a citation on who believes that this is accurate? I'll leave the text alone in the article, but this tweak should be done.--Anthony Krupp 15:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
The problem is, I don't know whether the interpreters of the census data mean Parsi purely in terms of "Zoroastrian" or as a community denominator. Although one would think that a government bureau would know the difference, but the equation of Parsi with Zoroastrian is so widespread, they may have done it to make things easier to understand. The questionaire includes several sections on "scheduled tribes", but the Parsis are not mentioned in those. As such, if you use "gives the following", then you must also use "Parsi" instead of "ethno-religious community" because the evaluators use the term "Parsi" without further explanation. I can whoosh you the powerpoint presentation if you like. -- Fullstop 08:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

In that case, how about this:

While most demographic statistics, even official census data, rarely differentiate between Parsis and Zoroastrians (which frequently leads to counts of Zoroastrians being mistaken as counts of Parsis), the following Government of India census data gives the following information:

--Anthony Krupp 13:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Oooh! Yes! :) -- Fullstop 16:29, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
erm, wait. The sense of the "While ..., (but)..." is lost. Ah well, I leave it up to you.

[edit] History

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.

[edit] Factions within the community

Fullstop, I hereby invite you to edit within this section again, including returning the titles I renamed to former versions. Spahbod, I, and others can make suggestions along the way for improvement or clarity where they seem necessary. OK with all? One thought: what about renaming it to ===Self-perceptions===? --Anthony Krupp 15:54, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

1. Which (sub-)section do you suggest be changed to "Self-perceptions"? How about "Doctrinal and social factions" or just "Factions within the community"?
2. To explain what the "Factions,..." section is about: Unlike say, the Christian church with its denominations, there are no formal divisions within the greater Zoroastrian church, and Zoroastrianism don't have a "top-level" heirarchy for religious issues, i.e. no "bishops", "cardinals" or whatever.
The "Factions, sects, sections" is thus about what were originally informal differences, but with time have become hard divisions within the religious community.
  • The section on calendrical differences covers doctrinal differences in calendar use. Its not just academic either - the fire temples either observe one or the other. For more info, see "the effect of the calendar disputes".
  • The section on the Ilm-e-Kshnoom describes a sect (I've avoided the term "sect" in the text because of its negative connotations) in that they are a faction united by a specific doctrine under a doctrinal leader. Although the Kshnoomites are Zoroastrians, they don't want anything to do with anyone else, and are extremely conservative. Something like the Rosicrucians I guess.
  • The "inclusion vs exclusion" section covers what is truly the most argued about issue among the Parsis. Its not a doctrinal issue per-se, though both factions are not adverse to quoting scripture (often incorrectly) if it suits their purpose. Although the exclusionists are a very small group, they make an awful lot of noise, and don't hesitate to attack anyone/everyone who won't toe their line - in their view, if you're not with them, you're against them.
Not yet written:
  • The difference between Parsis and Iranis, which in my book is just another kind of fachism - the identifying factor of the two groups is the religion, but the dividing factor - which boat they came in on - appears to be significantly more important to the Parsis. I have this issue on my plate for things to look into in November/December, but I expect that its going to be darn difficult to pin down without a big dollop of "original research".
  • The doctrinal differences between the individual "schools" where the priests receive their training. To some extent, these differences are covered by the three existing sections (in particular the one on the calendrical differences), and I'm not yet sure how to develop this.
  • I also want to touch on social differences, that is affluent versus poor, urban versus rural.
-- Fullstop 14:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't like the exclucivist policies of the Zorastrian community leaders but there are huge cultural differences between us and the Iranis. Parsi traditional dress, language, food and even genetics have been influenced by living in India for the past 1000 years, the Iranis are modern arrivals and have much more of a Persian and Islamic influence in all of the above.
I agree with you in terms of religion rather than ethnicity. But I think Parsis are more of an ethnic group than a religious group, as an atheist I am certainly not a 'good Parsi Zarthosti man' but I would still be considered a Parsi by most. --VirafPatel 07:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
First off, welcome aboard. :)
Yes, with respect to Irani/Parsi, there are certainly big differences, but for the most part only Parsis/Iranis themselves recognize the difference. Example: Perizaad Zorabian is an Irani, but to spare everyone a 30-minute explanation, she calls herself a Parsi, since that is an epithet that everyone recognizes. (see also that article's talk).
I also think of the Parsis as an ethnic group rather than in terms of religion - and the reason why I insist that "community" is the correct collective term. :) But thats because we are Parsis, and because we have a slightly different understanding of what "ethnicity" means than say, someone who has lived their whole life in a heterogenous environment. However,... the world at large associates the Parsis with Zoroastrianism, even by some who should know better [1][2]. This mis-association is primarily for historical reasons - the Parsis were for a long time thought to be the only surviving Zoroastrians, with the result that for a very long time Parsi(ism) meant Zoroastrian(ism). The association has stuck, and there isn't an awful lot anyone can do about it (besides ensuring that the article doesn't perpetuate the error). See also second paragraph of this older version of the article.
-- Fullstop 09:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
by the way, do you by any chance have a picture of the Sanjan Stambh? The Udvada Atash-behram? Any other pix that could accompany the history section of the Parsi/Qissa-i Sanjan article? Do you (or someone you know) have the small Khordeh Avesta (you know, the one with the blue/red cover that can be found in the agiaris). Could you take a picture of the front cover (for the Zoroastrianism/Avesta page)?
I see your point about the Iranis, and think it's a good idea to include Iranis in the article too so long as the divisions are elucidated.
About the images, my parents probably have a lot of those things, we visited the Sanjan Stambh on a trip to India not too long ago, but I am currently in college and they live in the opposite end of the country. I will remember to get some pics the next time I go to their house, they will be really happy to see me taking an interest in Zorastianism :).

