Talk:Nasser Pourpirar/Archive 1

==propose to delete== the guy is not notable and does not even have a college degree. --alidoostzadeh 03:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Never mind , such revisionists should be exposed and known. Since some news websites from foreign countries are quoting him.. --alidoostzadeh 20:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

But Wikipedia isn't the place to "expose" anyone. As Khorshid likes to remind me, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. The question is, is the subject of the article notable? There is a case made here by me and others that this guy is a propagandist, a blogger and inconsequential in academic terms. I would also add that there is a strong POV in this article, yet little mention of the books he is supposed to have written. It looks more like an attack. The basis of a biography is: where was the person born, where was he educated, what is his career, what are his publications, what is the criticism. The article doesn't say anything about this. Why? Because he is irrelevant. He was mentioned once, in passing, in the introduction to a speech at a university in Isfahan. Some bloggers are upset by him. He doesn't even seem to have held a position in the Tudeh Party.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 21:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Nope if zundel has a page. all sort of genocide revisionists pages exist.. then guy that gets close to 5000 google hits in Persian google and has been features in pan-arab/pan-turkists circles [[1]] should also have a page. He has no more than High school education by the way but is quoted as a great scholar by bani torof....--alidoostzadeh 21:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you are prepared to give him publicity and you think he is important, then I guess you will insist on it. Just remember WP:LIVING and that there should be the most basic of biographical details. It would help to have a birthplace and birthdate, for example. And perhaps a list of books he has written and details of his career.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 21:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

By the way, don't you think it is odd that you are portraying him as both a supporter of President Ahmadinejad and a friend to separatists? Don't you think there is a contradiction there given that the separatists are currently opposing Ahmadinejad?--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 21:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Here's another contradiction: Pourpirar is portrayed by this Wikipedia article as both anti-Semitic and anti-Iranian. What is he: African? Arabs and Jews are both semitic. Most Persians are Indo-Aryan. If he hates both semites and iranians, then he has a problem with most of the Middle East. If a POV is going to be pushed, wouldn't it be a good idea to know what that POV is?--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 21:36, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Thats not a contradiction. He is anti-Iranic and anti-Jewish. As per his viewpoints some of it is pasted below. Don't worry more details will be coming starting with his ideas and his books.. --alidoostzadeh 21:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Aha, and the claims that he is both a separatist and a supporter of the regime, that he is both an admirer of Saddam Hussein and Ayatollah Khomenei? This article is somewhat confused, don't you think?--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 21:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually he has worked with many elements throughout his life. He was member of tudeh, then worked for sharia'at madari and now he admires Saddam hussein.. his political ideologies thus have changed. 10 years ago he was pro-Achaemenid..now he says the Achaemenid dynasty has been fabricated by jews! (along with seljuqs, Sassanids, Samanids, Parthians).. --alidoostzadeh 22:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to delete

I've readded this title as there is still no consensus, despite the change of mind by the proposer. So far, it looks like three in favour and two against deletion (I'm unclear where Alborz Fallah stands). It might be better to submit this to an AfD and get wider consultation.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 00:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually I did not here anything from Khorshid opposing it. Alborz Fallah does not oppose it either. --alidoostzadeh 01:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Given that Khorshid created the article and wrote most of it, and is also defending the notability of the subject, I assumed he was against deletion. But I am very sure he will not hold back from speaking for himself.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 01:09, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually it was created by this guy [[2]] and not Khorshid. --alidoostzadeh 02:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you'll find that Khorshid changed the article from a redirect and wrote an article[3]--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 09:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense. Stop promoting lies Ahwaz or you'll be blocked again for your bad faith shenanigans - [4] Nazcas changed the original redirect by Sina Kardar to a stub article, and then Kardar changed it back. So stop lying and stop wasting my time and stop accusing me of nonsense - I am tired of your crap. Khorshid 11:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

You can't deny that you wrote the bulk of the article. Before Sina's redirect, the article was three lines long [5]. You then decided that "this guy deserves his own article" and wrote something completely different from Nazcas and far longer.[6]--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 12:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

• Ali Dost zadeh is right! I do think it's better for this article to remain ...That may show the reliability of "historical references" of the separatists!Alborz Fallah 09:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

There is one passing reference in the introduction to a speech by an Arab writer who says he is against separatism, published on a website that says it is against separatism [7]. I cannot find anything that shows he is used by separatist groups as a source or to back up their claims. In fact, I don't think the guy is notable in any way, particularly as one person on this talk page says he is in a minority of one with his opinions. I cannot judge as I have never read anything he has written. It seems that he runs a publishing company that publishes his own books, which is called vanity publishing and suggests that he is unable to find a real publisher. I don't think he is notable.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 10:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I've never heard of him. Has anyone got a bibliography for this guy and his background?--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 10:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

