Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:18, 22 March 2006

Parsis

Are Shenaz Treasurywala (Hum Tum, Ishq Vishq) and Jimi Mistry Parsi? They've got the right names for sure. And do John Abraham and Rajiv Gandhi count - half Parsis?

This page really needs to be worked on. There's more information about Parsis as a social group on the Cricket in India page! I hope to tackle it someday if nobody gets to it before me. The Parsis in India need their own page, apart from Zoroastrianism, on there contributions to India and the world (i.e. the fun-fact that the Wadia's built the ship Francis Scott Key wrote the Star Spangled Banner on). There's lots of info out there, vohuman.org for example. Khirad 01:38, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

On that note, if this is going to be a disambig page, it should be that only, not an article about Parsis in India too. So that should be moved to it's own article, question is, by what name? I think Parsi should be only a disambig page, and move this to perhaps Parsi (India). - Taxman 14:28, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree. But even though I sort of suggested it indirectly, is it okay to put it under India? Whatever happens, perhaps the local spellings could be added. Pārsī : Devanagari: पारसी; Urdu Naskh: پارسى . As for the Parsi Gujarati or standard Gujarati I can only posit: પારસી . Khirad 08:05, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I forgot to get back to this one. I still think it neads to be split, but you're right, India's probably not good. Would Parsi (ethnic group) or Parsi (community) be good enough? - Taxman 21:02, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

• I agree with Khirad. This page needs to be changed! I mean drastically!!! There should be a separate page for disambiguation and a page wholly dedicated to the Indian Parsis, their history and their acheivements in both pre and post Partition South Asia as well as Great Britain and other parts of the world. So much could be said of them. They were among the first Asian ethnic groups to arrive in Britain. They were probably the first Indian ethnic group to culturally progress into modern times, before both the Hindus and the Muslims, as well as bringing western industry and education to the masses rather than leaving them as European monopolies. In my native Pakistan, we even have a Parsi MP. Someone has to make the changes. - ]

• Let's do this - - i.e. leave this as a disambig and move all Indian Parsi info to Parsis in India or Parsi (India) or the like. It makes no sense to have all of this info on this page. I'll do this at the end of the week if no one else does and no one opposes such a move.--Hraefen 21:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

• How about a separate article "Parsi (disambiguation)", following the example of other "(disambiguation)" articles like Color and DNA?. There, the primary article is on the common use of the term, and a secondary "xxx (disambiguation)" article lists all the possible meanings of it. -- Fullstop 10:33, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

-Is the picture really of Parsis? The people look a lot more like regular Indians than the fair-skinned, Iranian looking people I usually thought they were. I'm not being racist. -]

I replaced the photo with the second one which is an accurate representation. I hadn't taken a close look at the first one until now. Parsi women don't dress like that nor do they wear facial ornamentation and the like. I seriously doubt the picture was of Parsis, who have a very distinctive style of dress which is very different from other Indians. SouthernComfort 18:30, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

-They used to wear nose rings from what I read in Taraporevala's book on Parsis but now they dress quite like western people. Anyway, how would you classify them, Iranian or Indian. I would think nationally, culturally and linguistically Indian and racially and ethnically Iranian. I could be wrong though. -]

