Talk:Yazdânism

Unbalanced article

This article and even more the template (discussed on TfD) try to conceal the fact that Kurdish scholar Mehrdad Izady's theory of a unique pre-Islamic Kurdish religion which he calls "Yazdanism" isn't much more than a theory, a theory that has been heavily disputed by other recognized experts of the field and that therefore even may be considered a fringe theory. Yazdânism is not even mentioned as a theory in some of the most relevant articles linked from this article.
As the theory has been very influential in Kurdish nationalist discourses, it definitely is notable enough to earn its own article. I'm totally fine with that, and not even opposed to the theory. Still, it remains a disputed theory that may not be presented as if it was a widely established fact. PanchoS (talk) 16:09, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

• After I reorganized the article and rewrote the introduction based on scholarly more relevant sources, I'm replacing the {{fringe theory}} badge by an {{unbalanced}} badge, so others might further improve the article. PanchoS (talk) 17:16, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

• Completely agree. lt's a disputed theory of lzady rather than an established fact. Thus, the article should be summarized and then redirected to Mehrdad Izady. The author's theory should be mentioned in the author's own article instead of here, a separate article. 46.221.195.12 (talk) 12:03, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

• Last year, I proposed deleting a "Yazidism series" template which unduly presented Yazidism as an undisputed overarching concept. Now it is clear that another influential scholar of this area, Richard Foltz, doesn't follow Izadi's rather bold approach, and particularly opposes an uncritical reception of Izady's theory that tends to misinterpret the theory as established knowledge. On the other hand, not even Foltz disputes the close relation of these religions, and would support many of the asserted common origins. He just wouldn't go as far considering them successors of a single original Yazdani religion.
  Now as I said, the theory is very influential in that area, as it gives a name and a framing to numerous undisputed facts regarding these religions' common Iranian origins. Clearly, there is quite some value in having an article on this important concept, so I don't think we may move the content to the Mehrdad Izady article. To improve balance and depth, we'd rather need more reliable sources, besides Izadi and Foltz, that support (or contradict) the individual assertions, whether subsumed under the working title "Yazdanism" or not. That should be perfectly possible if all sides manage to cooperate on improving the article, instead of pushing and pulling content in and out. --PanchoS (talk) 11:52, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Some egregious contradictions in the article

In the "Reception" section, we find these lines: "Many Kurds insist that they are in fact Muslim[citation needed], in spite of being classified as "Yazdanist" by Izady.[24] Izady does not suggest that the Muslim Kurds are Yazdanis, rather that Yazdani Kurds are not Muslim, and identify themselves as such only to avoid harm and discrimination." So, to recap, Izady classifies Kurds who identify as Muslim as Yazdanist, but Izady does not suggest that Muslim Kurds are Yazdanis. Well, which is it? Either he does or he doesn't. The reference is to a book I don't have access too. Tigercompanion25 (talk) 19:50, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

There are another problems regarding the article. Izady, who introduced the term/neologism "Yazdanism", defines Nusayris as "Yazdanis" too. According to him, Nusayrism is a branch of Yazdanism. However, it is also heavily disputed just like Yazdanism itself. 46.221.232.220 (talk) 08:12, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

@Tigercompanion25: you're misinterpreting the quote which in fact perfectly makes sense. To recap, Izady describes Yazdani Kurds as non-Muslims who however often pretend to be Muslims. He doesn't say all Kurds (publicly) identifying as Muslims were Yazdanis. --PanchoS (talk) 12:28, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

"Insist[ing] that they are in fact Muslim" is not the same thing as "pretending to be Muslim", if you recall the meaning of the word Muslim — one who submits to the will of the Divinity — as the word Islam simply means submission. These Kurds may just be saying that they too (as Yazdanis) submit to the will of Divinity. The Yazidi prayer starts with the same words as the Muslim prayer, after all: "There is no God but God." [La ilaha ila ‘lah] – _•Raven  ^.talk 07:46, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

User:80.2.20.179 Hello, instead of continuously and disruptively editing the article and distorting the content, why don't you check all the sources first? For example Alevism is mentioned in a lot of those references but it seems you're either picking out some specific references to read, disregarding the other ones mentioning Alevism, or it seems you're carelessly skimming through the article instead of actually reading it. The points in that list for instance were not only picked from the Cambridge book, but also the other references that you're ignoring. KurdeEzidi (talk) 21:31, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Okay I read the sources you were right that’s why I corrected the previous edit but it was undone I didn’t be disruptive and I did apologies at your talk page and yes the one in Turkish does mention it to my bad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.2.23.168 (talk) 21:35, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

References

Encyclopedism of the "Difference in practices from Islam" section

What is the argument for this section being encyclopedic? It is a non sequitur. It may as well be followed by "Difference in practices from Judaism," "Difference in practices from Christianity," "Difference in practices from Buddhism," etc. Without establishment of any lineage from Islam (in fact in the opening graf it is described as "pre-Islamic"), the section serves no encyclopedic purpose. I suspect its only reason for existence is because some editor could not comprehend the notion of Middle Easterners having other religions, but that is an affect of that editor, not amenable to the article. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 05:41, 22 June 2024 (UTC)