You've never heard of him? You sure about that??? Bani-Torofs and the separatist professor at Shaw's ideas about Arabs being in Iran before Aryans comes from this person. He is a well-known reactionary political figure in Iran, and the sources show notability. His ideas are ridiculous, but remember that Khomeini and Ahmadinejad and their ilk share and believe these Arabist revisionist views, e.g. that false history should be promoted so that Iran should become an Arab country in the name of "Islamic unity". Khorshid 17:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Google search bring about 1 non-wikipedia/wikipedia fork/blog sites that refer to him. He doesn't seem notable in English sources, atleast with the current spelling of the article's title --Rayis 18:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

All I can see is just one mention of Pourpirar, which Bani Torouf said in his introduction that he had read after the speech you have linked to. As for the claim that Professor Ali al-Taie is a separatist, he states quite clearly that "there will never be, nor should there be, disintegration or separatism in Iran. Rather, all Iranian people, regardless of their ethnic background, should live under a pluralistic, tolerant, and federal society."[8] I see no reference to Pourpirar in anything Dr al-Taie has written or said. This is just your way of slandering people. Incidentally, Bani Torouf has been arrested twice since Ahmadinejad came to power. I read his columns on the Elaph website. How can you say he is an Ahmadinejad ally? Another act of slander. Pourpirar appears to be a former communist now trying to find favour with the regime. He doesn't seem to be important or notable.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 18:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

See WP:CIVIL. Don't accuse me of "slandering" anyone. Remember your block history, so step lightly. Khorshid 18:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

You can't make baseless accusations against living people. It is a Wikipedia rule. See WP:LIVING.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 20:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, have you read any of his works? Can you name any of his works?--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 18:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The above questions are irrelevant. We rely on secondary sources here on Wikipedia, not first-person experience. See WP:OR. And Bani-Torof clearly mentions Pourpirar and his books (read the article, do your own work) as the basis for his lame revisionist theories. Khorshid 18:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm just asking. Have you read his books? Do you know of any book he has written? You have written most of the article, so you obviously know a lot about him. Wouldn't it be a good idea to list his works?--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 20:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I have just found the publishing company that Pourpirar is involved in[9]. Far from being anti-Iranian, this publishing company publishes books on Ancient Persian [10] and Ancient Persian art [11]. I am beginning to doubt the way in which Pourpirar is portrayed in your biography, which relies heavily on one or two sources, largely Farsi blogs, and a quotation that could have been taken out of context and certainly doesn't confirm your contention that he is some kind of Nazi. But I really don't know anything about the man and haven't heard about him until you wrote an article--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 18:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

More nonsense. Pourpirar is Iranian and lives in Iran, so naturally his books are going to be published in Iran by state-sponsored publishers! Again, stop wasting my time. Khorshid 18:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course, we know that. But the publishing company he appears to be involved in publishes books on pre-Islamic Persian history. One books description says: "The art of Ancient Iran has a place of its own in the cultural heritage of the East. For centuries it has been admired for its lyrical quality and finesse combined with classically lucid, pure style. The finest specimens of Persian art have long been regarded as true standards of beauty and impeccable artistic taste."[12] So, I'm not so sure he is anti-Iranian.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 20:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

BTW, if you guys really don't like this page, delete it. I have no stake in this matter either way. Khorshid 18:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

He is a blogger, an opportunist and propaganda maker with no proper education. Naturally his writings are not cited by scholars and are only reflected in weblogs and webpages related to political circles that benefit from propagandas. He is indeed following Sadeq Khalkhali, another pseudo-scholar . Sina Kardar 18:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Certainly, his importance is exagerrated by this article.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 20:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Keep the article actually.. he has been quoted by some nuts of late in separatist sites. Also hamid does not understand that publishing books is different than writing books. We are talking about the bookjs he actually writes and not the one his publishing house (due to need of money) publishes. Hamid/Ahwaz of course you know about the man and he is a major pan-rabist. Since Bani-Torof mentions him and so do some other separatists, it is good to have an article on him since Persian google gets a lot of hits. --alidoostzadeh 20:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

It is interesting to see how you changed your mind when I agreed with you.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 21:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

very interesting. --alidoostzadeh 21:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• Naser Bana konandeh ناصر بنا کننده : that was his Original name . He had a bad record in the "Nile" Pub.Inc and also a record of jail for spying (2 years ) .... Alborz Fallah 22:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)Alborz Fallah

