Talk:Persecution of Zoroastrians

"Persecution"

I wanted to remind everyone of this. Unless an action, or view, or law (etc.) is specifically labeled as "persecution" (by a reliable source), it should not be in this article. This article is about persecution of Zoroastrians, not unfair acts against them, or anything that is not persecution. To be "persecution" it must be called "persecution" by a reliable source (preferably multiple ones). This is an accordance with consensus on Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research/Archive_34#Persecution. Thanks.Bless sins (talk) 14:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Please refer to the sources cited in the article. The article is in its very crude form yet to say the least you will find more sources and info soon. None of what has been presented constitutes original research. You are most welcome to provide sources to the contrary. However calling for the article to be deleted is down right prejudiced. The truth does not change depending on someone's ability to digest it Saroshp (talk) 08:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Is the comparison to Judaism really necessary in the intro? It just seems very out of place and biased to me (yes, I am Jewish...no, I do not focus my identity on the persecution of fellow Jews) 69.242.72.55 (talk) 04:12, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

This article has been translated in other languages with this title, but unfortunately it looks deeply misleading : the content describes the casual behaviour of populations when a state conquers another. There is a reddit discussion that treats about the opinions expressed above. This article could be entitled something more demure like 'Fade of Zoroastrianism'. -- UtaUtaNapishtim (talk) 20:51, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

NPOV tag

Please note: This label is meant to indicate that a discussion is still going on, and that the article's content is disputed, and volatile. If you add this template to an article in which you see a bias about which there is no discussion underway, you need at least to leave a note on the article's talk page describing what you consider unacceptable about the article. The note should address the troubling passages, elements, or phrases specifically enough to encourage constructive discussion that leads to resolution. ---- WP:NPOV

Please specify Saroshp (talk) 09:06, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Economicexpert

The economicexpert article states at the bottom

This article is from Wikipedia licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article "Zoroastrianism". The list of all authors is available under this link. The article can be editted here.

You can also see that it parallels the wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoroastrianism as it appeared circa December 2004. I didn't look for the exact day the article was copied. See this link for a similar version on wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zoroastrianism&oldid=8621174

Nightkey (talk) 16:48, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Suggestions

• Explain jargon like dhimmi, kafir, Yazdezard (in Persecutions in Iran) etc with a short summary. Provide context
• Expand lead and make paras in it. Put dates in the lead.
• Persecution should be spelt with a small p, if not the first word in a sentence
• Read WP:OVERLINK: do not give the same links like Zoroastrian repeatedly and restrict links to relevant ones. Avoid links like library (irrelevant to topic). Links like jijza should be on first instance.
• Avoid wordiness: "Zoroastrian temples converted into mosques in such a manner could be found in Bukhara, as well as in and near Istakhr and other Iranian cities." -> Such converted temples were in Bukhara, as well as in and around Istakhr and other Iranian cities.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

POV tag for Arab invasion section

Here are some sources that are in contradiction with what is currently present in the article and received no coverage in the article:

• Having effectively been recognized as dhimmis under the Rashidun Caliphs, on the terms of annual payment of the Jizya, Zoroastrians were sometimes left largely to themselves, but this practice varied from area to area. Due to their financial interests, the Ummayads generally discouraged the conversion of non-Arabs, as the dhimmis provided them with valuable revenues (Jizya).

Before the conquest, the Persians had been mainly Zoroastrian. The historian Al-Masudi, a Baghdad-born Arab, who wrote a comprehensive treatise on history and geography in about 956, records that after the conquest:

Zorastrianism, for the time being, continued to exist in many parts of Iran. Not only in countries which came relatively late under Muslim sway (e.g Tabaristan) but also in those regions which early had become provinces of the Muslim empire. In almost all the Iranian provinces, according to Al Masudi, fire temples were to be found – the Madjus he says, venerate many fire temples in Iraq, Fars, Kirman, Sistan, Khurasan, Tabaristan, al Djibal, Azerbaijan and Arran.

• According to Bernard Lewis, the decline of Zoroastrianism in Iran was that the Zoroastrian clerics had a close relation with the government in ancient Persia. Once this support was gone after the Arab invasion lead to their reduction in cultural and political role and eventually to the loss of number of followers.