[edit] Minor doodads

Minor issues pending:

  1. In the Revision as of 15:57, 5 August 2006 you added "Generally speaking, Indian Parsis have taken Gujarati as their principal language. {{fact}}". If you're not sure of something, don't readd it. While I don't disagree with it (most west-coast Parsis speak a variant of Gujarati called Parsi Gujarati, have [Parsi-]Gujarati language theater, newspapers, books, et. al.) and the acceptance of the language was one of the conditions for asylum, the sentence by itself is uneccessary because six words before your reinsertion it already says "language", and the infobox does so as well. Then there is the {{fact}} tag, which will be nigh on impossible to get rid of - example, how do you cite that, say, the Welsh speak English? :)
  2. Did you read the description for the image you removed/reinserted? Click on it and read the comment. :)
  3. Have you thought about adding the pictures that I added here in talk (now in archive)?
-- Fullstop 15:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

This is all looking really well. Great job!--Anthony Krupp 11:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I have a question. Cannot Feroze Gandhi, husband of Indira Gandhi, feature among the notable parsis? -- Kazimostak 13:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

As you yourself observe, Feroze Gandhi's claim to fame was his marriage to Indira (and hence, son-in-law of Jawaharlal Nehru; and father of Sanjay and Rajiv). He was not prominent through any efforts of his own - unless you consider being married and having children an effort :). In addition to his identification/association with India's "first family", Firoze considered himself a journalist, but neither his (pre-marriage) journalism nor his (later) political career were particularly inspired. -- Fullstop 09:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I am a bit confused, I must say; because I can't agree with Fullstop. Please let me quote from The Hindu (Sunday, Oct 20, 2002, Online edition) in which, while paying tribute to Feroze Gandhi, former Union Cabinet Minister of India Satya Prakash Malaviya wrote this, among other things: "...Feroze's contributions were many and in a comparatively short period of time, he made his mark in various spheres as a political and social worker, a parliamentarian and a journalist. His work in the field of the Indian press, journalism and its freedom has been no less outstanding." My question to Fullstop is: isn't it contribution enough (other than marrying and fathering children) to make one worthy of featuring among the notable Parsis? And apart from all these, being the husband of one Indian prime minister and father of another cannot be belittled in this way, I must say! User:Kazimostak

