body.skin-vector-2022 .mw-parser-output .skiptotalk,body.mw-mf .mw-parser-output .skiptotalk{display:none}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a{display:block;text-align:center;font-style:italic;line-height:1.9}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::before,.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::after{content:"↓";font-size:larger;line-height:1.6;font-style:normal}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::before{float:left}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::after{float:right}Skip to table of contents

References[edit]

I'm not commenting on context but there is huge contrast between English and azari or so called "turkje" pages. so do not rely on Wikipedia for this term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.121.68.97 (talk) 08:24, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, where's the information in this article coming from? AucamanTalk 02:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Much of it is Azeri Turk propaganda and lies. Etemad 04:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Provide sources for your edits first. Your claim is ridiculous, what is exactly "Azeri Turk propoganda" in the article?! --K a s h Talk | email 10:19, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have provided link. What is "Azeri Turk propaganda"? You should know better than anyone since you are Azeri Turk (pictures do not lie). Etemad 09:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
1- I am not "Azeri Turk". 2- Aziers are not ethnic Turk. 3- See WP:AGF, unless you provide what is propoganda, your POV about everything does not belong to this encyclopedia. Your statement about founder of Pan-Iranist being "ethnic turk" is hilarious perhaps you should reconsider your edits here and discuss them here first. "Iranian.com" is not an academic and reliable source, see WP:V not that it had anything to do with the article in the first place. --K a s h Talk | email 10:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What you think the name "Afshar" is? Persian?! No, its Turk. I forgot to mention that Razmjoo is also Azeri Turk. The more investigation is done the more is shown that Pan-Iranism movement has been taken over by Azeri Turks who have this agenda of "Turkification". Your friend "Engheta" also sounds like a Turk name. Etemad 19:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have 99.9% certainty that the above poster is Oslonor (who himself is a Turkish nationalist posing as a Persian and spreading anti-Azari disinformation). He has a history of this behaviour. Weareconcerned 09:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Pashtuns are part of Iranians?? LMAO we have our own culture, language, and religion. Get the hell outta here with you made up crap. Downnnnnnnn with pan iranism!

Actually pashtuns are Iranians in the language sense. It is your fault that you do not know what Iranian means here. 22:14, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Iranian plateau[edit]

I would suggest to Pejman47 that he check the definition of plateau. Additionally, claiming Arran and Armenia, both part of the Caucasus, as part of the plateau is just plain silly. The actual article on the Iranian plateau needs a lot of work, so don't rely on that for your education on the matter. Atashparast 22:29, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with Iranian plateau is just that you don't like it. If you think it has wrong infos Try correcting it first. --Pejman47 23:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with the article is that it is factually incorrect. The other problem is that you and a few others here seem to have a nationalistic point-of-view. Wikipedia is not here to promote Pan-Iranism or any other such ideology. Atashparast 01:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless, when there is a dispute you should discuss your changes first. Especially when you're making such major changes. --Behnam 06:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is not actually part of the Iranian plateau, but traditionally Iranian languages were spoken there (Tati, Talysh, Azeri) So it was historically part of Iran sometimes. The text may not be accurate, but stop $i&@hing about minor details. 22:20, 18 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.183.124.240 (talk)

Some other facts[edit]