Well as for dress, as we know from the popular parable of the Parsis being like sugar (Qissa-e Sanjan), the women did adopt the local dress (like the sari), but the men can often be seen in white suits (if traditional), plus the black pheta. I believe from what I've seen in Taraporevala's book (which I want so bad!), I can be confirmed on this (plus many other sources). Of course, since the Parsis were the first to gain favor with the British, among other factors, they are also probably more likely to be seen in a western business suit. Linguistically, to my complete frustration, Parsi Gujarati materials have been impossible to find, and I asked Joe, the webmaster of the Avesta archives if he could procure some for the future. But, it is Gujarati, with Iranian flavor I believe; though unlike Urdu, Hindi or Gujarati, its vocabulary is more Dari, and without the Arabic loan words which came into the others through the Mughals. And then there are things like this which is merely "kshnaothra Ahurahe Mazdao" in the Gujarati script - but I digress. We also have to be careful to differentiate between the vestaments of the priesthood (i.e. the prominent liberal Zoroastrian, Dhalla, in the picture - is a Dastur), as well as things like the Sudreh and Kusti. Most certainly ethnically Iranian. Even more so than modern Iranians, who intermarried with the Muslim conquerers (no offence to my Persian friends, I could be wrong on this supposition). Although, there are Parsis which are not fair skinned, a John R. Hinnells book I have shows a picture of Dastur Meherji Rana, whom has a more olive complexion for one example. Whether this is a result of the period of the Rivayats, or we are erroneously assuming that the pre-Islamic Persians were themselves one ethnicity (sic!; Pars, Parthia, Media, etc...) and with no contact with the rest of their empire, is the question. But in general they are more, as they would say in Hindi, गोरा 'gora'; pale (don't worry about sounding racist, it's a fair observation, pardon the pun). As to them being one of the first Asian ethnic groups in Britain, Hinnells has another book called Zoroastrians in Britain, which is on my own (lengthy) wish-list and that some people might find interesting. This page is soooo much better than when I first stumbled on to it, and I feel guilty I did not contribute much of anything. Thanks to everybody for their work and picking up my slack on a subject I should be more proactive in. Wrapping up (finally), I think Parsi (ethnic group) would be fine. And also, welcome back SouthernComfort! Khirad 23:48, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome, Khirad. You are correct that Persians do not constitute a single ethnicity - in Iran Persians do not explicitly identify as simply being "Persian." Each province, and in many cases, individual cities and towns, are home to people who consider themselves a distinct ethnic group - Tehranis, Shirazis, Isfahanis, Shushtaris, etc. There are many cultural, and sometimes even major linguistic differences between these groups. Unfortunately there is not much ethnological data available in English concerning these distinctions between the many Persian groups of Iran, but interest is slowly growing and gaining momentum in Western academia so this should change at some point. And like the Parsis, many of these groups don't often intermarry with other groups, particularly those from the smaller cities and towns. The primary factor linking all these groups is cultural, linguistic, and of course historical heritage. I think you'd have to go pretty far back in time (Achaemenid era, for instance) to be able to find something along the lines of a "single" Persian ethnicity.

So, it is definitely impossible to tell from which Persian group the Parsis are descended from exactly, and it is likely their original ancestors came from several different Persian groups. SouthernComfort 03:07, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

-I've been expanding the history section of this article a lot to include the influence of the Parsis on a whole in modern India, their early years in the freedom movement, their founding of the industrial revolution in India for the benefit of the locals, etc. I would appreciate any help any of you people can offer. I would also appreciate help from you Southern Comfort, as you seem to be one of the few non-South Asians who knows so much about them. I guess its because of your expertise in Iranian studies. -].

That's a great deal of subject matter - we'd probably have to start a new article (or perhaps more than one) concerning Parsi history since it is rather extensive and detailed. Most of my knowledge concerns the early history of Parsis as well as Parsi culture and traditions and so forth. There are a number of other articles that I need to continue with, but once I have time I'll do my best to help out. Which area were you thinking of concentrating on first? SouthernComfort 22:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

-Specifically, I was thinking about work on their rise as an influential community in Bombay during the days of the British, about the first major Parsi family, the Wadias, and of the emergance of the Tatas. Pretty much, British Raj Parsi history. -]

Endogamy

I read somewhere (can't find it right now) that when the Parsis were given asylum in India in c. 9th century, one stipulation wass that they remain endogamous. Can anyone verify this with a reputable source? I think it's an important fact.--Hraefen 00:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I have come across this, but it would be interesting. I've usually read that Parsis chose endogamy of their own free will and accord, due to wanting to preserve their religious heritage. SouthernComfort 03:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, its free will. Quote from the Beamon ruling (see reference in article):

"The orthodox Parsi... are prepared to overlook immorality, bastardy - anything but alienage. They are ready to admit any and every Irani Zoroastrian about whose antecedents they cannot possibly know anything. But they will not admit the purest, most blameless foreigner of whose character and conduct they may have the completest assurance. They will admit all the illegitimate children of Parsi parents, begotten of prostitutes or kept-mistresses, but they will not admit the noblest, most exemplary foreigner. Why? Because a foreigner is outside the caste, and caste is an institution into which you must be born. This is not religion, it has nothing to do with religion: it is essentially distinctly irreligious; but it is pure unadulterated Oriental caste."