• According to Amoretti in Cambridge History of Islam, the conquestors brought with them a new religion and a new language, but they did not use force to spread it. While giving freedom of choice, however, the conquestors designated privileges for those who converted.

• According to Seyyed Hossein Nasr, the emergence of several Iranian Muslim scholars, represents willful change rather than social force as one cannot expect creative cooperation coming out of forceful conversion.

• According to Homa Katouzian, the occupation of Iran did not automatically lead to conversion. That is because as he argues, conversion was optional and unlike conquest which was rather quick, the conversion took two and a half centuries. Katouzian believes that the Arab conquestors prefered receiving taxes than seeing new converts (who were exempt from those taxes).

""According to Amoretti in Cambridge History of Islam, the conquestors brought with them a new religion and a new language, but they did not use force to spread it. While giving freedom of choice, however, the conquestors designated privileges for those who converted.[3]"". Now THAT is funny! The Muslims didnt use force to spread Islam, yet they INVADED Persia [and every country between Mecca and France, and Mecca and India in 60 years via warmongering] and they placed Islam as #1 wherever they went. If you wernt Muslim you were forced to pay special taxes and you are/were blocked from many upper tier positions in politics and in positions of power in general. The latter equates to oppression and it also is a subversive way to achieve converts. Muslims also converted fire temples into Mosques, there are enough sourced stories to show most were not peaceful conversions of the temples but forced. 107.222.205.242 (talk)

I think there's enough evidence here to support a prima facie case that Muslims may not have persecuted Zoroastrians. Seyyed Hossein Nasr and Homa Katouzian are Muslims so I can see why you might not accept their testimony, even though Nasr is a truly eminent scholar, but what about Lewis and Amoretti? Those are not Muslims and they challenge the narrative of Muslims massacring Zoroastrians. Wikipedia needs to do a better job of addressing issues related to Islam with fairness and openness to alternative views. Ibnsina786 (talk) 01:26, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

@Ibnsina786: thanks for those information. I don't know the subject, I am just visiting this article today from one of its translation and it looks deeply misleading, I don't understand it can have been a good article. In the paragraph 'Persecution' above I linked the reddit discussion about this question that is in agreement with what you wrote, and looks much more balanced than this article. The introduction deserves a rewrite and the title should be changed. -- UtaUtaNapishtim (talk) 21:18, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

So, let's ignore all the other sources and assume that the Zoroastrians were treated well? Wrong. I don't think the title should be changed, since it was persecution indeed. --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:52, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

This is a typical example of how an article could be labelled as "crap" (but instead is labelled as "good article"). In support of the "burning library" there is a source of a bbc web page of 2009: really?? how is bbc is supposed to be an authoritative source to cite in hystorical context? Also "dhimmi" and persecution cannot be in the same statement: although the dhimmi status is an inferior condition to the muslim one yet, by the payment of jyzia tax, it prevented the subject from being persecuted and allowed him to practise his religion, this is also cited by the source reported in this article such as Boyce and Stepaniants which book/article i could read. Quoting again these authors i notice a quite cherry-picking statements, as these authors mentions that persecutions were more sporadic and in some lands than ordinary and ubiquitous, at least till the end of Umayyads, and what lead to conversion of zoroastrian is much proselitism than persecution itself. I carry just one of the quote of Boyce in "zoroastrians: their religious belief and practise" at page 153 : "At that time (9th century) there were still imposing fire temples to be seen, in which the sacred fires continued to burn. In the north-west Adur Gushnasp was tended in its hill-top sanctuary down to at least the middle of the tenth century; and in the south-east, the sacred fire of Karkoy was maintained until the thirteenth century. The geographer Qazwini has left a description of its temple then with its twin domes, bearing horns like those of a great bull; and he wrote of the many servitors of the ever-burning fire, which was fed reverently with dry tamarisk wood by its priests, who used silver tongs for the purpose, their mouths being covered."--176.206.193.91 (talk) 22:25, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

wrong attribution to Ferdowsi

There was a NY times review mentioning a verse from Shahnama about Muslims.. But such a verse does not exist from the book that is reviewed: [1]. Unfortunately from the Wikipedia article, wrong information has entered other books..what a shame. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.18.145.11 (talk) 03:54, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Wrong, as seen here [2], numerous sources attribute that exact saying to Shahnameh. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:42, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