The correct term that should be used is "antisemitic" for people who are "anti-Jew". The debate on Arabs being also Semitic is more for the Antisemitism article, so Ahwaz if you want Arabs to be included in that definition I suggest you suggest it there. In the English language though "antisemitic" is restricted only to people who hate Jews. Pourpirar qualifies as "antisemitic" since he is promoting "jewish conspiracy theories". I find it interesting Ahwaz that you never edit articles that relate to anti-arabism such as Eurabia or Bat Ye'or, etc. Khorshid 03:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

What's your point? I contributed some of the content on Anti-Arabism. I disagree that anti-Semitic necessarily excludes Arabs. There are a few Iranian extremists who have racialist theories that maintain the Semitic races are inferior to the Aryan races. You can see these from extremist groups such as Anjoman-e Padeshahi, which says some awful things about Arabs and Jews and desecrates the Qu'ran. It doesn't have any popularity, of course, but there are anti-Semites in Iran who hate both Arabs and Jews. Pourpirar is obviously not one of them, from what you say, but I don't know anything about him. This article's entry is the first I have heard of him. He must be only popular in Iran.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 09:21, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually Anjoman Padeshahi is like three-four man show and furthermore although racist , they are not anti-semitic (anti-Jewish). --alidoostzadeh 16:54, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

some quotes we should translate

Part 0) است، تقدیم می کنم.

۱. رخ داد حادثه ی پلید پوریم، در پایان دوران حکومت مشترک داریوش اول و خشایارشا، ادامه ی تجمع و تحرک و تمدن و تولید را در سراسر شرق میانه متوقف کرد و به سهولت قابل اثبات است که کرونولوژی حاکمان هخامنشی، پس از خشایارشا، واقعی نیست و بر مبنای کتیبه های جعلی و تازه سازی ادعا می شود، که به تعداد اندک، این جا و آن جا سر هم بندی کرده اند.

۲. بخش هایی از زیگورات تصرفی ایلامی، که امروز تخت جمشید خوانده می شود، به وسیله ی داریوش و خشایارشا تخریب و به جای آن چند بنای سنگی پایه ریزی شد که هیچ قسمت آن ها بیش از ۳۵ درصد پیشرفت ساختمانی نداشته است.

۳. کلیه ی اسناد و اطلاعات موجود در باره ی ساسانیان و از جمله کتیبه های نقش رجب، نقش رستم و غار حاجی آباد، به خط موهوم پهلوی، جعل جدید است و از شاه کارهای خیانت فرهنگی دانشگاه های یهود زده ی غرب شمرده می شود.

۴. ابنیه ای را که با نام کاخ های کورش در پاسارگاد معرفی می کنند، تا پیش از سال ۱۳۴۰ شمسی وجود خارجی نداشته و از آن پس به سعی آستروناخ یهودی، از جمله با سود بردن از بقایای مصالح مسجد و کاروان سرای اتابکی، در مزارع دشت مرغاب، جورچینی کرده اند.

برای حفظ تعادل و تحمل آقای صادقی، و با رعایت سطح و میزان گنجایش مخزن تعجب ایشان، تردید های دیگری را که همراه عکس ها و اسناد بدون ابهام، در کتاب های جدید مجموعه ی «تاملی در بنیان تاریخ ایران» عرضه شده، از لیست بیرون می گذارم، بی این که به قیاس زمانی که برای رونویسی تکرار نامه ی «کورش و بابل» صرف شده، ذره ای امیدوار باشم که آقای صادقی، لااقل در تتمه ی عمر من، حتی از عهده ی فهم همین چند مدخل برآید، چه رسد به این که پاسخ و احتمالا ردیه ای حتی در اندازه و ارزش جزوه ی «کورش و بابل» برای آن ها آماده کند.

Part I)

ملا نصرالدین هایی در کار معرفی تمدن ایران باستان!!! (۸)

خراب کاری یهودیان، در برداشت های ما، از هویت و فرهنگ و تاریخ خویش، چنان افیون زدگی و فرو ریزی در بنای اندیشه ها پدید آورده و به دور نام ها و کلماتی بی بنیان، چنان هاله ای از تقدس و احترام و ترس کشیده است، که مجرد دعوت به مفهوم شناسی نیز، هراس از خماری را، از بیم قطع این افیون، در کسانی دامن می زند.