Heavy stuff, eh? -- Fullstop 17:17, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

American Parsi

-What's with the American Parsi picture? It does not belong on a article about the history and development of Parsis. It's a family photo, that's all. -User: Afghan Historian

Please delete the photo american parsi from the article... it doesn't serve any purpose... I would appreciate if we could include the photo of a Parsi from Bombay, since many of them still wear their traditional dress at home and what is the source that proves that the lady in the picture is a parsi... Aravind Parvatikar 14:10, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

• Quote: "It does not belong on a article about the history and development of Parsis." Please note the title of this article is "Parsi" and as such is currently the best location on Misplaced Pages for descriptions or images of Parsis, regardless of theire location and attire.
  

Quote: "I would appreciate if we could include the photo of a Parsi from Bombay, since many of them still wear their traditional dress at home." Parsis are Parsis in blue jeans as much as they are Parsis in traditional dress. There are Parsis living in the U.S. who you wouldn't give more than a moment's glance because they blend in as far as dress goes. Why not depict this? A Parsi is a Parsi in Bombay and Minnesota. As far as proving that "the lady in the picture is a parsi," all I can offer is my word. Does she not look like a Parsi to you? I'd have no objection to removing the picture if a better one replaces it. The washed-out black and white picture on the top of the page was the only one and it gives people unfamiliar with Parsis very little idea of what they actually look like.--Hraefen 21:37, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

• Well, Fullofshitstop deleted the picture from this page and I don't really feel like getting in an edit war over it with people who apparently think the Parsis should only be portrayed as some exotic ethnic minority. Ignorance. If a better picture does not replace it (apparently none of you actually know any Parsis), it's going back up.--Hraefen 00:48, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

-Actually I do know a few Parsis. My old next-door neighbor is a Parsi from Bombay. A teacher at my middle school was Indian Parsi. But, maybe for pictures, we should put pictures of some famous Parsis. We could do a row of pictures on top of the ethnic box like we do for other ethnic groups. Someone try to find some pictures. -User: Afghan Historian

-Actually, I know plenty of Parsis. I don't think the Parsis should be portrayed as exotic, even if the (relatively) insignificant numbers might qualify them as such. But the reason for the removal of the minnesotan Parsi is pretty much as Afghan historian said, its a picture of some girl in jeans. Fine for a yearbook, but not exactly adding anything on the subject. As for having (recent) pictures on the parsis: There is a shortage of "typically" Parsi events where such pictures could be made, but I (now) have several of a navjote, several of a wedding and some of a Jashan. Will upload when I can. - Fullstop 15:10, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Farsi?

-I dont think Parsis speak Farsi or any form of Persian. I do know that the more recent Iranis speak (or spoke) a form of Dari but it is disappearing fast, as well as the Iranis who are getting absorbed into the Parsi community. Parsis may be of Persian ethnicity but they do not speak Persian. As Taraporeval said, they lost a lot of their Persian culture and language, when they came to India. -User: Afghan Historian

I don't think the pictures in the article have to focus only on those Parsis who dress a certain way or who are traditionalists. It'd be nice to create a collage of 4 images of famous Parsis, including Freddie Mercury. The problem is that the images have to be public domain. SouthernComfort 18:43, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Dispute

"Although the Parsis of India originally emigrated from Iran, they no longer have social or familial ties to Persians."

According to who exactly? I have a Parsi friend who says he and many families travel to Iran every year to visit holy places as well as many families in Iran. Please provide a source for this or I will have to remove it --Kash 00:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• From what I've heard, they don't even speak Persian. Aucaman 00:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• Nope, they speak Gurajati, but the Persian dialect, which is not too far from Persian, I carried out a research comparing some of the language and greetings used, and surprisingly its not that different from current Persian --Kash 00:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• Parsis have not and could not have kept up with close family in Iran for over 1300 years! To suggest that they have met traceable relatives among modern Iranian Persians as they would any other closer family member is hilarious, unless if they did a genetic study and linked themselves to a modern Farsi-speaking individual. There have been tests done on Parsis as a whole being close to Persians but not of individual people being related to other individuals from the other group. Your Parsi friend probably travels just to visit religous sites and historical places in the same way that Muslims journey to Mecca. Saying they have social/familial ties to modern Persians is the same as saying Pakistani Muslims have social familial ties modern Saudi Arabs because they go their to see religious sites and visit family who are immigrants from Pakistan settled there. It's possible that your friend's family is a recently arrived Parsi family residing in Iran rather than modern ethnic Iranian Farsi-speaking Persians. And, their Persian-influenced Gujarati dialect is pretty distant from current Farsi. It has no Arabic influence, except for what was picked up under Gujarati Muslim rulers. It's form of Persian influence most likely comes from Pahlavi, which is probably pretty different from Farsi. That there are similarities and a clear relationship, I do not doubt. But the difference is profound, nonetheless. I might have misunderstood you though when you said not too far off from Persian. Were you saying the Persian-influence on Gujarati or Gujarati on its own (which is Indo-Iranian)?

