Talk:Zoroastrianism in Iran

Religion Mid‑importance

	Religion portal 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.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Zoroastrianism High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Zoroastrianism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Zoroastrianism 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.ZoroastrianismWikipedia:WikiProject ZoroastrianismTemplate:WikiProject ZoroastrianismZoroastrianism articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Iran High‑importance

	Iran portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iran, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Iran on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project where you can contribute to the discussions and help with our open tasks.IranWikipedia:WikiProject IranTemplate:WikiProject IranIran articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Book

There is a book on this matter with the same title. After my exams I will try to get started -- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 00:19, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction

The Sassanid empire fell in the 7th century, but the introduction seems to imply that this was in the fourth century with the statement about when the religion started to decline. I know this is when the empire fell (Islam didn't exist in the fourth century) so I assume two pieces of information have been pushed together in one sentence. Anyone know enough about this to clarify when the zoroastrian religion started to decline? Blankfrackis 23:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not 100% sure about this, but that statement about the fourth century may just have been about the fourth century in the Islamic calendar age instead of the fourth century in the Christian calendar age. And coincidentally, it is actually quite possible that Zoroastrianism saw a sharp decline in the period between 300 and 400 years after the Muslim conquest of Persia... However, the problem is that I can't back this up, so we'll still need the help of an expert here... By the way, Leo Caesius is an expert on the history of the Middle East, so he should be able to clarify this matter... 75-Rolf 19:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other sources:

People should refer to the Sassanid Empire (224AD-651AD) that is when the religion started to decline.

Also the Roman Persian Wars (92BC-627AC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceezmad (talk • contribs) 16:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stop whining in the introduction and deliver information instead, at least at that point. This is an Encyclopedia! And please use proper English throughout the article. --91.13.247.67 (talk) 22:11, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Zoroastrians in Iran. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:57, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dating

I changed the article because I found that the page's dating systems were being slowly changed with no given reason (namely, that an editor was adding a different dating system most likely because that was the dating system used in the citations he was using). Per WP:ERA, "An article's established era style should not be changed without reasons specific to its content; seek consensus on the talk page first (applying Wikipedia:Manual of Style § Retaining existing styles) by opening a discussion under a heading using the word era, and briefly stating why the style should be changed." The dating system was changed in this revision: https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Zoroastrianism_in_Iran&diff=prev&oldid=1147996522, during which the editor added his own dating system even when the rest of the page was not using it. He proceeded to slowly add more information, subverting WP:ERA. I am not suggesting that it was malicious, but even when I first changed the page, it was not entirely standardized to one system mainly due to the fact that it has been rapidly expanded by a single user. 173.244.8.254 (talk) 21:03, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: You are edit warring against multiple editors. Your edit clearly does not have WP:CONSENSUS. Your argument re: ERA, is irrelevant because the date styles can be changed with consensus. // Timothy :: talk 21:24, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are the only editor that has responded to this talk page edit. Editors reverting uncited edits do NOT imply WP:CONSENSUS. For the date styles to be changed, agreement would have to be achieved on this talk page before any action. Try again. KanzazKyote (talk) 21:33, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, change can be boldly made and accepted by consensus and in this case multiple experienced editors have reverted you, this should be enough to show your edit does not have consensus. // Timothy :: talk 21:44, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Viewing the article history, it seems that 173.244.8.254 made the first edit. This was then reverted by you, and then multiple "experienced editors" mysteriously appeared. Again, this does not imply consensus that the original edit should stay. I suggest you read WP:Consensus before stating any more, as the merits of this have not even been discussed. KanzazKyote (talk) 21:47, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The IP was blocked for edit-warring and you picked up their argument 15 minutes later. WP:DUCK. The existing version has WP:EDITCONSENSUS. It needs a new consensus to change. The onus is on those that want to change it (i.e. you/your IP) to gain that consensus. Until that happens the previous version remains. DeCausa (talk) 22:02, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This argument still has not been addressed yet. A user that has zero history on this page suddenly engaged in debate, then you picked it up. WP:DUCK. The reversions had WP:CONSENSUS, the merits of the articles do not. I personally started a separate discussion in order to separate from this entire situation, and it has yet been responded to even though I know you saw it. So please, let us talk about the merits of this debate. KanzazKyote (talk) 22:06, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm answering specifically the groundless nonsense of your last post. So long as you now understand that you can't change the article until you have established a consensus to do so on this talk page that's fine - although I find it rich that you refer to 'multiple "experienced editors" mysteriously' appearing while you were clearly editing while not logged in to your account until you were blocked. DeCausa (talk) 22:16, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Except I see you are continuing to edit war. DeCausa (talk) 22:19, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Except I see that nobody has emerged to debate normally. And I highly doubt that you yourself was watching this page. Is the Discord server open to everyone, or how do I get an invite... maybe an IG group chat? KanzazKyote (talk) 22:25, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@KanzazKyote: This is the appropriate place for discussion. The other acceptable place to discuss this is at WP:ANI. // Timothy :: talk 22:38, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've been discussing. I started an entire section to discuss. So let's discuss instead of pretending that your three friends amount to consensus. KanzazKyote (talk) 22:41, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unbiased Dating