[edit] Around the World in 80 Days

The book does state sutee is a hindu practice. It just so happens, that the Maharaja who was hindu, married the daughter of a wealthy Parsi trader and that she was forced to do the customs of the family she married into, presumably a Rajput princely family. Afghan Historian 22:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

good catch! :) -- Fullstop 15:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] confused

From what I've read, I'm under the impression that the Parsis are racially/ethnically Iranian, though they live in India and have Indian citizenship/nationality. Can anyone shed any light on this? Gringo300 03:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

In the Guha anthropological classification of "races" evident in India, the Parsis have the phenotypal ("racial") features of "Western Bracycephals".[3][4] Also among this group are the Kodavas and the Kashmiris. In the classification of Hodson and Wyse, the Parsis are represented in "Racial Element C". Of course, both classifications are approximations and among the Parsis (subject to where you meet them) you are just as likely to find evidence of bhil features as you are of armenoid ones.
What they are "ethnically" depends very much on what your definition of "ethnicity" is.
If you define an 'ethnic community' based solely on presumed common genealogy or ancestry then you will have to "arbitrarily choose which genealogical line to trace and how far back to locate the first ancestor." (Abizadeh, 2001) The key word here is "arbitrary", and defining a group by its ancestry could justifyably end up making every indio an iberian or every eskimo an african.
Another definition of an ethnic community is Schelmhorst's, which the Parsis fulfill in every respect. They are then "a collectivity within a larger society having
  • real or putative common ancestry,
  • memories of a shared historical past, and
  • a cultural focus on one or more symbolic elements defined as the epitome of their peoplehood. Examples of such symbolic elements are:
    • kinship patterns,
    • physical contiguity (as in localism or sectionalism),
    • religious affiliation,
    • language or dialect forms,
    • tribal affiliation,
    • nationality,
    • phenotypal features,
or any combination of these. A necessary accompaniment is some consciousness of kind among members of the group." (loc. cit. Sollors, 1996)
According to this latter definition, the ethnicity of a group is defined by the group itself and not by externally comparing it to another group. i.e. the Parsis are what the Parsis feel they are, which is - in one word - "different", not unlike the Jews, with whom the Parsis were identified when the first Europeans met them. As with the Jews, the identity/identification of the Parsis hinges on religious affiliation, which in the case of the Parsis is Zoroastrianism.
-- Fullstop 09:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
References:
  • Sollors, Werner (ed.) (1996). Theories of Ethnicity: A Classical Reader. New York: University Press.  xii.
  • Abizadeh, Arash (2001). "Ethnicity, Race, and a Possible Humanity". World Order 33.1: 23-34. 
  • Smith, Anthony D. (1987). The Ethnic Origins of Nations. Oxford: Blackwell. 

[edit] Parsi/Farsi

Is there any relation between the word Parsi and Farsi? It sounds like a simple consonant shift and if this has been documented it would add an interesting fact to the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Reginald Perrin (talk • contribs) 20:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC).