-User: Afghan Historian

• The Zoroastrian community is a little different to the Muslim community, I have not investigated this too closely but I believe they do share some social life with Iranian Zoroastrians in their visits to Iran. The Parsi Gurajati's speak a definite Parsi dialect which has a lot of Persian still in it. It is quite different to the official Gurajati. I did not assume they have linked family ties for 1300 years, but surely having social ties is abit different. --Kash 10:01, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• On the Gujarati (not Gurajati), you're mistaken:

1. the Gujarati spoken by Parsis (if they speak Gujarati at all, that is. Not all of them do) is not a dialect. A dialect is a complete system of verbal communication with its own vocabulary and/or grammar (eg, Schwyzerdütsch vs Hochdeutsch).
2. The biggest difference between "Parsi" Gujarati and "pukkha" Gujarati lies in the set of loan words. Parsi Gujarati, like Surti Gujarati, is influenced by Urdu and Marathi, while 'official' Gujarati is influenced by Hindi and Rajasthani. There are also slight differences in the intonation of some words. Such differences are not restricted to Gujarati (or even Indian languages) - all languages have regional and social varieties.
3. Parsis, being Zoroastrians, are bound to use Zoroastrian (Avestan, Persian) terminology in whatever language they speak. If a Parsi were to use such a word when speaking Gujarati (or English or whatever), does that mean that that language has Persian words in it? Not really.

-- Fullstop 14:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• On the issue of your friend:

1. Are you sure that your friend is a Parsi (from the Indian subcontinent), and not an Iranian? In Iran, the terms "Parsi" (and Persian) have a meaning different to that used elsewhere. In Iran, "Persian" has very tight scope, and means the language of-, person of-, geographic region of Pars/Fars, which is a district in Iran. The native word for Persian (language, person) in the Persian language is also Farsi/Parsi. Incidentally, many Iranians are not aware that outside Iran the term "Persia" has of course a much wider scope, meaning much (everything?) of what once the Persian Empire (the origins of that construct have Hellenic roots). This confusion leads to messes like Persian people, where the first sentence contradicts much of what follows.
2. Its quite possible for a Parsi individual to have "family" in Iran - we live in a global village after all. A Parsi married to an Iranian would, by marriage, have relatives in Iran, and the children of such a marriage would even have grandparents, uncles, aunts, cousins in Iran. But that would be an isolated case, and is by no means a general indicator that the entire Parsi community has ties with modern-day Iran.

-- Fullstop 14:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

My friend is a Zoroastrian Parsi from Gurajat. I don't have time to go through everything you said..if you want me to comment on specific things please use bulletings. I agree that they don't have ties with all Iranians, but I don't see why it should be mentioned that they do NOT share a social tie. I am not even sure what is meant by that sentence and why its so important to share it with the world. I live in London and not many people from Manchester have social ties with people from London after moving there. Lets mention it on Misplaced Pages? Sorry..I am just abit confused about the sentence and its value to Misplaced Pages.

About the language thing..I am not even sure about what you are talking about. The Persian language is also from the Aryan/old Persian, so whats the difference? there are similarities between the languages spoken, thats all I was pointing out. My friend called it a dilact because the community generally talk differently to people of Gurajat as far as I am aware.