از فارس گستران که بگذریم، می مانند یکی دو تن از دوستان، که چنین صراحتی در بررسی نقشه های به اصطلاح کهن خلیج فارس را فرصت بخشی به جنجالگران شوونیست فارس مسلک می دانند تا به بهتان آفرینی دست زنند. این دوستان فراموش کرده اند که در پنج سال گذشته، و از نخستین کتاب، با صراحت کامل کوشیده ام اثبات کنم که در سرزمین ایران هرگز و در هیچ زمان قوم و جغرافیایی به نام فارس نبوده و آنان که ایران را سرزمین فارسیان و یا خلیج جنوبی ایران را خلیج فارس می خوانند، در اصل قصد کرده اند بر توطئه هایی مهر تایید زنند که در زمان رضا شاه، با علم کردن یک قوم بی نشانه با نام فارس، علیه وحدت ملی و منطقه ای ما تدارک دیده شد. آن ها در هیاهویی که گرد این نام بر پا کرده اند، نه به دنبال عرضه ی ارادت و عرق ملی، بل مشغول حفظ قداست نام قومی هستند که یهودیان در همین اواخر، به مدد آزمایشگاهی از جعل، در زیر زمین های اورشلیم، اختراع تاریخی کرده اند.

بدون تردید اگر این خلیج را، از ده هزار سال پیش به این سو، خلیج بوشهر و کرمان و سیستان و آبادان خوانده بودند، حتی اگر ژاپنی ها هم یکشبه آن را به نام خویش مصادره می کردند، اندک صدای اعتراض زیر لبی هم از این فارس خواهان بروز نمی کرد و بر نمی خاست، زیرا آن ها به مردم و سرزمین ایران نمی اندیشند، بل به استقرار و اقتدار قوم فارس علاقه دارند که یهودیان برای بر هم زدن اتحاد ملی و منطقه ای ما، در دهه های اخیر، همراه هزاران افسانه ی یاوه و دروغ مسلم دیگر، از قبیل نژاد آریا و دین زردشت و کتاب شاه نامه و غیره، تولید کرده اند. برای نمونه دیدیم که عنوان «دریای قزوین» در شمال ایران را، که اشاره به یک قوم کهن ایرانی داشت، به «دریای خزر»، یعنی اقلیمی برگرداندند، که موطن و مسکن اصلی قوم کورش بود و حضراتی که اینک برای حفظ نام فارس بر خلیج جنوبی ایران گریبان می درند، در باب این تعویض، و باز هم به فرمان یهود، رضایت مندانه سکوت کرده اند. برای استحکام این نظر، بی بصیرتان باستان پرست را دعوت می کنم که به همان نقشه های کهن جعلی و یا نقشه های جدید ۵۰۰ سال اخیر، از جغرافیای منطقه ی ما، که در کتاب «خلیج فارس در نقشه های کهن» جمع شده، رجوع کنند تا معلوم شان شود درست به همان میزان که ذکر نام خلیج فارس در این نقشه ها با جعل و حقه بازی توام است، همه جا دریای خزر امروز، با نام «دریای قزوین» ثبت است، این که فارس سازان و فارس خواهان هرگز به تغییر نام دریای قزوین به دریای خزر، کم ترین اعتراضی نداشته و ندارند، شاید از این بابت است که یا مردم قزوین را، خلاف فارس ها، لایق داشتن دریا نمی دانند و یا احتمالا از قزوینیان خاطره ی خوشی در خیال ندارند؟!!!

اساس بحث جاری در این یادداشت ها، اثبات این مطلب است که تمام پذیرش های کنونی ما درباره ی فارس ها و به طور کلی موضوعات جاری و مندرج در تاریخ ایران باستان، از قبیل امپراتوری های ظاهرا قدرتمند هخامنشی و اشکانی و ساسانی و مزدک و مانی و زردشت و اوستا و ادعاهایی در باره ی تخت جمشید و پاسارگاد و کتیبه های نقش رستم و کتاب های دروغین در موضوع فرهنگ و هستی و هویت فارسیان و ایرانیان پیش از اسلام، یکسره حقه بازی جاعلانه ای است که در برابر سخت گیری های محقق، یک لحظه هم دوام نمی آورند. فارس منکری من در این یادداشت ها جنگ با آن گروه از اندیشه های ساختگی ضد ملی است که در سده ی اخیر سخت ترین آسیب های تاریخی و فرهنگی و سیاسی و اقتصادی را بر سر زمین ما وارد کرده و در پس این ستیز ذره ای طمع و تبلیغ قومی قرار ندارد، زیرا که من خود به اصطلاح فارس شناخته می شوم. چنان که بحث جاری در باب جست و جوی اجاره نشین جدیدی برای این خلیج نیست، تذکر این نکته است که با دروغ و جعلیات واضح، چون نقشه هایی که به مثابه مستند فارس خواندن خلیج ارائه می دهند، وجدانا قادر به اثبات حقانیت خود نیستیم.

Part II) ...

