Talk:Gabr

[Untitled]

Dear frinds, to give an alternative view, please let the Encyclopedia Britannica's view remain in the entry. Thank you! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Christian Sopher (talk • contribs) 07:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC).

Different opinions on the etymology of Gabr are already presented. Situation of Zoroastrians before 1882 is not directly related to this page. This page is about the word "Gabr", for the situation of Zoroastrians in Iran, we have another page (Zoroastrians in Iran). Jahangard 13:55, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

There are few problems with your editing and comment:

1. What are the guidelines that define that this entry will only give etymology of the word and not any related information? Is Wikipedia a dictionary of etymologies?
2. Why the entry imposes one view and directs the reader to believe what is right and what is wrong? Editing should give information, not suggestions.
3. Even the entry is not wholly an etymological survey but gives additional information.
4. At the point where the view of the Encyclopedia Britannica is discredited, reference is not quoted.
5. There is no link to the entry Zoroastrians in Iran and then the entry is even void of any information on Muslims' treatment of non-Musims in Persia.

--Christian Sopher 10:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

1. please don't say 'Encyclopedia Brittanica' when you mean 'Concise Brittanica'. They are not the same thing.
2. >> What are the guidelines that define that this entry will only give etymology of the word and not any related information
   The article most assuredly does provide related information as you yourself note in your #3 above.
3. >>Why the entry imposes one view and directs the reader to believe what is right and what is wrong.
   You're mistaken if you believe that the article is trying to impose any particular point of view. It doesn't. What it does do is depend on the Encycopedia Iranica (EIr), and the EIr explicitely states that the proposed derivation from kafir is not sustainable. This is then reflected by the WP article.
4. >>At the point where the view of the Encyclopedia Britannica is discredited, reference is not quoted.
   That is because Wikipedia articles should not themselves discredit theories. That would be Original Research.
   Incidentally, neither the EIr nor the EI refer to the cB (or even the EB). In their rejection of the "from Kafir" theory, they properly refer to its author.
5. >>There is no [discussion of] Muslims' treatment of non-Musims in Persia
   This article is about a *WORD*, not about inter-religion relations or on civil rights. However, if you have material related to Gabr, such as more examples of use etc, then by all means add it.

-- Fullstop 13:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for omitting ‘concise’, however, the full name is the Britannica Concise Encyclopedia and not Concise Encyclopedia. As a matter of fact, the entry Gabar is exactly the same in both references.

My point was that the Gabar here is not an etymological enquiry but an encyclopedic entry that should give all relevant information. And you wanted to restrict me to etymology of the word but did not confine yourself. Now, we have agreed that we can go beyond etymological treatment of the entry which is good.

Your treatment of the entry seems apologetic and your statements are loaded. The entry is a reproduction of Shaki’s opinions and has used exactly the same tone. It doesn’t even fully rephrase or reward Shaki’s statements. I am skeptic of Shaki because he has used a language to camouflage facts. Here are reasons why I believe that Shaki is apologetic:

1. Shaki unjustifiably calls the Gabr a “technical term” because he fails to inform his reader what makes it to be used in a special way and who used it. Probably he means that Arab invaders used for Zoroastrians. But he then says that the word might have been used by Persian converts for Zoroastrians. If that’s the case then it is a straightforward insult term and not a technical term because as he says that Persians had been using it to refer to peasants of Mesopotamia.

2. The information that who can be called kaffir is unrelated and problematic. Etymological derivation is unconcerned with religious philosophy. In addition, each Muslim is kaffir to some other Muslims, let alone the ‘people of the book’. Abu Musab Zarkawi and killings of Hazari in Afghanistan at Taliban’s hands are sufficient examples to explain who is kaffir.

3. You write, “As a consequence of the curtailment of social rights, non-Muslims were compelled to live in restricted areas, which the Muslim populace referred to as Gabristans.” It is not only the concealment of the fact but mockery of their plight. Why don’t you simply say that due to the discriminatory treatment, non-Muslims were socially pushed to live in ghettos the way Jews lived in Europe and these ghettos were derogatorily called Gabristan? Neither you nor your quoted authority is interested to explain this so-called ‘curtailment of social rights’. What’s the problem with explaining this ‘social curtailment’ here that pushed them to live separately? The EB explains, “Although they purchased some toleration by paying the jizya (poll tax), not abolished until 1882, they were treated as an inferior race, had to wear distinctive garb, and were not allowed to ride horses or bear arms.” Is this the reason that until today they live in remote desert cities Yazd and Kerman? I think this the problem you have with EB is that it is explaining this ‘social curtailment.’

