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)

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).