From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject India (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Ethnic groups (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Zoroastrianism (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Zoroastrianism, which is a collaboration of editors who strive to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Zoroastrianism-related topics. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of objectives.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Religion (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Pakistan (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pakistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pakistan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.



As an ethnic community[edit]

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 (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)

Demographic statistics[edit]

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.,

I miss list of regions of Indie where Parsi live.


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.

What is this sentence doing in the introduction: "Parsis across India receive their news and updates about their small community via Parsi Times and Parsiana, a weekly paper and a fortnightly Magazine along with other smaller papers.[citation needed] The international community congregates online on dedicated community sites with fervour to report on activities across the globe"? If it is to stay it needs to be edited into proper English. Personally I can't see the point of a sentence which essentially suggests that the Parsi community is newspaper and internet-based! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:39, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Factions within the community[edit]

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 people/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 :).

Minor doodads[edit]

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

Around the World in 80 Days[edit]

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)


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)

Dear Gringo, with the permission of Fullstop I try to answer this in simple words. yes they are of Iranian origins. Also their phenotypical features reveal that that do look different than Indians and look similar to those areas from where their ancestors allegedly came from in Northern Iran (whether it is Khorsan, or Zanjan (Azerbaijani area in Iran). though they might have had some admixture with the Indians, despite the fact that their traditions prohibit interracial and interreligious mixture, they are still look very different than Indians. As for their ethnicity. I think it is fair to say that they are an ethnic group. The problem is that Hindu fundamentalism in India creates such a bad environment for religious minorities and even lower cast Hindus, that any statements from india about these groups should be read with much doubt.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 12:22, 4 November 2008 (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)
  • 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. 


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 (talkcontribs) 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)


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.


--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.
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)

WikiProject Hong Kong[edit]

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)

Possible Ethnic Prejudice?[edit]

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, 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)

"related groups" info removed from infobox[edit]

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)

What language do the Parsis speak?[edit]

  • 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)

Prominent Parsis[edit]

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. -- (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. -- (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)
  • 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)

Can we add Cyrus Broacha(MTV VJ) here? Pianist666 (talk) 15:30, 28 November 2008 (UTC

My request to add the name of "Nani Palkhiwala" under Prominent Parsis59.184.145.251 (talk) 04:10, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

The word "Parsi"[edit]

I think it should be noted that in Iran, the Persian peoples (ethnic group) called themselves "Parsi" in their native Persian language. (Gta40 (talk) 22:04, 22 June 2008 (UTC))

The term "Parsi" means from Persia. Howevever, in India it is used only to refer to Zorastrians. Irani Muslims are not called as Parsis. Is the term "Parsi" is used frequently in Engilsh to refer to people from Iran? From what I know, in English the term Irani or Iranian is used most. If what you say is correct a note or disambiguation page may be needed. --Deepak D'Souza (talkcontribs) 05:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

No, what I mean to say is, that in Persian language, the Persian peoples are called Parsi, which comes from the province of Pars where the Persian peoples originated from, and is where English equivalent of "Persian" comes from. Iranian is a broader term referring to all Iranian peoples of Proto-Indo-European descent.(Gta40 (talk) 05:41, 25 June 2008 (UTC))

Point taken. Maybe we can add an {{otheruses4}} tag on the top of the page. Something like this: "This article is about the Zorastrian community in India. The term Parsi also reffers to the Persian peoples".

Lets see what other editors have to say about this. --Deepak D'Souza (talkcontribs) 06:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

OK. I have moved the article from "Parsi" to "Parsi people"; which is more in keeping with Wikipedia conventions. Aslo I have turned Parsi into a disambiguation page. Take a look and let me know if it is fine.--Deepak D'Souza (talkcontribs) 06:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

It looks great, thank you. (Gta40 (talk) 16:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC))

Cripes! Deepak, what on earth were you thinking?! Gta40 quite correctly observes that "in Persian language, the Persian peoples are called Parsi." Besides the fact that the article *had* a hatnote to that effect (which apparently Gta40 overlooked), Wikipedia is not a dictionary (leave alone a foreign language dictionary), and we had a primary article on the subject as per WP:DAB. There was absolutely no reason to move an article that has been around for years. Gta40 was not the first native speaker of Persian to come along. Gta40 was not even asking for an article move! *sheesh* -- Fullstop (talk) 21:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC) /me goes off to bang head against wall