Upon review, it is clear that the editor User:LeidenMasterMES added a dating system not originally used due to the citations they were using. This starts in user revision: https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Zoroastrianism_in_Iran&diff=prev&oldid=1147996522. It is also a direct, although unintentional, violation of WP:Era, and should be treated as such. KanzazKyote (talk) 21:53, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Your change has been reverted by multiple editors. [1], [2], [3]. You are editing against WP:CONSENSUS, WP:ERA does not apply when there is consensus for a change. // Timothy :: talk 22:05, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My change has been reverted by nobody. Simple page history will tell you that I have made zero changes. WP:CONSENSUS only applies to the changes that the user made, it does not apply to the merit of the argument that I am making. KanzazKyote (talk) 22:08, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Four experienced editors have objected to your preferred version. // Timothy :: talk 22:17, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Zero experienced editors have objected to my preferred version, as none of them are here right now. Four experienced editors answered your DMs and helped revert some changes in order to achieve a false consensus. You'll have to do better than that. KanzazKyote (talk) 22:23, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. I've reverted you so that's now 5 editors have objected. DeCausa (talk) 22:50, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reversions are very different from talk page discussions. Seeing as zero people have responded to this thread, that is still 0 editors that have objected. So why don't we please discuss the merits of this thread instead of the above one. KanzazKyote (talk) 22:55, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You posted to WP:AN and this is not the right Admin board, you need to post to WP:ANI. // Timothy :: talk 22:59, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're clearly stalking me, but the notice is appreciated. I will post there. And feel free to actually debate when you want to. KanzazKyote (talk) 23:01, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But don't bother asking for "arbitration" - as you did at AN - that's outside of the remit of administrators. The terminology you need to use is something like that you are seeking sanctions for behavioural violations. Also, you need to notify the users you are complaining about else you'll get heavily criticised for not doing that. DeCausa (talk) 23:08, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I'd note that you want to close the AN thread - else you'll be in trouble for forum shopping. DeCausa (talk) 23:11, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have zero clue how to close a thread. Feel free to delete it yourself. Unless you can't, in which I still have zero clue how to close a thread. KanzazKyote (talk) 23:48, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On the substantive issue

Why would you think that using Anno Domini instead of Common Era for an article about a non-Christian religion is appropriate? Seems self-evident that the change made a year ago is appropriate. The exception "without reasons specific to its content" per WP:ERA seems obvious. DeCausa (talk) 23:16, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly concur with DeCausa. --Yamla (talk) 23:30, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think that either is more appropriate than the other. And I strongly agree that "the exception without reasons specific to its content" is appropriate.

Note that no "changes" were made by the user that made the edits. Instead, he made massive additions to the page without considering the previously established dating standards.
The statement about "non-Christian religions" does not matter. According to WP:ERA, "The default calendar eras are Anno Domini (BC and AD) and Common Era (BCE and CE). Either convention may be appropriate for use in Wikipedia articles depending on the article context." WP:MOS states that "When either of two styles is acceptable it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change." The previous editor left zero reasons for changing, even though these changes were most likely in good faith. Note that WP:MOS also states that "if you believe an alternative style would be more appropriate for a particular article, seek consensus by discussing this at the article's talk page." This means that the five editors you cited have no "consensus," as "consensus" was not established via talk but via edit reverts.

KanzazKyote (talk) 23:57, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose using Christian dating systems in articles about non-Christian religions. Endorse the change of a year ago. Cullen328 (talk) 00:04, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, agree with DeCausa. No reason to use Anno Domini for non-Christian religion(s). --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:53, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]