Responses

Could someone tell me whether the books listed as "responses" to Pourpirar are actually specific refutations of his theories and what those refutations are. It seems that they have just been thrown in and I cannot see any evidence that they deal with his works.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 14:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

If you read read Persian oit would be clear: [13]. Please ask someone that knows Persian to read that particular link for you. There are other links, but I think reading this one be good enough.--alidoostzadeh 14:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually let me just translate the first two lines:

هزاره‌هاى پرشكوه

(نقدى بر آثار ناصر پورپيرار)

Hezaarehaayeh Porshokooh (Glorious Millenaries) (Naqdi bar Athaar Naaser poorpiaar) Naqd as you know means criticism/refutation. Athaar here means writing/works. If you don't like my translation of these two lines ask someone else please. --alidoostzadeh 15:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Intro

"In Iran he is well known for his controversial theories which some claim are revisionist." is this really fair presentation of how his ideas is viewed by everyone except a bunch of idiots? I mean really is any historian that supports even a little of what pourpirar says? does any normal person believes his theory that Iran was empty of people from xerxes to rise of Islam might actually be true? "some claim" is not a true statement. I think this is a better sentence:

"In Iran he is well known for his controversial theories which are considered to be almost entirly revisionist and inaccurate"

what do you guys think?Gol 21:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the problem is that someone decided to start this article in the first place. But to say something is inaccurate is to assert an opinion, which Wikipedia is not meant to do. I am all for deleting the article in its entireity. If someone insists on keeping it, then Wikipedia rules on NPOV and BIO apply.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 22:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

According to that same rule "some claim" is wrong since no one has claimed his theories are accurate. name me one historian who thinks he is right. any historian who has ever commented on his work has clearly rejected almost everything that he says which means not "some" but majority (if not all) reject his views as inaccurate and revisionist. It is not POV to mention the fact that no historian has ever agreed with his views. it is true that not so many historians have commented on him since he is just a joke and a idiot looking for attention, so most historians obviously dont bother to even discuss his views, however this fact should not be used to his advantage which is currently the caseGol 23:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I must plead ignorance of this, as until now I had not read anything of Pourpirar. To me, he is inconsequential and nothing more than a blogger and a vanity publisher. Yet, if you want to have this article, then you cannot make claims about his ideas and you have to remain impartial. Claiming he is inaccurate and revisionist is POV. If he is an idiot, then why even have an article about him? Having this article makes him a part of mainstream debate. Some of his points are not offensive, some points are clearly mad (if I am to take what others say in good faith). But it is not for us to put this in the article. It is up for the reader to judge. But I still think the basics of a biography should be obeyed: birthdate, birthplace and career timeline. There is none of this in the article.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 23:28, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Revisionist means going against mainstream. It is scientific word. --alidoostzadeh 02:20, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

This is a straw man argument. Wikipedia has lots of articles about idiots and scroundrels. Its not POV to call someone a "revisionist" (which he is, since he makes obviously bullshit claims) just as its not POV to call someone a "Holocaust denier" - its called "calling a spade a spade". Note an article exists for Mr. David Icke, who claims the Queen of England and George W. Bush are lizard reptiles in human form. An article also exists for Gene Ray and his bullshit Time Cube theory. Welcome to earth. Khorshid 05:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

It is certainly NOT POV to says that according to majority, if not all, of the historians, pourpirar is a revisionist with no real value. his theories are against main streem, as ali said it means revisionist, and NO historian, not even one apparently, agrees with him so it is not POV to say all, or at least most, consider his theories to be revisionist and without any real value.Gol 08:00, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Links

Here [14] and here [15] Mardavich and Ali Doost Zadeh claimed that the British Ahwazi Friendship Society is not a reliable source and should not be linked to. But here [16] Ali Doost Zadeh is insisting on reference to this organisation. Is it a case that such referencing is only made when it suits their POV? I don't know. I think they have to tell us.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 12:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding tag on "Alleged historical revisionist and anti-Persian views of Pourpirar". Please discuss this section here, as there is obviously a confusion in some people's minds as to the verifiability of this source - sometimes it is verifiable and sometimes it is not.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 17:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

either you are confusing the issue or I am confused about what you say! yes it was said that ahwazi group is not a reliable source, meaning that we can not trust them in what they say about history or population etc, and here it is mentioned that pourpirar is used by them as a reference. How these two contradict each other? it is not like anyone chaned their mind and suddenly decided the the group is reliable, contrary to your claim, in fact I dont see anyone saying anywhere that this group is a reliable source. this is not the issue here. the link is meant to show that his unacadamic and obviously revisionist "historian", who is rejected by any historian who has ever bothered to comment on him, is used as a reliable source by this group. this says a lot about the group doesnt it? the two situations are not related. the group is still unreliable and obviously biased. Showing that they agree wiht pourpirar makes the case against them even stronger.Gol 18:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you think they do agree with Pourpirar? They have a document on their website, which is taken from another website and which makes a passing reference to Pourpirar, but I can't find anything else to support the claim that they are supporters of Pourpirar or his theories. Additionally, this very document has been dismissed in other articles, so I don't know why it is used here as a source.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 18:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

