Talk:Shikand-gumanig Vizar

	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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Religious texts (defunct)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religious texts, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Religious textsWikipedia:WikiProject Religious textsTemplate:WikiProject Religious textsReligious texts

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[History of Armenia#Christianized Arsacid dynasty|Armenia]] The anchor (#Christianized Arsacid dynasty) is no longer available because it was deleted by a user before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

POV and OR

In the section on Islam, 20th century scholar Maulana Muhammad Ali is cited. In the section on Judaism, The Book of Job is cited. Both are given, essentially, as rebuttals to Mardan-Farrukh's critique of these two religions. This is absolutely unacceptable. No source states that either of these "apologists" was responding to Mardan-Farrukh. This article should be about this specific treatise (and possibly about specific responses to it, if there had been any). Any addition explaining what representatives of the criticized religions might have responded is speculative (WP:Original Research, see specifically Synthesis of published material that advances a position), irrelevant, and a way for the editor to covertly defend their preferred theological position (WP:POV). And it is made particularly absurd by the fact that these religions are extremely dominant, so they certainly don't need their point of view to be defended in this article as well. --91.148.159.4 (talk) 23:10, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The strong emotional charge evident in the above "POV and OR" is palpable. Such emotions, here taken as genuine, should be respected for what they are worth. For despite bringing a great deal of heat they may also generate a share of light. Often such emotions originate elsewhere, and inappropriate freight may cause confusion, exaggerations, and misreadings.

That the above "POV and OR" seems to advance a strong point of view of its own may be inferred from its initial mischaracterization of the article's effort to discuss with neutrality competing POVs as instead a partisan effort at "rebuttal". Yet its own strong POV is expresslly revealed in its last sentence.

Yet the above does, nonetheless, convey its share of light. However difficult of execution, in all its aspects a Wikipedia article should clearly appear to give due regard to ALL relevant points of view. Accordingly, significant additions have been made to one of the sections that is the subject of the above complaint, and major changes in the other section are in the process of being made. It is hoped that the results of these efforts will improve the article. Elfelix (talk) 19:35, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:23, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]