Definition and identity[edit]

I've shifted the text from Arrival in Gujarat to the Definition and identity section, because the text also identifies Parsi (partially). You can revert if not in place. --BabaTabla (talk) 23:15, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

photo famous people montage[edit]

how about for the page photo there be a famous people montage? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:00, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Irani and Parsi people[edit]

What's the difference? --Maurice45 (talk) 20:47, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

"Parsis" are the group of Zorastrians that have been in India for almost 10,000 years. "Iranis" are recent Iranian immigrants anywhere.

The Egyptions were'nt even around in the year you are refering to and the Parsi's are the decendents of the Persians that escaped the islamic religious conversion of Persia.


I made some corrections. First of all, the Parsi's are not from Iran they decended from Persia to escape the new Islamic changes going on at that time in Persia. A very important fact to mention is racially, the Parsi's are Persian and not Iranian because Iran now is just a identifier of nationality and customs, similar to most countries. Iran has very large Arab, Indian, Turkish, Armenian and Assyrian populations , and There are many Pakistani and Arab ceoncentrations in southern Iran. Many of the peoples of these populations identify as "Iranian" because of their family going back in the history of Persia for many generations and now they have picked up Persian customs. Persians bear no resemblance to Arabs or Idians, and many people who Immigrate into foreign nations for Iran tend to refer to themselves as Iranian even inspite of they're true racial identity for reasons ranging to a false sense of superiorty or just from being naive themselves because of various reasons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:54, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing your ideas of "race", but alas, they do not correspond to scientific reality, and your edit has accordingly been reverted. -- Fullstop (talk) 16:59, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


The photograph of Nauheed Cyrusi is not the original work of the uploader, and has infact been downloaded from a popular website and the watermark covered with a black block. I imagine the uploader did this because Ms Cyrusi's nipples are visible in the image. (talk) 17:57, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


I have some Indian Parsi friends who pronounce it Farsee and not Parsi, I was wondering why its written as Parsi when the native speakers refer to it as Farsis, as in the Farsi language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:06, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

" Well, they probably left at a later time when the Farsi alphabet had been introduced in Iran. Because the Arab's could not pronounce the P, they mostly replaced it with a B or an F. The current Farsi alphabet is a revised version of the Arabic one, containing a different kind of grammar and a hand full of added symbols to fit the sounds that come with the Persian language. From that point on, Farsi was continued to be used in Iran. Although lately, since the last century, Parsi is used more and more, and mostly when written. The Parsi's that you are reffering to, might be from that later group who emigrated, not to be associated with the Irani's. Although I do not have any sources on my at the moment, I have read that a deal of Zoroastrians not only came to India out of persecution or lack of freedom, but that they also did the administration for the Mongolian empire and were sent to India to perform their tasks. Let me finally add that all the Parsi's through all the years that have come to India, never identified themselves as Parsi's and were named Parsi's by the Indian people. Iranians have always called themselves Iranian, even the Persians amongst them. Iran and Persia can easily be compared to England and Great Britten, England is responsible for the flourishing of the continent, but the overall tribe and stock, language and culture surpasses the boarders of England and reach the whole British Island. The name is much older than the term Persian and much broader, during Sassanian times the term "Iran" was the official name of the land, Parsi's came to India at the end of the Sassanian dynasty and the begin of the Arab expansion. " —Preceding unsigned comment added by خرمدین۸۹ (talkcontribs) 20:49, 27 March 2010 (UTC) Gujranwala 2001 (talk) 06:52, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Parsis in Pakistan[edit]

I found this article lacking in one very important detail: the Parsis in Pakistan, especially in Karachi. A mayor of Karachi, Jamshed Mehta, is regarded as the founder of Karachi. There are several schools in Karachi established by Parsis. NED University of Engineering and Technology was originally founded as Nader Shah Edulji Dinshaw (NED) college of engineering[5]. BVS and Mama Parsi are also very popular and prestigous schools in Karachi, established by Parsis. The ambasador of Pakistan to US in General Zia ul Haq's time was Jamshed Marker, a legendary cricket commentator. I should also be noted that the founder of Pakistn, Muhammad Ali Jinnah had a Parsi connection. His father converted to Islam. His first wife Ratti Bai was Parsi and his daughter, Dina married a Parsi and lived in Bombay all her life. Karachi is still home to Parsis.