Yes according to a popular theory Croats belive that they stem from ancient Iranian tribes (Sramathians most probably), the same theory says more or less that also Serbs and Bosnians are from this tribe. see this http://www.magma.ca/~rendic/chapter1.htm there dozens of srticles and books about this. A Romanian friend also once told me that there is a theory that the ancient Dacians of Romania were Iranians. I have not read it anywere but it makes sense, because as Ukraine (Scythia) was an Iranian land and they were also found in the Balkans so Romania most probably has been too. Also remember when Darius went to fight with the Scythians (Iranians) he crossed Danube (the border between the contemporary Bulgaria and Romania), while if there were no Scythians (Iranians) in Romania, then he could attack the scythians Via Central Asia or the Caucasus! He also pointed to some artifacts of Dacians which resembled those of Scythians. Anyway. Another people who you should not forget are the Jaszy of Hungary. As the name suggests they are releated to the Ossetians. In fact they are Alans who entered this region (Central Hungary). They have already forgotten their language but are still or (were for a long time) aware of their ethnicity. It is debated whether or not Armenians are Iranians. The Armenian language is very close to the Iranian languages. Things are similar which could not be said that they are taken over from (other) Iranian languages. Most probably Armenian is a separate branch of the Iranian languages (next to the west eg. persian, Kurdish etc... and East eg. Ossetian, Pamir etc...). Addinf to that the Armenian aristocracy and kings have been of parthian origins. So You can consider them as Iranian peoples or not. Most Armenians however do not like to be related to Iranians and a lot I have encountered are very hostile to Iranians. The main reason is the religiosu difference, not knowing that Ossetians (who do not deny their Iranianness)are also Orthodox Christians. Having said this Georgians who are a Kartvelian people have assimilated many ossetians (Alans) in them. Moreover the georgian ancient kings and aristocracy have been of Parthian origins too. So maybe you can only mention this without listing it. Babakexorramdin 12:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Babakexorramdin, this isn't a blog, but public encyclopedia. Claiming that Azeris and Uzbeks are partially or fully of Iranian descent is not a serious scholarly claim, it's merely an irredentist nationalist indoctrination and pure WP:OR. Reasserting this WP:POV, while claiming that Pan-Iranism was ethnically and linguistically inclusive and solely concerned with territorial nationalism, rather than ethnic or racial nationalism is inconsistent: 1) The map on the page is not based on any territorial nationalism, but ethno-racial nationalism; 2) If pan-Iranism is "ethnically and linguistically inclusive", why Armenians are not claimed as part of it. In fact, I am surprised that Armenia is not listed under Template:History of Greater Iran, while essentially being part of territory covered by "Pan-Iranism". Atabəy (talk) 21:45, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

recent edits[edit]

Mr.TrustWorthy----Got Something to Tell Me? 14:46, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 – No further discussion has taken place