It's all from Pourpirar's website. Tell us what link you have a problem with. As for British Ahwazi society, no it is not a reliable link for historical matters. But it's relationship with pourpirar is not about reliability but its relationship with pourpirar. --alidoostzadeh 23:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

What is the relationship? I cannot see any relationship. Yousef Azizi Bani Torouf gave a speech at Isfahan University during which he makes a passing reference to Pourpirar. That speech is then republished in its original Farsi, translated into English and republished by the British Ahwazi Society. But is there anything that suggests a relationship between that organisation and Pourpirar? The article says he is an ally of Ahmadinejad, but this organisation is anti-Ahmadinejad[17]. I just think you are casting aspersions, without anything to back up your allegations.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 23:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, your blind reverts have removed wikilinks, the translation of Pourpirar's name into Farsi and a dispute tag. Even if you want to put back in the sentence I took out, you must add back in the tag and the non-disputed editorial changes. Otherwise, it could be classified as vandalism. Thank you.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 23:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

We can say he was quoted by Yusef Azizi Bani Torof. I don't know what part of the translation you have problem with. --alidoostzadeh 00:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

In your blind reversions, you deleted the translation of Pourpirar's name along with other things, such as a tag. A dispute tag can only be removed when a consensus is reached on the talk page. So, please put this and other edits back into the article. Why is the quote from Bani Torof so important, when all he is saying is that one of Pourpirar's books confirmed one of his hypothesis - he isn't even using him as a reference. Additionally, there is no evidence the British Ahwazi group is supporting Pourpirar's claims, unless you can find some. If you can't, then remove the reference to that group as it is an unsubstantiated POV.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 00:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

So if we remove the reference to Bani-Torof you will be happy? as per the dispute tag you need valid reasons. What is the reason?--alidoostzadeh 00:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I have a valid reason and we are discussing it here. Put back the tag along with the other edits - including the translation of his name into Farsi and other edits. If it is too difficult, then ask Khoikhoi to do it for you.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 09:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately the "British-Ahwazi Friendship Society" states clearly on its page that it believes Reza Shah "conquered" the province - see [18]. I quote "They live mainly in Khuzestan, an autonomous emirate known as Arabistan before it was invaded by the Persian monarch Reza Shah in 1925." They have changed the wording in their website, but obviously judging from other articles deep in their history, they still believe in this junk. The other "Ahwazi" groups still promote that view. If you don't believe me, get someone who can read Arabic to check them out for you. They really believe this shit. Khorshid 00:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

But that doesn't show that that group, or any other Ahwazi group, approves of all Pourpirar's argument. It could appear that you are using this in order to portray all Ahwazis as anti-semites. As for your snide remark "get someone who can read Arabic to check them out for you", you know I am Arab. Are you trying to accuse me of being illiterate?--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 09:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC) As

Stop making ridiculous insinuations. I am fairly certain you are not an Arabic-speaker. You are obviously a native English-speaker from the UK, but I am highly doubtful about your claim to being an Arabic-speaker. Khorshid 21:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Notability

Nasser Pourpirar gets just 57 hits in Arabic Google [19] and 43 hits in English Google [20]. There is no Farsi Google. Most of the hits through Google are on blogs. None are on Arab separatist websites. Could someone explain to me this man's notability?--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 18:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi! Yes, he is notable: over 3000 hits in Farsi google: [21].

Are there any mentions in peer-reviewed journals or other verifiable sources? These appear to be mostly blogs.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 19:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

All sources used in this article are blogs, mostly Pourpirar's own blog. This violates WP:V. Consequently, his notability is yet to be proven.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 19:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

That's not correct, the notability is already established by the third-party sources about him or quoting him which are cited in the article, read the guidelines on the notability tag. What you're doing here, is inappropriate use of tags. --Mardavich 19:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The third party sources do not meet WP:V as they are mostly blogs or non-verifiable websites. Please read the policy. Pourpirar also does not meet WP:BIO. If you want to prove me wrong, please find a peer-reviewed academic journal where he is published or which reviews his books. I don't mind if these journals are in English, Arabic or Farsi. Additionally, an admin has asked for the non-English references to be translated or deleted.[22] Please do so.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 21:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

He has been discussed in the Iranian media and reported on by journalists. Peer reviewed journals or academic sources are not required for this subject since he is obviously not a historian but a conspiracy theorist. Khorshid 21:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Where in the Iranian media has Pourpirar been discussed? I don't think a few blogs count. Also, could someone actually quote from a book by Nasser Pourpirar, rather than his blog? Presumably, if he is so renowned, it shouldn't be hard to find a journal article or book by him.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 21:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