Latest News[edit]

Please update:

mrigthrishna (talk) 08:34, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

inappropriate certitude[edit]

The article history shows that some editor has (in the lead section) repeatedly inserted a) a specific date of migration, and b) that they specifically emigrated due to religious persecution. Both of these issues are actually discussed lower down in the article. From there (second and last para of 'Arrival in Gujarat' section) it is quite obvious that neither a specific date of migration, nor a specific reason for migration can be stated with any degree of certainty.
Moreover, citing legend as legend is one thing, but presenting it as fact -- as the lead presently does -- is quite inappropriate, no matter how important it is to Parsi self-identity.
The emphatic certitude of "some editor" may be contrasted with the judicious flexibility evident in at least one earlier version (25 December 2009). There, someone was prudently being only as sure as he/she needed to be. -- (talk) 16:17, 9 March 2011 (UTC)


I can't remember where, but Parsi people are said to have exceptionally high IQs similar to Ashkenazi jews (~1 SD higher than the white mean), does anyone know of the research showing this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siodine (talkcontribs) 06:53, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

You definately need a really good source backing that up Parsi101 (talk) 10:19, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Persecution of parsi[edit]

is there any page about this? Parsi101 (talk) 10:19, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Current population[edit]

In the fourth sentence in the section headed "Current population", we read:

"These figures are based on data from 1996, in particular that of the Indian census of 1981, which counted 71,630 Parsis in that country. The latter figure is based on revised reports of Parsis in the diaspora, and on the results of the Indian census of 2001, which counted 69,601 Parsis in that country..."

I am a non-expert in this field. However, I know when something is not clear. It is not clear what "the latter figure" refers to, nor what "the diaspora" encompasses. Is the diaspora India, ie., "that country" at the previous sentence? Or is it all countries outside of India where Zoroastrians are found? If "the diaspora" means "in all countries outside of India where Zoroastrians are found", then how could the figure of 71,630 be the number of Parsis in India ("in that country" in the previous sentence)? If "the diaspora" is India, then how could the figure of 71,630 be "based on...the results of the Indian census of 2001"? It's all very confusing. Could someone work on this and clarify it? I know what "diaspora" means, but, unless it is defined in the article, it could refer to Parsis in India (and Pakistan) who fled their original homeland centuries ago or Parsis who have left India and settled in other countries.CorinneSD (talk) 17:34, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

That sentence (and much of the article) has been bungled by indiscriminate editing. An earlier version of the article (e.g. 25 December 2009 referred to two sections above this one) has sentences that make sense ("only" the citations are mangled). -- (talk) 23:26, 1 January 2015 (UTC)


In the first paragraph in the sub-section headed "Arrival in Sindh/Gujarat" in the "History" section, "Qissa" is spelled two ways: "Qessa" and "Qissa". Is that deliberate, or should "Qessa" be "Qissa"?CorinneSD (talk) 18:02, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

"Qissa" is common place, and the Wikipedia article on the text itself says (or used to say) "Qissa". -- (talk) 23:26, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

First paragraph[edit]

Near the beginning of the first paragraph of the article on Parsi, we read,

"According to the Qissa-i Sanjan tradition, the present-day Parsis descend from a group of Zoroastrians from Greater Iran who immigrated to Gujarat in western India during the 8th or 10th century."