I re-reverted this Atabay. I think the reference to those with problems concerning ethnicity and things like that are not good additions. I particularly find the sentence on Nazi infuence really bothering. Also the addition Pan Iranism aimed to "prove that the Azarbaijanis were Iranian by race" is just strange. It is of no interest to find sources for this "desperately tried aim to find analogue" in this context that Iranian race is the subject of Pan-Iranism. The reason: just the name "pan-Iranism" which would make no sense if "racism" is involved. That region of world is not single raced. Pleasse keep wikipedia an encyclopaedia. Also there is no single "reason" to believe that anybody here talks about race.--Xashaiar (talk) 00:26, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Xashaiar, have you even observed how many references you removed from the article? [1]. Those edits were not only on pan-Iranism-Nazism and irredentism connection but also in general on Mahmud Afshar, his quote on national identity, etc. This is just a simple example of how much nationalistic editing can be blind, counter productive and damaging to encyclopedia. I will pursue this further through the Wiki boards. Atabəy (talk) 00:45, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. But talking about Nazi influence and Racism is not what really makes sense here. it is of no interest how many sources "you can find" that supports these non-sense. None of your sources ar "top scholars of Iranian studies", and you are confusing the purpose of WP:POV. On Afshar you are right. But this is what talk page is about. I will restore Afshar comments.--Xashaiar (talk) 00:55, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On a second thought, I guess the following addition of Atabay that the anger caused after seeing his "racism, nazi, ..." related additions in this edit of Atabay made me delete it and then re-added. But I think there are some problems with it so my first action was fine: The addition was
In the early 1920s, Dr. Mahmud Afshar Yazdi (1893-1983), who was a European-educated Iranian political scientist[1] (himself of Turkic Afshar[2] descent and father of Iraj Afshar) introduced the Pan-Iranist ideology as a concept of national unity[3] in reaction against the rising tide of Pan-Turkism and Pan-Arabism, which were seen as potential threats to the territorial integrity of Iran. In 1926, Afshar wrote the following in his "Ayandeh" (The Future) magazine: "National unity is today one of the most important international questions and realities. Whether we want it or not, in the future our nation will enter this political current, and this reality will one day became the mainstay of our state politics, as it has become the axiom of most states, especially the Ottoman state. Every politician must be well aware of this because national unity is the common border between domestic and foreign policy".
The quote is fine, but I have problem with "introduced the Pan-Iranist ideology" and "potential threats to the territorial integrity of Iran" and "concept of national unity". These are not correct and atabay's totally wrong re-interpretation of the quote. This can not be allowed. Also:
Unlike similar movements of the time in other countries, Pan-Iranism was ethnically and linguistically inclusive and solely concerned with territorial nationalism, rather than ethnic or racial nationalism. [4]
This looks fine but then what is "territorial nationalism" in here?
but I wonder if attabay wants this then why adding his racism, nazi related things. This is confusing.--Xashaiar (talk) 01:08, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Xashaiar, first of all please, WP:AGF and WP:NPA. Regarding your revert, the differences in our edits is that mine are based on references(!) which I presented in the article, I never write a single sentence without a source; while yours is based on an emotional outbreak of opinion. Who are the "top scholars on Iranian studies"? Those who proclaim the unscholarly nonsense that Azeris or Uzbeks are Persian? Is this why we are contributing to encyclopedia? Not even Encyclopedia Iranica can claim such a theory! Please, refrain from emotions, review the edits and discuss the issue. If Pan-Iranism first appeared in 1920s as a theory of national unity, and later in 1940s under the well established cooperation of Reza Shah with Hitler was influenced by Nazism, there is nothing wrong with saying it. It's a historical fact, in fact, it's also the reason why Reza Shah was forced to abdicate by U.S., Britain and USSR, exactly because he was very sympathetic of Nazi Germany and its ideology. There is nothing surprising in Azerbaijani connection either, because pan-Iranism was aimed at establishing a mono-Iranian identity, where "Turkic" word didn't quite fit. Precisely why in 1920s, there were some political figures like Ahmad Kasravi (a poet, not a historian), who relentlessly tried to prove that Azeris are not linked to any other (Turkic, Caucasian) but solely to Iranian identity. So it was essentially a revision of history based on political thought of the time. I think bringing these facts, only strengthens the encyclopedic article, rather than hiding it. You can't hide something that's published in books, even if it's not here, it will come up somewhere else anyway. So why damage the encyclopedia and waste the work of others by such blind reverts? Atabəy (talk) 01:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And you're not supposed to remove tags (the POV tag was removed) in the article without consensus upon the issue, especially when references are present. It could be considered an act of WP:VANDALISM. Atabəy (talk) 01:25, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
which tag:fact was not necessary. about POV tag, according to rules first you have to explain explicitly what you are concerened about, then add it.--Xashaiar (talk) 01:44, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wait a minute. 1. Now I am confused about the diffs. Are you telling me you did not "repeated" information on Afshar? 2. There is no emotion here. It is just non-sense to connect pan-iranism with RACE. Just see the name Iran. 3. Yes you had source, but according to what we have to add "anytrhing that is published"? (WP:CITE WP:POV). 4. THERE IS NOTHING LIKE NAZI GERMANY in pan-iranism. It is a fact. 5. you say "There is nothing surprising in Azerbaijani connection either, because pan-Iranism was aimed at establishing a mono-Iranian identity, where "Turkic" word didn't quite fit." This is your ideology that "some fit, some don't" It is just strange to claim anything like that about "Iranian". No WP:SYNTH please: That is "do not look for source for your own theory, and then add it". Read WP:SYNTH. 6. you say "Ahmad Kasravi (a poet, not a historian), who relentlessly tried to prove that Azeris are not linked to any other (Turkic, Caucasian) but solely to Iranian identity." you are not even wrong. Who told you these? 7. "revision of history" is some others' experties. Ahmad kasravi's approach was very scholarly. 8. you say "So why damage the encyclopedia and waste the work of others by such blind reverts?" who is damaging wikipedia? I guess WP:SYNTH and deliberately introducing factual errors.--Xashaiar (talk) 01:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Xashaiar, yes, Afshar tribe is of Oghuz Turkic origin, which is why the references from ENCYCLOPEDIA IRANICA is relevant there. Again my comments and edits are based on references, not on emotional reactions:

This is international source, not my theory. Atabəy (talk) 01:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The accepted theory about the reason behind the ideology of pan-Iranism is "unity and race independent". How many source you want for this? (this, and that should tell you the "purpose of Pan-Iranism" as completely different than your analogue). Facts speak for themselves here. The most active pan-iranists are/were those that "atabay calls above un-fit". Please note that the ideology on the turkish part is "by almost all scholars" is classified as "facist". Yourself said that below, right? So please do not do WP:SYNTH. If you think the article is not neutral, fine, then write here the section you are concerned about and then add your tags. Add as many as you want. Also note that I think the reason why you want to add "your theory" about pan-Iranism comes from 1000s of sources that prove racist, nazi-style, facist nature of Pan-turkism (1, 2 for the general purpose of pan-turkism and for pan-turkism=facism and its actual relation with nazism. Please also note that even tody the remain of that ideology is there.) --Xashaiar (talk) 01:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I'm amazed you were capable of finding that reference. Since you seemed completely lost when it came to Arpaslan Turkes' racist views! --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:26, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't proclaimed pan-Iranism as neo-fascism or ultra-nationalism in my edit, as it's done by some editors on Alparslan Türkeş in violation of WP:WEASEL and WP:POV. Although the pattern of pan-Iranist irredentism isn't any different to avoid the qualification except for its established acceptance of Nazi ideals. Most importantly, my edit was based on sources, and I left the interpretations inside the references. Thanks. Atabəy (talk) 01:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's all the fuss about here? You guys should devote all this energy on pages about ideologies that matter. As far as I know pan-Iranism is fringe ideology, without a documented history, and hardly any supporters or activities these days, unlike, lets say Pan-Turkism which is a major ideology, with lots of supporters and activities, even in the western world, as some pan-Turkists recently held a conference in the United States [2]. One just needs to look at their irredentist maps... --Kurdo777 (talk) 01:48, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good point Kurdo77. However, there are some corrections to be made with regards to some unsound claims about pan-Iranism (which has no state backing and is not a real movement) by another users. 1) First USSR authorless sources cannot be used as they even made funny claims that stating facts about Iranian characters and calling them Iranian/Persian (like they are in standard Western literature) is pan-Iranism (Avicenna, major poets and writers) and etc. USSR sources are inherently biased and anti-Iranian when it comes to politics and they even silenced authors based on this claim. 2) Rezashah was not a pan-Iranist. He was criticized by pan-Iranist for helping Ataturk in suppression of Kurdish rebellions and still is criticized till this day. He had excellent relationship with Ataturk and were best of buddies but went against one of the criticial Iranian peoples, which is Kurds. Some of his ideas might have overlapped with pan-Iranism but so does for example some of the ideas of other political parties and groups. Interestingly enough, he was half Azerbaijani and married an an Azerbaijani. 3) Mohammad Reza Shah jailed pan-Iranists specially since many pan-Iranists supported Mossadaq. Probably the biggest pan-Iranist Dariush Foruhar. He was also opposed by pan-Iranists on Bahrain.

So overall Pahalvids cannot be called pan-Iranist and whoever is making such an absurd claim is not following correct history.

4) The Islamic republic and its founder Khomeini has been quoted several times in condemning pan-Iranism, pan-Turkism, pan-Arabis. Also the late Dariush Foruhar was killed by the IRI ministry. And what must agree that the current Ayatollah Khamaenei is not a pan-Iranist by any strech of imagination!

5) Unlike what Atabek claims however, "pan-Turanism and Nazism", and "pan-Turkism and Nazism" give a good amount of google book hits and of admiration, support and etc. Indeed 359 results ended with Pan-Turkism and Nazism. Pan-Iranism and Nazism only got 16.