4. You are again stuck that this entry is about a word as if it’s a dictionary. Anything related to this concept must be given. I can’t understand that if EB can give information on the ‘WORD’ Gabar then why Wikipedia can’t give the same information.

5. You say, “The etymology of the word is uncertain.” Well! This is your authority’s view. Why are you imposing this view on everyone? Whether you take the EB as reference or not, but it is reference for a large number of people. It doesn’t say that the etymology of the word is uncertain nor does the American Heritage Dictionary of English Language say that. Visit http://www.bartleby.com/61/60/G0116000.html, and also see:

a. http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistories.asp?historyid=ab71

b. http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/giaour (from Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary)

c. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=gabar (Random House Unabridged Dictionary)

Intellectual honesty demands that biases be set aside and all views and information should be honestly given.

--Christian Sopher 10:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm extremely sensitive to the issue of persecution, being regularly subject to it myself. But I am also very aware that a great deal of what is spouted as fact, is in fact, not fact or only half-fact. There is a (very poor) article on Wikipedia that specifically deals with persecution of Zoroastrians, and this is not it.

>> What’s the problem with explaining this ‘social curtailment’ here

Don't throttle yourself with the thread that you're hanging so tightly to. :)

The answer, as before, is: Because "curtailment of social rights" is not relevant to word gabr. If I shorten As a consequence of the curtailment of social rights, non-Muslims were compelled to live in restricted areas, which the Muslim populace referred to as Gabristans to Non-Muslims lived in neighbourhoods known as Gabristans what part of sentence would needs "explaining?" 'Neighbourhoods?'

>> Why don’t you simply say that due to the discriminatory treatment, non-Muslims were socially pushed to live in ghettos the way Jews lived in Europe and these ghettos were derogatorily called Gabristan?

Because that would be a) bull, b) "original research," c) unencyclopedic, d) juvenile, e) ignorant, and f) self-righteous.

And look how you got there: "Inferior race", ergo "master race." "Distinctive garb," ergo yellow star-of-david thing. "Curtailment of social rights," ergo ghettos.

You just got manipulated big time. On multiple levels. Because although all those assertions are true, they are - without the back-story - also all false.

For example the thing with the "inferior race" that provoked visions of a holocaust: When the Arabs took over the reigns of government, they took over the entire apparatus of state with it (i.e. all naturally Zoroastrians). They neither had a problem with it, nor were the adverse to the idea that they were becoming very, very rich. It was centuries before Zoroastrians were even permitted to convert. Conversion of non-arabs was considered undesirable, so, yeah, the arabs thought of themseves as a "chosen people," and everyone else as a bunch of losers who won't make it to heaven. Gee, nothing particularly novel about a people doing that.

>> "The etymology of the word is uncertain." Well! Why are you imposing this view on everyone?

Stop, think and look in the mirror for a second: Does the EB tell you what else has been discussed? Or are they imposing their view on everyone? And what are you trying to tell me?

-- Fullstop 16:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

ps: got to run, so cutting it short.

I'm trying to tell you what exactly you are blaming on the EB. Wikipedia should not follow the precedence set by the EB. But at the same time there should be no obsession with Shaki. But you don’t want to think beyond that because probably that suits your own perception. You are just confusing a very simple think. The point is that every possible aspect or information should be given in Wikipedia. But you are insisting that your quoted authority is the only authority and all rest of the world is dumb and stupid. And only you understand and have the right to judge and decide what should be written, added or deleted in the Wikipedia. You must realize that others also own Wikipedia, no matter you agree with how and what they write here. I hope you can understand that it is not your property.

How Arabs conquers treated Gabrs and did they try to convert them are two different things. I have nowhere insisted that they were humiliated in a bid to be converted to Islam.

You still don’t understand that Shaki is uncertain and other referential authorities are certain so Wikipedia give BOTH views. You are speaking Shaki’s language and convincing your reader that “in all likelihood” and that “this theory has been rejected on linguistic grounds.” These are Shaki’s opinions. Don’t make Wikipedia say this.

The whole problem lies with the worldview. You cannot even realize what you are imposing on others. You write that "Following the collapse of the empire and the subsequent rise of Islam". It is unfortunate that you are calling the Arab invasion and occupation as rise of Islam. I have tried to expose your biased approach but the more I'm trying to convince you, you are getting rough. It further partly exposes your problem. I could have behaved indecently and rewritten, the way you deleted what I had added.--Christian Sopher 18:44, 28 July 2007 (UTC)