I know there is some discussion of this later in the article, but it sounds very odd to say that Parsis descend from Zoroastrians who immigrated to Gujarat "during the 8th or 10th century". That is saying that their arrival in the 9th century is out of the question. If there is so little evidence regarding the exact date, how can the 9th century be ruled out? It would make more sense to say, "immigrated to Gujarat in western India at some time in the period between the 8th to the 10th century".CorinneSD (talk) 21:35, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

a) The Qissa does not have any dates in it (other than date of composition). No "8th century", no "10th century", nothing. Citing the Qissa for those dates is wrong.
b) The Qissa simply says "X years <oneplace>", "Y years <anotherplace>" and so on. The 8th and 10th century dates are all relatively recent estimates (late 19th/early 20th century) made by others, who arrived at those dates by adding up the various years given in the Qissa. The estimates differ because the chronology is ambiguous. As it so happened, several estimates fell in the 8th century, and others in the 10th, none in the 9th.
c) "According to the Qissa-i Sanjan tradition, ..." is wrong. The Qissa-i Sanjan is not a tradition, it is a particular text. IIRC, the article used say something like "according to the Qissa-i Sanjan, an early-17th century text upon which Parsi legends related to their arrival in India are based,..."
d) The Qissa is a legend, not a factual account. The date estimates are therefore legendary/mythical, not fact. The article needs to be absolutely clear about this. See also the #inappropriate certitude section above.
-- (talk) 23:26, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

The age of opportunity[edit]

At the end of the sixth paragraph in the section headed "The age of opportunity", we read:

"The fund succeeded in convincing a number of Iranian Zoroastrians to emigrate to India (where they are known today as Iranis) and may have been instrumental in obtaining a remission of the jizya poll tax for their co-religionists in 1882."

There is some ambiguity in this sentence. It is not clear whether the fund "may have been instrumental in obtaining a remission of the jizya poll tax" or the Iranian Zoroastrians who emigrated to India did so. Part of the problem is the phrase, "their co-religionists". The antecedent of the possessive adjective "their" should be a plural noun, suggesting the antecedent is "Iranian Zoroastrians". If that is the case, "and may have been instrumental" should be changed to "where they may have been instrumental". If it was the fund that "may have been instrumental...", then "their co-religionists" needs to be changed.CorinneSD (talk) 00:09, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps like this: "The fund Representatives of Petit's organisation succeeded in convincing a number of Iranian Zoroastrians to emigrate to India (where they are today known as Iranis), and The organization also lobbied the Iranian government on various issues related to the Zoroastrians, and one of Petit's representatives, Maneckji Limji Hataria, may have been instrumental in obtaining a remission of the jizya poll tax for their co-religionists Iranian Zoroastrians in 1882."
Does that help? -- (talk) 23:26, 1 January 2015 (UTC)


I noticed that "sudre" and "kusti" are mentioned in both the "Initiation" section and in the "Funerals" section, but I do not see any mention of what they are. If it is not secret information, perhaps someone could add a brief definition or description.CorinneSD (talk) 01:21, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

See Sedreh and Kushti. -- (talk) 23:26, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Fire temple[edit]

I clicked on the link to fire temple in order to find the correct spelling of "Atash" (it was totally misspelled in the "Temples" section). I saw that the spelling of the two types of sacred fire mentioned in the "Temples" section in this article (on "Parsi") was completely different. In the fire temples article, they are spelled "Atash Behram" and "Dar-e Mehr", while in the "Temples" section of the Parsi article they are spelled "Atash Bahram" and "Dar-i Mihr", respectively. (It might be nice if the two articles employed the same spelling.CorinneSD (talk) 02:03, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I changed the spelling in the "Temples" section of the Parsi article to "Atash Behram" to conform to the spelling later in the article and in the fire temple article. Regarding "Dar-e Mehr" or "Dar-i Mihr", I don't know which is correct.CorinneSD (talk) 19:39, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
  • An "Atash Behram" is a particular class of fire temple. It is not a general term for a fire temple.
    There is no uniform way to pronounce/transliterate "B{e|a}hram" (or any other Zoroastrian term deriving from Middle Iranian religious vocabulary). Standardized orthography is a modern invention, and is necessarily arbitrary as far as Zoroastrian terms go. At some point, someone used -a- (in the same ambiguous way that -a- is used for both "bark" and "bare"). At some point, someone else used -e-. Those orthographic transcription conventions stuck, and both are legitimate. As Louis Armstrong once said: "You like tomayto and I like tomahto. ... Let's call the whole thing off." :-)
    FWIW: the Avestan adjective is vərəθraγnan.
  • Neither "Dar-e Mehr" nor "Dar-i Mihr" is technically correct. The term is actually "Dar-be Mehr" (or "Dar-be Mihr"), which is corrupted in Parsi usage. As for 'Mehr' or 'Mihr', well, that's symptomatic of the same open/closed vowel shift issue as in B{e|a}hram.
  • Despite the implicit claims at the article on 'fire temple', there is in fact no one term for 'fire temple', only common conventions: Agiari in India, Atash Kadeh in Iran, both literally mean "fire place/house". Additionally, "Dar-be Mehr" has gained currency in recent times (especially in the diaspora) due to a certain wealthy patron's preference for that term (his trust fund sponsors the construction/maintainence of various fire temples in the US and Canada). I suggest keeping it simple with 'fire temple', a term that everyone understands and for which there is a conventional spelling.
-- (talk) 23:26, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