As one of the multitude examples of pan-Turkism and Nazism, we will simply look at the two google book hits with this regard out of the multitudes:

Jacob M. Landau, "Radical Politics in Modern Turkey", BRILL, 1974. pg 194: "In the course of Second World War, various circles in Turkey absorbed Nazi propaganda; these were pro-German and admired Nazism, which they grasped as a doctrine of warlike dynamism and a source of national inspiration, on which to base their pan-Turkic and anti-Soviet ideology"

John M. VanderLippe , "The politics of Turkish democracy", SUNY Press, 2005. "A third group was lead by Nihal Atsiz, who favored a Hitler style haircut and mustache, and advocated racist Nazi doctorine"

Interestingly enough, these books are written by experts on Turkey. Where-as a book on "The problem of Greater Baluchistan", is not written by an expert on Iranian topics.

Pan-Turkism/pan-Turanism and terns like Separatism, irredentism, fascism, genocide, racism give a good amount of google book hits. If one does google books searches, one gets lots of his on "Pan-Turkism and Genocide", "pan-Turanism and Genocide", "Greek Genocide and pan-Turkism", "Armenian Genocide and pan-Turkism", "Assyrian Genocide and pan-Turkism"(one can subsitute pan-Turkism with pan-Turanism here as well)pan-Turkist attitude towards Armenians, Greeks, Kurds, Zazas, Yezidis, Assyrians in Turkey, pan-Turkist ideology under Elchibey and its attitude towards Lezgins, Talysh, Kurds, Armenians in the republic of Azerbaijan and pan-Turkist attitudes towards Tajiks in Uzbekistan. "Pan-Turkism and MHP", "Fascism and MHP" and etc gets a lot of hits as well.

One should also note that google books "Pan-Iranism and Genocide" gets nothing/zero/nada hits but Pan-Turkism and Genocide gets 373 hits and pan-Turanism and Genocide gets 109 hits. It is not 1 hit, but a total of near 500 hits. Of course now there is also active pan-Turkist movements in Turkey (MHP is one of them), Caucasian Azerbaijan and other places. But there is really no active pan-Iranist movement. The Encyclopedia of Genocide and crimes against humanity: "This would include Nazi biological racism, the Pan-Turkism and organic nationalism of the Young Turks, the radical Maoism of the Khmer Rouge"(Dinah Sehlton, "Encyclopedia of genocide and crimes against humanity", Volume 1, Macmillan Reference, 2005). But when it comes to Pan-Iranism and Genocide, it gets zero google books hit and instead google books says: "Did you mean: pan-arabism genocide ". So the comparisons are not the same at all.

But to claim Reza Shah was pan-Iranist is an absurd statement. Pan-Iranist Mahmud Afshar explicitly went against the government for their lack of help towards Kurds in Northern Kurdistan and criticized Reza Shah with this regard. Reza Shah was friendly with Ataturk and actually helped him against the Kurdish insurrection in Turkey (which goes against the philosophy of pan-Iranism).

As per Reza Shah and Nazis, it has no relationship to pan-Iranism. Both the USSR (Russia) and Britian were historically playing the role of near-colonizer in Iran and he saw it as a way to breakup their influence. It was a legacy of the Qajar era, and Russia and Britian were seen as an agressive power throughout Iran's last two centuries of history. So Reza Shah wanted to reduce their influence by trying to befriend Nazi Germany. At the same time , this was before the Holacaust had surfaed. Iran accepted lots of Jewish refugees (once news of the holacaust surfaced) and gave Visa to many of them. So simply POV statements without considering these facts are not enteratined.