What is wrong with you? No one here has claimed he is "renowned". Thats sick to suggest he would be "renowned" in Iran. The proper word is "notorious". Yes, he is very notorious in Iran and his connections to the Ahmadinejad circle are well-known. He has been reported on in the media, there is already an article from Nurizadeh and we can find more if you'd like. Khorshid 22:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Nourizadeh is a London-based monarchist who has employed himself as an "expert" by setting up the "Centre for Arab and Iranian Studies" and appointing himself director (he is the only member of the "centre"). He is not a reliable source. Please find an article from a mainstream source that details his works or a peer-reviewed journal. It shouldn't be too hard if he is so popular in Iran.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 22:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong but if I were to provide sources from Iranian newspapers, wouldn't you just then say they are not reliable because of the government or that it is "Persian" propaganda? Khorshid 22:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

No.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 22:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I have an innocent question: why are you so determined to be against this article? What is about this article that bothers you, because obviously you have a strong feeling about it. Khorshid 22:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I feel as strongly as you do. Why do you feel so strongly about it?--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 22:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't feel strongly about keeping the article, though I do feel strongly about political groups using his garbage theories as a basis for their ideology. I do believe he is notable enough (at least in Iran) for his own article. But you didn't answer my question. Khorshid 02:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

He is notable; he has written several books and several books mention him, all of which cited in the article. Hengamehazizi 23:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

He gets 5000 hits in Persian google. [23]. That is more than sufficient. --alidoostzadeh 01:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

All of them blogs.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 01:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Not all. Some do, some don't. Have you gone through the 5000 hits to determine if it is blog or not? 5000 hits is fairly large. I have found many non-blog sites as well. Plus his psuedo name naria as well.. Also he was part of the Howiat program in Iran's media. Yusuf Azizi Bani Torof (full name) gets about 600 hits in Persian google. Yet he has an article. And yes Khorshid is right, he is notorious revisionists not renowned. Plus the guy is an author of 8 revisionist books. As per Nourizadeh we have identified the source (according to Alireza Nourizadeh)..You can create an article on him.--alidoostzadeh 02:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

In order to demonstrate notability, you need to show serious media and academic journals, not blogs, who have reviewed his works. Quotes from his books or those who criticise him would also be helpful to establish notability. Also, his reasoning behind his theories should be explored. You have yet to do this. You must also translate the sources from Farsi to English, as advised by an admin.[24]

Bani Torof is well published in Arabic, continues to write news for publications such as Elaph and is a member of the Association of Iranian Writers. But if you don't think he is notable, then you are entitled to nominate it for deletion. In contrast, Pourpirar has published his own books through his own publishing company. That should ring alarm bells. Alireza Nourizadeh already has an article. Frankly, even he deserves a lengthier article than Pourpirar - at least he has his own TV show.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 10:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

We can't set criterions for notability since notable to one person might not be notable to another. Media (Iranian Media) has quoted him as he was part of the howiyat program. Also you do not need academic journals to write a biography. Of course a revisionist is not going to be in an academic journal although his book as an example of revisionism is quoted in some Persian academic journals found in major western university libraries. Also the guy besides writing history books has witten at least one novel and his history in Hezb-e-Tudeh and his political activism and publishing Tudeh(a major political party at one time) material is noticeable. --alidoostzadeh 19:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Not neutral

For a biography of a living person this has some weak sourcing, but the writing itself isn't even neutral. I'll try editing it soon to resolve this issue. The Behnam 11:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:BLP violations

I have removed large sections of this page due to serious BLP violations, the text itself was/is written in a completely POV way. Please read the BLP guidlines and do not re-insert the text Ryan Postlethwaite talk/contribs 16:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Azargoshnasp should NOT be used as a source for his general information since the page about them there is part of the "Response to Anti-Iranians". The site is definitely POV and doesn't appear to have any strong editorial oversight. While I can't read most of that specific article I confidently expect that it exists to say bad things about him. The Behnam 19:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Calm down, I didn't add any sources or text into the article! I only removed lumps of text that were against WP:BLP. I'm all for removal of all the attack content of this page. Ryan Postlethwaite talk/contribs 19:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, sorry if that seemed to be at you. I was just making a general statement. I haven't been following this enough to know how people decided to use that biased source here. The Behnam 19:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I should have put that in my 'neutrality' section above :) The Behnam 19:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Just clearing my name :) Ryan Postlethwaite talk/contribs 19:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

alot of dis-information here, I will keep tracking

I can see the outrage from you guys about Nasser, but can we remember that we are building an (Encyclopedia) here in wikipedia we are not interested in building a slander campaign against anyone, if you want to build it, then go elsewhere. since I can see alot of lies added and alot of dis information, I've initiated a contact with Nasser to find out what is his political opinion about Ahmadinajad, and so much more, I will have to wait an official reply so that I can add it here, we want to expose FACTS not opinions please, I think Nasser is not afraid of saying his opinions, (infact he already said alot in his books) so pls put your hatred against this man aside while doing the edit here, expose only the FACTS, and dont invent lies to make him look evil. he is classified as an alternative historian, and this is what alternative history is all about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.179.35.51 (talk • contribs) 14:07, 18 April 2007