In an Indian context, the word Parsi is not directly related to the Persian language expression (where it refers to the language/people of Pars(a), Persia proper). In the Indian context, 'Parsi' is also an ethno-linguistic descriptor, but has a much broader scope, applying to anyone/any language from west of the Indus river, i.e. (speakers of) Iranian languages in general (Greater Iran).
In this, the Indian use is similar to the archaic Greek and Roman use (and hence also evident in other European languages) of Perses to collectively refer to all speakers of Iranian languages, irrespective of whether they actually belonged to the tribe/ethnic group of Pars. In some contexts, the Indian use even includes Arabs. (cf. Monier-Williams, HK 'pArasI'). As in Iranian languages, '-i' is also an appurtenant suffix in (North-)Indian languages, eg 'Bengali', 'Nepali', 'Gujarati', 'Punjabi', 'Sindhi' etc.
Incidentally, such transference also occurred in the opposite direction: i.e. the Iranians used the word "Hindu" to generically mean someone from east of the Indus, irrespective of whether they were actually Hindus or not. This is still evident in the term "Hindustan" (cf. also Etymology of the names of India)
Its not known how the term entered Indian languages. It could either be a borrowing from an Old Iranian form, or alternatively, both Indian and Iranian forms could be deriving from some common origin. It may even be from somewhere else altogether. If it did enter Indian languages as a borrowing (the likely scenario), it presumably occurred on account of Old Persian having been a prestige dialect and the Persis having been a prestige tribe/ethnic group.
As for being "documented", well, given the dearth of historical records, the origin of the name - like so much else of Parsi history - remains in the realm of legend, myth, speculation and confusion. Anyway, any "etymology" is going to be tainted by the Indian (including Parsi) understanding of the word "Persian" (meaning "Greater Iranian").
Apropos "interesting facts". There are a lot of "interesting" litte factoids about the Parsis. Did you know that the Star Spangled Banner was composed on the deck of a ship (the HMS Minden) designed and built by a Parsi?
-- Fullstop 16:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, Parsi and Farsi are closely related. The Arabs, when they conquered Iran, could not pronounce "p", which often became "f" or "b". Both Parsi and Farsi are associated with the Pars region of Persia (even though the Parsis apparently came from region somewhat East of Pars ("Khorasan").--Malaiya 21:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Linkspam

Hi Jergens I have added the Parsi Khabar link a few times and every time you delete it saying it is spam. How is this link a spam ? It contains a repository of articles that appear online and involve the Parsis.

Please do no just delete this without actually looking at what it points to.

Thanks

--arZan 21:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know who Jergens is, but if he's my hero if he's deleting linkspam. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collector of information, and is not a linkfarm. See also: WP:NOT
To answer your question: you're linking to ParsiKhabar is spam because it fulfills (for multiple reasons) the criteria as per Wikipedia:External_links#Links normally to be avoided.
It may also be a good idea for you to read Wikipedia:Spam#How_not_to_be_a_spammer.
-- Fullstop 12:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
ps: It also doesn't make sense to reinsert a link even though it has already been repeatedly removed. A link that that gets removed is probably not as valuable as you think it is.
FullStop
You are resorting to the same baseless deletion that Jergens did. Who gives you the authority to decide what is and what is not spam. If you click on the link it takes you to a collection of articles that talk about the life and achievements of Ratan Tata that this article does not even scratch the surface of.
And thanks for providing all those boiler plate links. I have read them numerous times. This is not the first time I am posting on Wikipedia. So please be so kind and stop playing games.
arZan 17:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I've explained why the link to ParsiKhabar is spam, and the WP:pages I noted above explain why a link to blog is to be avoided. I'm sorry if you haven't understood what the purpose of WP is (or perhaps what an encyclopedia is) or why your blog isn't a linkable source or why your linking to it is a conflict of interest.
Notwithstanding that your edits (also those before your username registration) are for the most part simply reinsertions of the link to ParsiKhabar, your edit history is entirely irrelevant to the issue of whether your link to ParsiKhabar is spam or not.
a) A blog (any blog) is by definition a link to be avoided.
b) Providing a link that searches a particular webspace does not qualify as "Further reading" either. Such linking does not improve the quality of an article, ergo has no justification for being there. This would also be true for a link to Google with the search term, but at least that wouldn't be advertising for any specific particular site, which is precisely what your link does.
Please contribute to Wikipedia in a positive manner, such as adding information (properly attributed to reliable sources of course) to an article so making it more valuable to the reader. Such contributions would be most welcome. -- Fullstop 11:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Hong Kong

I've removed the Wikipedia:WikiProject Hong Kong tagging. I'm not sure why it was tagged for that WikiProject, but the article doesn't even mention Hong Kong. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Possible Ethnic Prejudice?