As per Kasravi, he is not a poet, but a historian that has been quoted and commended by the giants of the field like of Frye, Minorsky, etc. "Historian Kasravi" and "Historian Ahmad Kasravi" total gets about 90 hits in google books. However "Poet Kasravi" and "Poet Ahmad Kasravi" gets zero hits. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 01:36, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kurdo, this is the page about Pan-Iranism, not Pan-Turkism. I agree with you that Pan-Iranism is a fringe theory, but I am not sure why you're arguing about Pan-Turkism on the talk page of Pan-Iranism to justify the major revert and removal of references on this page. And I am not sure why Nepaheshgar speaks of Pan-Turanism or Genocide on pan-Iranism page, desperately trying to protect this fringe theory from being exposed with neo-Nazi ideology or Pan-Iranist (party) pro-Hitler sentiments.
Speaking of genocide, I shall remind Nepaheshgar about the cultural and linguistic genocide that is taking place in Iran, under the influence of an ill-formulated pan-Iranist neofascism and historical fabrication which now claims Azeris and Uzbeks are Persian! But that's a subject of different discussion. Atabəy (talk) 16:43, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kurdo77 did not revert. And Xashiyar removed a fringe source from a USSR authorless source from 1953. As per "desperate", I think that is you who tried desperately say pan-Turkism had no influence from Nazism(your own word: Although the pattern of pan-Iranist irredentism isn't any different to avoid the qualification except for its established acceptance of Nazi ideals) but it was shown otherwise from actual academic sources and not some fringe USSR source. And unlike your sources, the sources connecting pan-Turkism to Nazism (something you denied) is written from books on the subject itself unlike your random sources. As per cultural genocide you might want to see what was done to Armenian monuments in Naxchivan and the situation of minorities in other countries before throwing stones while being in glass houses. No one claims Azeris or Uzbeks are Persians. So either you misread it or you are forging lies. The claim was they had a Iranic heritage and this is mentioned by Gumilev, Frye, Swietchowski and etc and not some neo-Nazi of pan-Iranists as you desperately claim. And "you shall remind" nothing because "cultural and linguistic genocide" is your own fabrication not found in Western academic sources and has no source from google books, but a product of sick imaginations. Unlike that of Turkey with Kurds, Armenians, Greeks, Assyrians or Lezgins, Talysh in the republic of Azerbaijan (interesting how official statistics claims there was more Talysh 100 years ago then now), nothing of you speaking has not taken place in Iran on such level. If anything, long before the Turkification of Azerbaijan, the area spoke Iranian languages, and part of the reason for its erasure was constant attacks and demolition of cities and towns by foreign invaders. So leave your desperate attempts to make hyperbole for somewhere else like a forum. I am not here do discuss minorities in various countries in the region, it is poor throughout, but the term genocide gets near 500 hits with pan-Turkism and the term genocide gets zero hits with pan-Iranism. So your statement that they are similar is false. The comments on pan-Turkism was started by yourself as you wanted to do a comparison and say it was free of Nazi influence. Your statement: ". Although the pattern of pan-Iranist irredentism isn't any different to avoid the qualification except for its established acceptance of Nazi ideals". I showed you were wrong and brought sources. So don't bring modern politics to it. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 17:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nepaheshgar, your recent edits devoting a portion of article to pan-Turkism as expressed in writings of Turcophobic Pan-Iranist writer Touraj Atabaki are irrelevant and unacceptable. Is this article about pan-Turkism? How does this relate to subject of the article, pan-Iranism - an irredentist, at times neo-Nazi, based on racist concept of Aryanism, political ideology used only in Iranian context? Atabəy (talk) 01:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Watch WP:OWN and Atabaki is a well sourced and respected scholar. And pan-Iranism was developed by Iranian Azerbaijanis as a reaction to genocidal, at times neo-nazi, pan-Turkist irredentism (as exemplified by various genocides such as Armenian, Assyrian, Greek genocides in Anatolia) on Iranian lands. So the reaction part is mentioned by Atabaki. Hence if there was no pan-Turkism then there would be no pan-Iranism as a defensive measure and it is vital to mention for why pan-Iranism developed in the first place. Pan-Iranism comes much later than pan-Turkism/pan-Arabism. Also you can't call a writer "Turcophobic pan-Iranist" without reliable 3rd party sources or else it is non-sourced personal opinion which means it has no worth in Wikipedia. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 01:55, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After the constitutional revolution in Iran, a romantic nationalism was adopted by Azerbaijani Democrats as a reaction to the pan-Turkist irredentist policies emanating from modern Turkey and threatening Iran’s territorial integrity - outstanding "scholarship" from Atabaki! :) Constitutional revolution of Iran was in 1906, Azerbaijani Democrats came to power in 1918, modern Turkey was established in 1923 and Ottoman army left Iran before that. So I am not sure how Azerbaijani Democrats of 1918 could adopt romantic nationalism emanating from something that was established in 1923, in order to lay claims before that. What a nonsense. Pan-Iranism is not a defensive measure, it's very much an aggressive irredentist doctrine, which expressed itself in form of a cultural genocide against minorities in Iran. For more, read Aryanism and World War II, with some 54 million victims of the ideology. And people thought Hitler was last...Atabəy (talk) 02:08, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is foremost disgusting and above all unrelated to think of any actual relationship between "Iran" and "Aryanism (i.e. Aryan race). Education is a good thing. A laptop has nothing to do with a toplessness. If wikipedia is going to be a place to fight people with this level of understanding, then wikipedia is nothing but a virtual kindergarten.--Xashaiar (talk) 10:06, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments are for WP:forum and WP:soap. Not wikipedia. Hitler was not a pan-Iranist. If you find a source that says he was or that any Iranian was involved in the German army fighting, please enlighten us. Meanwhile, if you look at google books, genocide and pan-Turkism/pan-Turanism gets 500 hits. Genocide (cultural genocide) and pan-Iranism gets zero and so it is your baseless opinion, which is not worth zilch in Wikipedia unless backed by academic sources (which is not). As per modern Turkey, that was not Atabaki. I wrote that meaning the land that is now modern Turkey. Also incase you did not know, Atabaki means Azerbaijanui democrats who lead the constitutional revolution, not the Azerbaijani democrats of 1918 in the Caucasus.  :-) --Nepaheshgar (talk) 02:18, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a small note: while the name "Turkey" (derived from Latin "Turcia") was in fact used in Europe for Anatolia since at least the 13th century, it was practically unknown in Anatolia as people did not identify themselves as "Turks". All of it began with the rise of an ethno-centric Turkish nationalism in the middle of the 19th century, being boosted by the rise of Young Turks ... something that a few decades later lead to the mass-murder of 1,5 million Armenians and thousands of Assyrians, Greeks, and other Non-Turks in the Ottoman empire. Tajik (talk) 09:42, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's interesting how the discussion on Pan-Iranism sourced in Aryanism and neo-Nazi doctrine of Adolf Hitler is diverted in the direction of completely irrelevant and unrelated Pan-Turkism, once more confirming my assertion about Turcophobic and propagandistic nature of edits on this page. Sorry this isn't a neo-Nazi discussion forum, but encyclopedia, so please stick to discussing sources that you purge out of the article.Atabəy (talk) 18:50, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look you are turning this into a BATTLE. I urge an admin to help you with comments like "sourced in Aryanism and neo-Nazi doctrine of Adolf Hitler". It is getting annoying. People have answered you, the history is a clear answer to you. I want to delete this section of talk page if others agree.--Xashaiar (talk) 20:10, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That might eb a good idea (the admin part). Remember, we do not want any other user to degenerate to the level where they would get a poor wikipedia record. However, I point out that some of his sources had major flaws. One was the authorless USSR source (in association with USSR as the source says), so it cannot be used automatically (Central Asian Research Centre). There is no author or anything. USSR sources have called many things to do with Iran and Iranian history as "Pan-Iranism". The other source: "Under the influence of Nazi Germany, Raza Shah started the movement of Pan-Iranism". Simply wrong. Pan-Iranism was started by Afshar and Afshar has criticized Reza Shah's cooperation with Ataturk. The first person to use such a term is Afshar. Also If Reza Shah started the pan-Iranist movement (and not Afshar), then there needs to be very reliable Western sources stating what date and when he started the movement. Already by the end of WWII, he was deposed. It has been already established by the sources that Afshar started pan-Iranism and also since Reza Shah was actually nearly illiterate and not an intellectual, the sentence is wrong. Connecting Reza Shah to pan-Iranism does not make sense when he was criticized for his close relationship to Ataturk. One can find the main pan-Iranist journal Ayandeh which makes such a critism. The only source somewhat "valid" from might be the irredentist part (like an pan movement is) however one can equally put in the intro that pan-Iranism is a defensive movement against X or Y or it is a XYZ movement or etc. So the introduction should not have such an information and only in the body of the text, one should insert various viewpoints. Thus Xashiyar's edits are fully justified with regards to the chronology of the historical events. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 20:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please, explain this to admins. And add that your revert is in response to Pan-Turkism, that's truly "a justification" :) I always base my edits on sources, thus I hope the administrators pay attention to the fact that this article along with many others is being deliberately turned into an pan-Iranian propaganda piece, disseminating WP:POV and WP:OR, false irredentist and racist political views in place of neutral sources, replacing 7 different sources with single source from pan-Iranist POV scholar Touraj Atabaki, devoting half of the page to WP:UNDUE reference. Just compare the quality of my edit and after your reverts. This is not what encyclopedia is about. Atabəy (talk) 22:23, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Everything you wanted to "add" has been re-added as I explained above. I just removed your unjustifiable edits. You are trying to find sources that no Iranian scholar has ever thought about them. Your sources are listed above, which one is written by a scholar of Iranian studies? Which one is not disputed? Which one was not used to perform a WP:SYNTH? Which one is from mainstream? The answer to all is "none". Do you dispute this? Then read the current article. Every claim in this article can be sourced by 100s more sources. It is enough to use main Encyclopaedias. Just show us one sentence in this article that you think is not main stream and I will have no problem to find alternative sources. Your edits here and everywhere else (as far as I see) is WP:SYNTH in its worst sense: read the above responses. Once again, Just show us one sentence in this article that you think is not main stream. According to WP:POV (:"The article should represent the POVs of the main scholars and specialists who have produced reliable sources on the issue.") this is the way wikipedia works.--Xashaiar (talk) 22:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reference of Full Professor Touraj Atabak of a major European university is about modern Iranian nationalism. As per your title for him, it is baseless. However some of your sources where authorless, and some of them were wrong (If Afshar started pan-Iranism then RezaShah who was not a theoretician did not). Simple as that. Xashiyar is right about using sources related to the subject itself. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 23:11, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Abrahamian, Ervand (1982). Iran Between Two Revolutions. Princeton University Press. p. 123. ISBN 0691101345, ISBN 9780691101347. ((cite book)): Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  2. ^ Oberling, P. "AFŠĀR". Encyclopedia Iranica. Retrieved 9 July 2009. AFŠĀR, one of the twenty-four original Ḡuz Turkic tribes ((cite web)): Cite has empty unknown parameters: |trans_title=, |month=, and |coauthors= (help)
  3. ^ Vahdat, Farzin (2002). God and juggernaut: Iran's intellectual encounter with modernity. Syracuse University Press. p. 78. ISBN 0815629478, ISBN 9780815629474. ((cite book)): Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  4. ^ Perspectives on Iranian identity, pg.26

Pan-Iranism non-existence?[edit]

I have always wondered wether Pan-Iranism actually exists. These Pan things must be defined, Pan-Turkism and Pan-Arabism do have ideals and even mythologies, historical narratives. If one is to define that, he must first collect a set of ideals which identify that Pan-Iranism. As far as I know, Pan-Iranism is not a significant force anywhere, the chauvinism we see in Iran is Islamic dictatorship which demands uniformity, Persian language is only a tool here. They would be happier if they could use Arabic instead, which they are actually planning to do, as they have done with our history books several times, omitting pre-Islamic figures out of school books. So outside the turkish literature I have never heard this word. Why is that? Is it part of the Pan-Tukist propaganda? Do they need to create such an imaginary enemy? So please define it in detail, or else this is a Wikipedia article about something which only exists in a Wikipedia article. 22:33, 18 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.183.124.101 (talk)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pan-Iranism. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:07, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:56, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Categories