Talk:Pan-Iranist Party

Untitled
Alright.. the info seems incorrect e.g. Forouhar being the co-founder, I will fix it up later. --K a s h Talk 00:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Pan-Iranist website does not say anything about a "Revenge group" and neither does the book. The party was founded by Forouhar and Pezeshkpour, according to official party literature and the book "Hezb-e-Pan-Iranist". Etemad 12:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Thats incorrect. Forouhar joined later. The revenge group was an underground organization not known to many. I am using the latest and most complete book on the matter, "50 years history of the Pan-Iranists" written by Naser Entegha who joined the party at the same time of Forouhar. There was a Forouhar who was one of the first members but it was not Darius Forouhar and not related to him --K a s h Talk 12:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I have never heard of the "Revenge group" or know of its connection to PIP but it is impossible for Forouhar not to have been one of the founding members. In every book and document I have read his name is listed alongside Pezeshkpour as the two who started the PIP, and Forouhar is always credited as being the only one to stay true to Pan-Iranism movement. Etemad 14:25, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, if you read the official statement on their history: you wont see Darius Forouhar as one of the founders --K a s h  Talk 12:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the website has changed its position on this a few times. The Forouhar and Pezeshkpour factions always fought with each other but after Forouhar's murder at the hands of Said Imami (ordered by Rafsanjani) they seemed to try to get along for awhile. But I guess now the Pezeshkpour has decided to return to its old ways. He has no shame. Not only is he a sell-out to the movement but he is intentionally trying to play down Forouhar's role in the movement. Motassefaneh. At least Forouhar will always be remembered by people as the most important and loyal Pan-Iranist who has ever lived and no one has yet been able to do better than him. Beh yadegareh Sarvar Forouhar, Khoda biamorz. Etemad 14:25, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Look..the article is no where finished. It will have complete details of Forouhars involvement as leader with Pezeshkpour. However Forouhar was not one of the founders --K a s h Talk 14:30, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The book "Hezb-e-Pan-Iranist" and many articles (search on google, including iranian.com) disagrees with you about that. Many sources say he is one of two original founders. What this new source you are talking about sounds like an attempt by Pezeshkpour faction to downplay Forouhars position and revise the history. Did the author remain with Pezeshkpour? That would explain everything. Etemad 14:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * No I don't think so. This book claims that there has been a lot of non-sense about Pan-Iranism before and this puts it all straight. Naser Engheta is quite respectable author, editor for the Iranshahr newspaper for years and I doubt that this was done under influence of Pezeshkpour. It is a very detailed book. What do you mean, did the author remain with Pezeshkpour? I don't think they were married..! But I will investigate more --K a s h Talk 14:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * But you cannot judge which one is correct. Ali Razmjoo says one thing, this Naser person says another. Married? Thats funny, but what is meant is that did this person remain allied with Pezeshkpour when the party split occured? I am certain 100% that he is supporter of Pezeshkpour since up until this book you are talking about no one has ever written that Forouhar was not a co-founder of the party. You are still very young and you can be forgiven for easily believing these lies, but if you research further you will discover that Forouhar was in fact the cofounder and the one who saved the Pan-Iranist movement since Pezeshkpour and his friends like Engheta were not only pro-Shah but never did a single thing to help their country or people when Forouhar and his group always sacrificed all for the movement, and in the end with his and his wifes lives. It was Forouhar who was harassed and imprisoned by Shahs regime while Pezeshkpour was living in the lap of luxury kissing Shahs hand, it was Forouhar who helped with the provisional government with Bazargan and did everything he could to stop the mullahs from taking over while Pezeshkpour and his friends fled the country (!), it was Forouhar who helped the war effort and even sent his son to the front! There is no one in recent memory who was more nationalist than him and that is why they murdered him. Forouhar never sold out and never compromised himself to be on good terms with the mullah regime while Pezeshkpour wrote a letter of apology to Khamenei and proclaimed his allegiance to Islamic Republic! The history speaks for itself. Etemad 18:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * This is unrelevant my friend. First thing you have to do is bring about your exact sources and quotes so I can verify them, not just "search google and read that book", and then we will see. Secondly if this quite respectable book which I have here and the official website both claim the same thing, perhaps your source was incorrect not mine, so it is you who has to provide sources for your claims. Thirdly what has my age got to do with anything? Fourthly, I liked Forouhar and the book has nothing anti-Forouhar in it and infact explains well that Forouhar simply couldn't work with Pezeshkpour so he left and set up Hezbe Mellat, I can't see any relevance of what Pezeshkpour has done for Shah or people of Iran and who founded this party. Forouhar was a great man but maybe he wasn't one of the founders this party, Lol don't worry your self too much and bring exact sources so I can verify them myself. No big deal. Payandeh Iran --K a s h Talk 00:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Requested move
Pan-Iranist Party → Pan-Iranist party – capital is not needed?