About the marriage thing.. So you have said one side of the story..it is possible for the communities to inter-marry. So why can't there be more than one individual? what if the community intermarriage a lot? who are we to say they do or they don't? as long as we don't have any evidence, I suggest just removing this material. Thanks --Kash 00:25, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

• >> I agree that they don't have ties with all Iranians, but I don't see why it should be mentioned that they do NOT share a social tie
  Your initial statement said something slightly different. Anyhow, the sentence to which you referred was in the context of another sentence, which had been removed. (now back, and context hopefully clarified).
• >> About the language thing..I am not even sure about what you are talking about.
  Well, I referred to your own statement of course: they speak Gurajati (sic), but the Persian dialect, which is not too far from Persian, which is incorrect.
• >> what if the community intermarriage a lot?
  One of the peculiarities of the Parsi community is the fact that they are traditionally endogamous.

-- Fullstop 12:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

The tradition is not to marry a non-Zoroastrian, it does not stop them marrying Iranian Zoroastrians but perhaps not the converts to Zoroastrianism --Kash 00:18, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

-Uhh, what are you talking about. Of course it does! Parsis are, by rule, not allowed to even marry other Iranian Zoroastrians. They must marry only Parsis. I know plenty of Parsis and they told this to me. From the Horses mouth, I could say. -User: Afghan Historian

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was move. —Nightstallion (?) 10:40, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

Parsi (ethnic group) → Parsi people – Most "-people" articles have this format: German people, French people, Kurdish people, Persian people, etc.

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

• Support as nom. Aucaman 08:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was move to Parsi. —Nightstallion (?) 11:04, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Requested move renewed

The above issue was closed before I had a chance to respond. AFK Weekend.

Parsi (ethnic group) → Parsi people – Most "-people" articles have this format: German people, French people, Kurdish people, Persian people, etc.

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

• Support as nom. Aucaman 08:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose because it isn't right (see comments below). Fullstop 10:58, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

1. In the abovementioned examples, "Parsi" is not comparable with "German", "French", et al because all the examples provided have a geographic connotation: German → Germany, French → France, etc. Not fitting in this pattern is Parsis → the Indian subcontinent.
2. Just because others use it, doesn't mean its right. To native speakers of English, the use of "xxx people" sounds wierd when the adjective is also a noun. Native speakers of English don't use "German people", or "French people" when they speak of "Germans" or "the French", "Kurds", "Persians", "Catholics", "Muslims", "Hazaras" et al. The "people" suffix only makes sense when it is used as a plural "peoples", which means quite something else.
3. The word "Parsi" already has an appurtenant suffix.

Moreover, the change of "Parsi" to something else was discussed in talk, and no concensus was reached.

The article for "Parsi" in other encyclopaedias (Columbia, Britannica) cover the same subject matter. As such, there was absolutely no pressing need to change Parsi to something else in the first place.

-- Fullstop 10:58, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I've moved it to Parsi now. —Nightstallion (?) 11:04, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Something wrong

Ehh....could someone explain what just happened here? I never saw User:Fullstop's vote until now. Is the move closed or open? Aucaman 11:58, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, what's up? A 4-day move debate? And shouldn't it be Parsis and not Parsi The article is about all of them, not just one Parsi. AjaxSmack 06:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey, it's not exactly my fault if you file the move twice, and one of them under the wrong date. I closed the move early in error, Fullstop rightfully complained, and after looking into the issue a little bit I saw no good reason why the article shouldn't be at Parsi. Well, maybe except for the fact that AjaxSmack may be right, but that's something you'll have to confirm for me. —Nightstallion (?) 08:59, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I only requested one move and it was to Parsi people, NOT Parsi. My requested move was sitting here unchallenged for a few days. Then there was a challenge; my request was denied; a new request was opened; and that request was passed - all within hours, if not minutes. I'm not sure what happened. The name "Parsi" is unacceptable because this page used to be a disambiguation page. Say, can I file a new WP:RM and start the discussions all over again? Aucaman 09:52, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

1. Your statement "a new request was opened; and that request was passed" is not correct.

• No such new request was made. Nightstallion has already indicated (to you) why that happened. I really don't know whether you are oblivious to reality, or actually choose to concoct an alternate reality because it might suit your purpose better. But whatever the reason, you are fast losing credibility.
• Moreover, I didn't want to mention this in my opposal to your WP:RM because of the Rfc against you, but you had already once unilaterally moved Parsi to Parsi people without so much as a word on the talk page (which already had a discussion on a possible rename), and had seen that that was unacceptable. In other words, you knew that there were people who opposed your rename, and given that you still did not discuss it, the only explanation for the subsequent WP:RM was a misuse of an administrator to do it for you.