The Ilm-e-Kshnoom[edit]

In the second and third paragraphs of the section headed "The Ilm-e-Kshnoom", there is inconsistency in the naming of the followers of this sect. We find:

the followers of the Kshnoom;
the Kshnoom; and
the followers of Kshnoom.

It would be nice if someone who knows the topic made some edits to ensure consistency.CorinneSD (talk) 19:53, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

why don't you just use the term you used yourself ("followers of the sect")? :-) -- (talk) 23:26, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Exclusion versus inclusion[edit]

This section needs a little more information to make it clear. The first sentence of the paragraph reads:

"At its core, the conflict is a manifestation of centuries-old anxieties and fears of assimilation and the loss of identity."

Just saying "the conflict" does not make it clear that the conflict is one between exclusion and inclusion. If, indeed, it is a conflict between exclusion and inclusion, that should be added to the sentence:

"At its core, the conflict between exclusion and inclusion is a manifestation...(etc.)"

Actually, first, there should be a sentence stating that there is (or was, or has been) a conflict.

However, even that doesn't make the subject clear for the general reader. "Exclusion" and "inclusion" need to be defined, and the precise nature of the conflict needs to be made clear. Also, the connection between the later sentence,

"In any event, the Zoroastrian faith does not prescribe worship in a fire temple, so – in principle – a Zoroastrian who has been banned from entry to a particular temple could worship from his or her own home."

and that conflict should be made clearer. What is the connection between being banned from a particular temple and the conflict? Right now, it is not clear.CorinneSD (talk) 20:03, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I suspect that these sentences are, like many others in the article, separated from the context in which they originally appeared. -- (talk) 23:26, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Prominent Parsis (Vyarawalla)[edit]

In the second-to-last paragraph in the section headed "Prominent Parsis", after a long list of prominent men, there are three women. The first of these has no link, thus no article:

"India's first woman photo-journalist Homai Vyarawalla."

It would be nice if someone would write an article about her.CorinneSD (talk) 20:46, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

That entire section is a magnet for extravagant interpretations of the term "prominent". She can't have been very prominent if there is no biography on her (Wikipedia or otherwise). -- (talk) 23:26, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Just because there is no article on a person in Wikipedia doesn't mean that the person is not prominent. It may just mean that no one has written an article on that person yet. But if no reliable source can be found that supports the idea that the person is prominent in some country, field, or endeavor, then probably that person should not be included in a list of prominent people. See WP:RS and WP:NPOV. If you have done a search and have found no reliable source, you could suggest here on the talk page that the name be removed, or remove the name and provide a detailed edit summary (and then be prepared for the WP:BRD cycle -- be bold, [don't be surprised by a] revert, then discuss on the talk page). CorinneSD (talk) 00:44, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
The prerequisite for a WP article is the existence of a biography elsewhere (otherwise the article would be WP:OR).
Ergo, as I said: "She can't have been very prominent if there is no biography on her (Wikipedia or otherwise)."
Ergo, as you said: "probably that person should not be included in a list of prominent people"
The point is,...: don't ask someone to write an article to justify inclusion in a select list of prominent people. The article needs to come first to justify inclusion in the list. (WP:V) It is a simple benchmark to keep people from adding their own grandmothers (WP:N).
-- (talk) 10:13, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
First of all, red-linked items are sometimes allowed to stay in articles. Read the second paragraph of WP:LINK#Red links. My original comment was just a suggestion to any editor who might be interested in writing the article (as the red link by itself is just a suggestion). Second, I was responding to your statement, "She can't have been very prominent if there is no biography on her (Wikipedia or otherwise)." I was referring specifically to the reference to "no biography on her [on] Wikipedia". You are as free as any other editor to be bold and simply either de-link Homai Vyarawalla's name or remove the entire sentence with an edit summary saying "Unsourced". It is true that I neglected to say that. I thought, because you are editing from an IP address, you might be a new editor on Wikipedia. That's the only reason I referred to the WP:BRD cycle. I wanted you to be prepared in case someone reverted your edit if you decided to delete the name. (It wouldn't be me. I generally don't add or delete material unless it is duplicated material. Only occasionally do I delete recently added material that is questionable and unsourced.) In the context of all the other thoughtful and well-expressed responses from you on this page which prompted me to post a welcome on your page, I was a bit puzzled by the tone of your response, specifically, repeating selected statements with "Ergo:" and your statement, "The point is,...: don't ask someone to write an article to justify inclusion in a select list of prominent people." It almost sounds like you are a different person from the person who wrote the other comments although I have learned that you are, in fact, the same person editing from different IP addresses. If you thought Homai Vyarawalla didn't belong in a list of prominent Parsis in the article, you could have simply deleted the entire sentence or expressed that opinion on the talk page and waited for replies. CorinneSD (talk) 22:34, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Title change[edit]