Survey

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

Support --K a s h Talk 00:11, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose as it seems that Pan-Iranist Party is the correct title. --Zoz (t) 14:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * ..How does it "seem" like that? --K a s h Talk 17:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It seems because most ghits have "Party" and naming convention suggests that too (e.g. Labour Party). --Zoz (t) 18:03, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah it seems like a mix bag but thats cool. Thanks, --K a s h Talk 18:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Add any additional comments


 * I seriously doubt the sense of this move. Should we move Labour Party to Labour party? It's a party's official name, and as such capitalised. Unless you've got a good reason why this should be an exception, I won't move it. &mdash; Nightst a  llion  (?) 12:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't understand how Labour Party is spelled is necessary the way everyother party should be spelt like, but if thats the norm, sure. Nevermind --K a s h Talk 17:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Nightstallion. Etemad 18:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Result: page not moved. Eugène van der Pijll 21:54, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Revenge-group.jpg
The image Image:Revenge-group.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --07:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Bahraini Arabs fleeing to Iran
The article speaks of "a large number of Bahraini Iranian Arabs who wished to remain with Iran, being forced to leave" Bahrain. There is no documentation. And "a large number" is entirely vague. Could we have some light shed on this? QLineOrientalist (talk) 21:05, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Historical ideology vs current ideology
The fascist and nationalist ideologies are mentioned in the context of the 1940s and 1950s. We need some really good sources to present it as such in contemporaneous times, as such stuff literally contradicts later aspects of the article. - LouisAragon (talk) 14:55, 19 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Currently fascism is not mentioned in the body, but heavily features in the categories. Categories should be verifiable via text in body. So we either need to add cited content to body or remove those categories. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:24, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Far right elements
The party appears to have legimate examples of far right elements (the flag resembles the nazi flag) and was historically chauvinist and ultranationalist, which is generally a common trait of far right ideologies and movements. Should any mentions of these be put into the article? Firekong1 (talk) 21:19, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Are there any sources that consider it a far-right party in the present day or in the past? A source containing those exact words is required, especially in the context of a party that has quite drastically changed ideologies throughout its existence. - LouisAragon (talk) 00:52, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I’m not referring to the modern iteration of the party, rather the historical incarnation of the party when it may have possibly been a genuine fascist movement. Firekong1 (talk) 14:08, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * According to sources I've found, it was considered "right-wing" in the 1950s and 1960s. (Milani, p. 185, The Shah, and Farsoun & Mashayekhi, Iran: Political Culture in the Islamic Republic, p. 59) However I've also found a source that calls it an "ultranationalistic organization" within the context of the 1950s (Abrahamian, Iran Between Two Revolutions p. 258). Lastly, the Routledge Handbook of Persian Gulf Politics refers to it within that timeframe as a "radical nationalist group" I suggest adding "far-right" to the already-existing "right-wing", thereby turning it into "Historical: right-wing, far-right". Thoughts? - LouisAragon (talk) 01:18, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Sure, that sounds good. I'll edit it in right away. Firekong1 (talk) 09:09, 31 October 2023 (UTC)