2. >> The name "Parsi" is unacceptable because this page used to be a disambiguation page

• Um, hello. That was my work, but was by no means correct. For one, Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia , not a dictionary. Second, the disambig was a quick-and-dirty replacement for a #REDIRECT ], but I didn't want to stomp on anyone's sensitivities.
• Your "new" argument for the rename "because this page used to be a disambiguation page" is particularly empty when one considers the fact that Parsi remained a simple redirect to Parsi people (and then to Parsi ethnic group) after your unilateral move. Although you had the chance, you did not make Parsi a disambiguation page, and that by itself is a fairly good indication that you really don't care whats behind Parsi. You apparently just want to make a point - however pointless it may be.
• For consistancy, perhaps you ought to take a close look at all the ethnic communities with a writeup on WP. You might want to start renaming those first, and then come back here when you've pissed off half the planet.
• I thought you had an issue with Aryan, but that was apparently incorrect. I really don't know which hobby horse you're riding this time, but definitely need to rethink your arguments if you want to appear convincing. I'm willing to accept that you personally feel "Aryan" is offensive, but you really have to come up with a better reason than personal feelings for a page rename. And, when you've put those together, you can come here to discuss them.
• Your argument "because this page used to be a disambiguation page" just does not cut it in an encyclical context , where the primary article generally covers the common use of a term. If you want an enumeration of all definitions of a term, use a dictionary, or even create a separate article "Parsi (disambiguation)", following the example of other "(disambiguation)" articles like Color and DNA. While you're at it, you might keep in mind that non-english words for which english terms exist are inherently unsuitable for inclusion - unless your aim is of course the creation of a multi-lingual dictionary, in which case you are in the wrong place.

-- Fullstop 17:27, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Common use: Search Google.

Encyclical use: Brittanica 2006/1911,Columbia, Catholic,Encarta, Yahoo, Routledge, not to mention Misplaced Pages de, es, fr, nn, pl

Response

You're making a lot of irrelevant comments. Once I figured that my decision to move the article to "Parsi people" would be opposed, I listed it in WP:RM. The request was sitting here for 3 days - unopposed. The article should have been moved to Parsi people, but you somehow got the admin to change his mind.

Are you saying that the title of an article on Parsi people should be "Parsi"? I'm sorry, but Parsi is just a single person, not a group of people.

And my arguments have not changed. I had plans to make Parsi back into a disambiguation page, NOT a redirect to Parsi people. Articles are not likely to use the word "Parsi" to refer to Parsi people (they might use "Parsis" and that page should redirect to Parsi people). My argument has always been that Parsis form an ethnic group and that, in Misplaced Pages, ethnic groups are usually identified with the compound suffix "-people".

And about this statement:

To native speakers of English, the use of "xxx people" sounds wierd when the adjective is also a noun. Native speakers of English don't use "German people", or "French people" when they speak of "Germans" or "the French", "Kurds", "Persians", "Catholics", "Muslims", "Hazaras" et al. The "people" suffix only makes sense when it is used as a plural "peoples", which means quite something else."

Well maybe you should check the following articles: French people, Kurdish people, and Persian people. These are the exact titles that you're saying should NOT be in place. Maybe you know something I don't???

In any case, I was not trying to establish something new, but to follow the patterns I've been seeing so far. In fact, as a form of compromise, I'm willing to accept a renaming of this article to "Parsis". Not only that, if you make a good case for why the "-s" suffix should be used as opposed to the "-people" suffix, I might even support your campaign to rename some of the other articles such as Persian people, Kurdish people, French people, English people, etc. Let me know what you think. Aucaman 14:02, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