Please discuss the statement on the main Parsi page, the "Self-perceptions" section that claims that "Generally accepted to be a Parsi is a person who ... enjoys the smell of curry and looks good in red." I personally find this statement to be in very poor taste, and there simply must be a better way of wording it. MadScientistMatt 00:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. :) Its another act of vandalism by schoolboy 24.249.25.169, in this case introduced on 25 April. You don't need to have qualms about removing things like that. Use your discretion. -- Fullstop 07:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "related groups" info removed from infobox

For dedicated editors of this page: The "Related Groups" info was removed from all {{Infobox Ethnic group}} infoboxes. Comments may be left on the Ethnic groups talk page. Ling.Nut 16:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What language do the Parsis speak?

  • Fullstop said: "(The Parsis don't speak any Iranian language. The Indian Iranis might, but their personal dialect depends on where they came from)." The sources are pretty uniform in saying that the Parsis (Zoroastrians) who immigrated from Persia/Iran about 900 years ago adopted a Gujarati dialect. However, they remained for a long time a bilingual people, still using the language of the Avesta among themselves. See, for example, Handbook of Twentieth-Century Literatures of India by Nalini Natarajan and Emmanuel Sampath Nelson link. --Bejnar (talk) 22:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
first, the "language of the Avesta" is only a liturgical language. It is not spoken, and even those who recite the Avestan language prayers rarely know what it is they are saying.
second, they did not "remain" for a long time a bilingual people. They are (in the main) a bilingual people. In Gujarati and English. Those that are not bilingual speak only Gujarati.
third, they are not "still using the language of the Avesta among themselves." The source you cite does not say what you are citing it for.
(ps: Bejnar is referring to comment I wrote at Talk:Parsi-Dari#Concerns_about_accuracy).
-- Fullstop (talk) 23:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Prominent Parsis

How are Jamsetji Tata and JRD Tata not prominent? I smell bias here. --RajatKansal (talk) 00:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

rephrase that question in a non-specific fashion and without aberrant allegations of bias and you might get an answer. -- Fullstop (talk) 02:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't know what do you mean by "non-specific fashion"? Quick points: Jamsetji Tata founded Asia's first and India's largest steel company Tata Steel, India's largest private sector company Tata Group and Indian Institute of Sciences. J.R.D. Tata was one of the chief architects of post-independence Indian economy, founded India's largest automobile company Tata Motors and is the only Parsi to be awarded Bharat Ratna. They easily meet all the four criteria you mentioned. Any list of prominent Parsis is incomplete without the mention of these legendary individuals. If I don't get a logical counter-argument in 2 days, I am going to add their names. --74.140.120.11 (talk) 21:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
P.S. How does Sooni Taraporevala qualify "top 10% of his/her field" criteria? This is non-sense. --74.140.120.11 (talk) 21:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
What I said before applies again: Rephrase your questions as questions and with the tone, language and courtesy appropriate for social discourse.
  • Normal people who wish to know something ask "why is that so?"
  • People who know everything exclaim "that is ignorant/biased/nonsense."
This is why normal people can be engaged with in rational discussion, but fanatics cannot.
As for your abrasive ultimatum: Its naive to expect "logical explanation" while punching people in the nose.
See also m:Don't be a dick and wp:Mastadon -- Fullstop (talk) 08:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Why are Jamsetji Tata and J.R.D. Tata not mentioned in the Prominent Parsis section? --RajatKansal (talk) 16:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Because...
  • the sentence "Particularly notable Parsis in the fields of science and industry include physicist Homi J. Bhabha, legendary industrialists Jamsetji Tata and his nephew J. R. D. Tata, and various members of the Tata, Godrej and Wadia industrial families" is not as readable as when the individual Tatas are not mentioned.
  • mentioning individual Tatas is superfluous since they are already included as "various members of the Tata family"
  • its an arbitrary valuation (ala "why only those two" and "why aren't members of other families exalted too")
  • as an editor, you're expected to use editorial judgment.
-- Fullstop (talk) 23:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Makes sense. Sorry for earlier tone. --RajatKansal (talk) 03:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)