Title should be changed to "zoroastrianism in india" and a lot of words where "parsi" doesn't fit but 'zoroastrians' fits more, it should be replaced. I will be doing it soon. Let me know if anyone else got any opinion on this. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:52, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I think you should list the places where you think "parsi doesn't fit but 'zoroastrians' fits more", and explain why you think so, before you make any changes.CorinneSD (talk) 18:16, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
The current title seems to be the correct one for the subject per WP:COMMONNAME. Not sure what you mean by "parsi" doesn't fit. Can you explain? Abecedare (talk) 18:31, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
I think "parsi" should be understood along with the "zoroastrianism", "parsi" is not a caste nor it's a specific group, it's a name given by Hindus to those people who came from Iran, but people don't have idea about the word "zoroastrianism" generally.
As for the question, asked by CorinneSD, I think it should be started from lead..
"A Parsi or Parsee /ˈpɑrsiː/ is a member of one of the two Zoroastrian communities found throughout South Asia." Can be changed into:-
Zoroastrian communities in India are usually regarded as Parsi or Parsee /ˈpɑrsiː/.
The total population stats are false, because zoroastrians varies from 124,000 - 2.5 million, but confirmed 69,000 in India. It's explained below, but certainly misleads if someone sticks to infobox information.
Don't think you can find any notable zoroastrians in Bangladesh, Pakistan, so highlighting south asia would be some sort of hype.
Real name of this community, as per religious point of view is zoroastrianism, not parsi, so basically it becomes contradictory as well. Anyone will assume "Is that parsi or zoroastrianism?" It could be heavily usable, but it's not, the zoroastrian' fire temple uses the word zoroastrianism, not parsi for describing the religion in India(so far i visited only one fire temple though). Wouldn't be bringing it unless parsi meant some specific caste or sect, but it's not, Already pointed it above. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:56, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Parsi does not refer to a caste, sect or religion. It is a community defined by its (1) religion (Zoroastrianism), and (2) geography (India), or equivalently its history (flight to India from Persia).
  • The common name for this community is Parsis, rather than Zoroastrians in India, or any such variant. How this name arose, and whether this was given by Hindus, should be included in the etymology section but is irrelevant as far as naming the article or using the term is concerned. (Compare with, the use of the term Hindu/Hinduism itself)
  • I think you are possibly right that the geographical extent of the community being India rather than South Asia or the Indian sub-continent. Will need to check sources to confirm this.
  • You are probably right about the population statistics too. We need to check the sources (which I haven't done yet) and accurately reflect what they say.
Abecedare (talk) 06:47, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
This may proceed to very large discussion. You think, a new page called "Zoroastrianism in India", can be made? There we can insert the population, history, and a lot more elements, from this page, while removing from here. The page parsi is important too you are correct here. May make one more page called Zoroastrianism in Canada, there are some notable in Canada too, i think, if found something more than 2,500 bytes. Bladesmulti (talk) 07:10, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
The religion and its presence in, and relationship to, various nations and cultures is covered quite clearly in the article Zoroastrianism. Also, that article includes a number of links to other articles. If you create a new page, "Zoroastrianism in India", I would not remove the information that is already in the "Parsi" article.CorinneSD (talk) 17:38, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
May re-word and copy then.. But it can be decided later, what to remove or not, may possibly make one now. Bladesmulti (talk) 18:30, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Anyways, I just tried to make article about it, check Zoroastrianism in India, you are welcome if you got any editions. Bladesmulti (talk) 19:43, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
You did a lot in a short time. The layout looks good, but the text needs some attention. I would be glad to edit the article to correct errors in sentence structure (syntax), spelling, etc., but I want to wait until others who are more familiar with the topic have looked at it and indicated that they find the content generally acceptable, and, if not, change what needs to be changed.CorinneSD (talk) 01:41, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks a lot, and cheers! Indeed, let's hope we get contribution there too. Bladesmulti (talk) 02:43, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I removed the stats, because they are unrelated with this page. This page is probably about a group, not about the whole zoroastrian population, there's one more zoroastrian group in India called Irani, so adding population of all zoroastrians in parsi page would contradict. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:48, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