all those books unfortunately got it either from this article or the ny times review...I would check the dates on those books relative to when the verse was first mentioned here or in ny times article That verse is not in any shahnama.. Persian or English... No doubt there was persecutions of Zoroastrianss but Ferdowsi himself was a Muslim and I have read the shahnameh numerous times.. .perhaps the best bet is to ask a shahnameh expert for further verifiability--108.18.145.11 (talk) 05:20, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually, at a second glance, the sentence and quote have nothing to do with Persecution of Zoroastrianism! So technically, we could remove it on those grounds. --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:40, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi, the actual sentence actually though does not exist..it spread from NY times review to here and then several amatuer writers who do not speak Persian or probably never looked at the Shahnameh picked it up.. that is how sometimes false rumors spread. You can find volume 1-7 of the Shahnameh translated by the Athur/Edmond Warner here: [3]. Volume 8-9 may be found here:[4][5]. Volume 9 is the one talking about the Arab invasion of Iran..although Ferdowsi describes the important battles vividly, a verse: "That uncivilized Arabs have come to make me Muslim" does not exist, and it is a recent forgery that is less than 10 years old. You may also call Shahnama experts on the internet, the Persian version is online also [6]. Take care..Well I am glad at least I pointed out something that does not exist..take care and thanks for all your good work.--108.18.145.11 (talk) 12:54, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

How can this be a good article?

How can this be a considered a good article if there is a POV tag in it? 70.187.179.139 (talk) 05:07, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

The Safavid section needs some work

There are a few things I noticed while reading through the sources/references in the Safavid section.

1. The bit about "rivers running red with blood" has a source, but the source where it comes from does not cite a source for this very bold claim. It appears quoted in the wiki article from a book that is not quoting it from any other source or giving a citation. I think it best to remove this line. Not only that, one of the other references in the same section by Khanbaghi mentions that there isn't really any evidence to suggest that lives of Zoroastrians during the ascent of the Safavids changed dramatically in anyway, as religious hostilities in the early Safavid period were mostly between Sunnis and Shi'ite Muslims.

2. According to Khanbaghi, European and Zoroastrian sources appear to indicate that generally speaking, although they were subject to discriminatory laws and were possibly the least tolerated and most suspect of the dhimmi populations of Safavid Iran, the Zoroastrian communities in the Safavid period generally lived in peace with the Muslim majority and had their own magistrates and some Zoroastrian teachers having Muslim and non-Muslim students and the Zoroastrian communities in certain provinces such as Yazd or Kirman being very active in the textile trade. It seems that forced conversions and tensions between the Shi'i and Zoroastrian establishments reach a real boiling point later on as the Safavid dynasty begins to weaken.

3. It seems that Zoroastrian's economic conditions differed from area to area. In Isfahan, because Shah Abbas moved many poor members of the Zoroastrian community there, they appear to have lived in poverty, while in Kirman they were more prosperous.

The Zoroastrian writers of Iran in their letters to the Indian community don't generally vilify the Muslims of Safavid Iran very much, according Khanbaghi, and there is evidence to suggest they held a particular respect for certain Shi'i Islamic holy figures.

I think this section may need some more research put into its sources.

Suggestion

Interested volunteers can add details about the Chinese persecution of Zoroastrian beginning during the Tang dynasty under Emperor Wuzong until its eventual disappearance in the 12th century.

• https://arshtad.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/china.pdf

109.63.112.41 (talk) 00:58, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Persecution of Zoroastrians. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090414093548/http://www.gatha.org:80/english/articles/000258.html to http://www.gatha.org/english/articles/000258.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:21, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Edits by User:The History of Iran

You are restoring unreliable sources and unsourced text. Particularly this one http://zoreled.org/historyzorislamiciran.aspx. The source is actually a dead link. I wonder if you even cared to check the sources before taking your actions. Not only that you claim it has been here for quite a time. This is no valid defense. It could have been here simply because no one noticed and I don't think just because it had been here for a time makes it automatically reliable, not according tp the rules I read on Wikipedia. And from another link of the website it seems to biased spreadimg its propaganda rather than actual history and unscholarly that doesn't base itself on any primary or secondary sources. Such websites are usually never even used in historical articles. We need schokarly sources.