That argument is moot, because the terms "German," "French," and "Persian" can refer to several different usages, all of which are applicable in the modern sense. "Parsi," however, in the modern usage, is restricted primarily to the the ethnic group of that name. There is no overriding justification for moving the article, even to "Parsis" - it's unnecessary. If you want to change the peoples' articles to, say, "Germans (ethnic group)" or whatever, you are free to take it up on the respective talk page(s). However, I don't think anyone involved with those articles will feel any overriding need to move the article(s) in question. SouthernComfort 04:11, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand. Why are you opposing moving this article to "Parsis"? You have not given me any arguments for why the title of the article should be Parsi and not Parsis. The RM was sitting here for 3 days and you didn't even bother to give it an up-or-down vote. You cannot wait till the RM is closed and then start your complains. The page should have been moved to "Parsi people". I'm being nice and offering a compromise by moving it to Parsis instead. But since you're being so stubborn without any reason, I think I'm going to follow User:Nightstallion's advice and file an RfC so that some of the issues here can be properly discussed. The page was supposed to be moved to Parsi people because my RM was unopposed. If you didn't get a chance to vote, then you had to go through the pain and request a re-move. This whole thing is a clear violation of how things are supposed to work on Misplaced Pages. Aucaman 03:18, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

The study in Pakistan

The study was done on Pakistanis. Don't interpret the results. And the dispute tag was put in place by another use for a different reason (see above). Aucaman 08:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Parsis are Parsis

Parsis are Parsis, Pakistani or Indian...Just as Kurds are Kurds, Iranian or Iraqi. There is no need to confuse the readers about the origins of Parsis. The study was conducted on Parsis and that's what the reference's title refers to. Regardless of which modern state the Parsis reside in, India and Pakistan were the same state until 50 years ago or so, there is no genetic difference between Parsis in either state. They are the same community separated by a boarder. --ManiF 13:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

• I think you had better check what your revert overwrote. -- 89.50.229.192 17:06, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Whatever you do don't remove the 2004 study. Also see WP:NOR. There's no evidence that all Parsis are the same. What does that mean anyway? Aucaman 23:09, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Aucaman, ManiF and Zmmz apparently have an agenda , and its not benefiting this article in any way. And, Aucaman, kindly stop implying that you wrote that section (or _anything_ on the Parsi page for that matter). If you (plural) wish to contribute to the substance of the article, fine, but this futzing (which includes the unilateral rename) is not helping. -- Fullstop 12:54, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Revert wars

• To understand our stand on this issue, please check Talk:Persians. --ManiF 16:23, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

• Well, the difference is that under their interpretation, the term "Aryan" is not just a general linguistic term referring to a wide variety of people who speak Aryanic languages, but rather a synonym for "our Iranian ancestors" with a very strong racial connotations. Any attempt to suggest that Iranians (or Iranian-derivatives such as the Parsis) are any different (especially racially) than their "Aryan" fathers would be opposed and dealt with. That's why your edit here was reverted here. Here's an illustration of this view. See how "Aryans" are a claimed to be a branch of Indo-Iranians? Aucaman 01:21, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• Believe it or not, I wasn't even aware for the reason's behind your (plural) fight since a) I'm not a mind reader, and b) neither of you would discuss it here. Moreover, neither of you has established what your disagreement has to do with this article.
  
  If you wish to discuss it, fine, but talk - which is a two-way street -, don't revert - which is a firing squad. As one of you has noted (but perhaps forgotten), one would "have discussed on talk BEFORE POSTING it so we can all reach a consensus on it and get this over with. Otherwise, this will go on forever."
  
  Now, I cannot say whether either/both of you have a valid argument or not, and perhaps you both do. I won't ask you hug and make-up, but I do ask you to be aware of the damage your fight is doing, both to yourselves (aren't you tired?), and to everyone else. Don't be angry mastadons, be "of gentle behavior and demeanor, good-natured and of righteous conduct". :-)
  
  I don't expect (nor desire) a response to my above-mentioned points, but assuming that I have understood what you two are on about, I'll open the debate... -- Fullstop 17:07, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

What exactly do you mean by revert wars? I've simply been adding information into the article. Some other people are the ones reverting them. Aucaman 01:21, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Debate

Please answer both the following questions:

1. what is the reason why a specific term has to be used (or not)?
   Please explain (with citatation of recent anthropological studies/sources - in english) why that term is more/less appropriate than an alternate term.
2. in what way is the use/avoidance of that term relevant/misleading in this article?

Please be succinct in your arguments.

I'm not advocating for the term not to be used, but as I explained above, the term "Aryan" can be misinterpreted and is somewhat ambiguous in meaning. Some people here seem to think it designates a race or ethnicity. Aucaman 01:21, 15 March 2006 (UTC)