The stats are indeed related to the page, since the sources are stating the number of "Parsis", and not (as editors above are assuming) the number of Zoroastrians in India. The Indian census figures (1981: 71,630, 2001: 69,601) cited in Palsetia, Hinnells and elsewhere are for the Parsis of India, not for Zoroastrians in India. Additionally, the figures collected by Hinnells are for the Parsi diaspora, +-30,000. Together, 100,000 +- 10% for "Parsis worldwide". *Not* "Zoroastrians", not "Iranis", not anything else.
An editor above supposes that "zoroastrians varies from 124,000 - 2.5 million". That upper bound is utterly fanciful, and is noted as such in every single authoritative source on the subject. Hinnells and Stausberg describe where it came from.
ps: Editors would do well to educate themselves before trying to fork a page on a subject that they know nothing about, and for which they mostly cobble together statements made on Wikipedia itself, and do so without the means or knowledge to ensure that those statements are correct.
The premise for that article, as imagined by an editor above, is that there is a "Zoroastrianism in India" distinguishable from what the Parsis make of it. That premise is false.
The additional implication is that "Zoroastrianism in India" has some beliefs or practices that are different from the Zoroastrianism followed elsewhere. While there are in fact some differences, the article does not address them at all. (Indeed, despite the title, the article does not have anything on Zoroastrianism at all!).
Instead, the invalid premise is accompanied by wrong (incorrect or misleading or inappropriate) information. The "History" section is ridiculous, with all six sentences in the first paragraph being false or misleading. This is then followed by something about the arrival of Islam in select middle Eastern countries, none of which has nothing to do with India or Zoroastrianism. That then flows into a misrepresentation of Parsi myths/legends as fact, already a major problem in this article. Then comes some original research silliness about "Zoroastrian traders faced execution outside India", then some other invalid suggestions that Zoroastrians were persecuted in China. Then some nonsense about continuing immigration until "by 1477 they had lost all contact". The section is clearly original research and remarkably "original" at that too.
Then comes a "Demographics" section that is wholly inappropriate (taken from this article, where the data applies only to Parsis, and has been additionally mangled to incomprehensibility). The editor plainly had no idea of what the sources actually say. By abusing what the sources say, this entire section is again original research.
The followed "Parsi" section that again misrepresents legend as fact (and that too a legend that is false, and taken verbatim from this article). Thereafter comes an "Irani" section that was copied verbatim from Irani and adds nothing.
Altogether, the article contains nothing of value and a whole lot of misinformation besides. And, because the premise is false, and because the editor is not doing his homework (BUY A REAL BOOK, DAMMIT!), it will remain junk. And without a coherent summary of the differences between "Zoroastrianism in India" and Zoroastrianism elsewhere, it fails to achieve any purpose. -- (talk) 23:26, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Regions with significant population[edit]

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

source:  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krisxlowry (talkcontribs) 07:23, 7 February 2015 (UTC) 

New/great article[edit]

This article is great, would love to see it incorporated into the main article