Not only that you restored another unreliable source http://www.fouman.com/history/Iranian_History_0714.htm. I already proved that this source gave incorrect information regarding the raid. It is not WP:RS. I replaced it with this reliable source https://books.google.com/books?id=VG36ym3H3CQC&pg=PA22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjziO_w2ZPMAhXTGo4KHTWuDuIQ6AEIHDAA#v=onepage&f=false. The source is scholarly and reliable and cites primary and other secondary sources. Yet you have removed the reliable source. This is disruptive editing, adding unreliable sources and removing perfectly reliable ones. You also said that "I don't care what you think". This is a perfect indication that you might be here just to edit as per what you think is correct, not improving Wikipedia. MystroTheFreak (talk) 18:23, 16 April 2016 (UTC) <--- CU blocked sock of User:KahnJohn27

^ Though the WP:SPA "user" above has already received a warning for WP:WAR, I've also issued a warning for outright socking as he's using two IP's apart from this account (IP 124.253.255.217 - IP 124.253.253.94) to cause the same disruption here on this article. - LouisAragon (talk) 19:49, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

User:LouisAragon Even I know the 3RR rule, therfore no I haven't done WP:WAR. The other editor hasn't done much different and he even said he doesn't care what I think, indicating he is non-cooperative and only wants to add what he thinks is right. In addition, you are making false accusations at me to impede my editing. Those aren't my IP adresses, you can check my IP adress of my account any time. Do not make false accusations or you can get blocked over them. Discuss and don't try to strong-arm others from contributing. MystroTheFreak (talk) 20:08, 16 April 2016 (UTC)<--- CU blocked sock of User:KahnJohn27

I've reverted all my edits and won't edit anymore since I don't want to get into a lengthy dispute and discussion (which likely will happen). I expect that I'll get reverted by someone for one reason or another any time I try to make a contribution even though I have valid reasons but clearly you people don't care or value contributions of other people like me. Congratulations. MystroTheFreak (talk) 20:42, 16 April 2016 (UTC)<--- CU blocked sock of User:KahnJohn27

Persecution in modern day Iran

According to the current version of the article, in the Islamic Republic of Iran (1979-Present): "Members of religious minorities are, by law and practice, barred from being elected to a representative body (except to the seats in the Majles reserved for minorities, as provided for in the Constitution) and from holding senior government or military positions." However, there's Sepanta Niknam, "an Iranian politician who serves as a councillor in Yazd since 2013". So is such a law/practice still in place? A455bcd9 (talk) 12:48, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, he is an exception for some reason. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:44, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

This should not be a GA. The line is practically correct but not technically. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:25, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

GA status review

Persecution of Zoroastrians

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

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delist - I find a WP:silent consensus too weak to close on neutrality issues of an article like this, but the verifiability issues and outdatedness issues are enough to delist. Femke (alt) (talk) 08:01, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

This article is currently a way off meeting the GA criterion of verifiability. It has had a verification needed tag since December 2021, and there are nine citation needed tags throughout the page. Since the article was promoted to GA status in 2010, instances of the existing material being demonstrably incorrect have also come to light on talk that call into question both the article's accuracy and neutrality. This has caused at least one other editor to also question the article's GA status. The article also no longer covers the main aspects of the topic properly. There is a dearth of information post-1979, and there has seemingly been not a single update since 2013, making the content grossly outdated. The page also irrelevantly recounts the emigration of Zoroastrians to India, yet, despite the sizeable population there, and the huge tensions between different minorities, it makes no mention of the state of persecution, or lack therein, in India. Despite having sections on both persecution by other Zoroastrians as well as Christians, the lead does not mention this but slants the subject from the single-minded POV of Muslim persecution of Zoroastrians. The page is meanwhile organized in terms of persecution by Muslims first, other forms later, despite this being anachronous, since the other types of persecution date to Sassanian and Roman times and should simply be included at the beginning of the chronological history of persecution. Not great in all. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:34, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

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