All sources are in Persian...last time I checked this is the English Wikipedia

Pourpirar is now an Arab name? It's impossible for a Persian to actually escape state propaganda and look at the truth of history now? Any way, this article is in need of extensive clean-up since it's basically a large libelous article about a living person that shouldn't be allowed to remain on Wikipedia. To the Persians, especially zadeh-shah, please use english sources so we inferior non-persians can understand and study the merit of your purported "sources" . Try and get English reputable sources, or just delete the large portions of the article to which you have no sources. kay? thax MB

Yes, I agree this must be done, and will be done. The Behnam 03:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Warning - possible information removal

Azargoshnasp's page on this man is an attack page, and so is inappropriate. Any information relying upon this page may be removed without further warning. The Behnam 02:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

It looks like a response page by various authors. But it is not part of his biography. --alidoostzadeh 02:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

With 'shameful' in the title? And categorized under a section about 'response to the anti-Iranians'? Definitely borders on attack site; please find more acceptable sources. Oh yeah, and English sources, please. Verification is meaningless without any English sources here. Why not just stop using sources altogether? :) The Behnam 03:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I do not see a 'shameful' title? Where is it? English sources are not 100% necessary but they are recommended. You can ask someone to translate it for you. His weblog is in Persian and so are the responses. --alidoostzadeh 03:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

ننگين means 'shameful'... look it up. The Behnam 03:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The source is quoting Ali Reza Nourizadeh although the title might not be appropriate. But the exact quote of Nourizadeh is there. Where is the 'response to the anti-Iranians'? We can say according to Nourizadeh.. --alidoostzadeh 03:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

At azargoshnasp, this 'shameful' article about Pourpirar is merely one of many links under a general page of 'response to anti-Iranians. Go here [25]. You will see that the link to Pourpirar's article is among them. The Behnam 03:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

On the main page I see [26] (response to revisionists). So that could be a title of one of the articles? Either way Nourizadeh can be quoted regardless of the site. I have found the same link on several other sites.--alidoostzadeh 03:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The 'response to revisionists' link goes to the same page that I just linked you to, titled 'response to anti-iranians'. Overall, this is looking like a non-RS, and the use of 'shameful' in a title strongly suggests that we are dealing with an attack page here. Do you have any English sources? This article is pretty ridiculous in its current state. The Behnam 03:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

stop bringing some tabloid rubbish

we need to know the correct information about this guy, it is shameful how you guys are more into forums writing rather than encyclopedia editing. AGAIN THIS IS AN ONLINE ENCYCLOPEDIA NOT A FORUM. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Discipleoftruth (talk • contribs) 09:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

Those removing "conspiracy theorist" from the lead

Have you read the man's own work? He claims in his book "that historical personalities such as Mazdak, Mani, Zoroaster, Babak, Abu Moslem, Abu Hanifa, and Salman the Persian were also invented by modern Jewish historians". That's the very defintion of conspiracy theory. --Mardavich 12:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, *ahem* the term "conspiracy theorist" is a derogatory term utilized to discredit opponent's argument without looking at their merit; it's referred to as an ad hominem, an irrational, violent, prompt attack on an intellectual who threatens your cozy ground and state indoctrination. Anyway, I'll be removing it since it is a blatant attack on the man and a extreme POV, a violation of Wikipedia's guidelines. MB 12:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Saying the modern Jewish historians invented Zoroaster, Salman the Persian and etc has no merit or rational, it's a plain and simple conspiracy theory which makes him a conspiracy theorist. It's a fair description. --Mardavich 06:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

You haven't even read his books, so how can you judge? Anyway, he claims that Jewish historians after the coming of Islam made these fake histories. He doesn't deny the existence of these dynasties just the unevidenced claim that they had a culture and civilization. You added "modern" to Jewish historians along with the "Iran was cleansed of original 'Iranians' and became a wasteland until those primitive, ugly, disgusting Arabs came with the equally disgusting Islam". Seriously, if you claim neutrality please stop trying to vilify the man and stick farfetchd claim he never espoused. He is not a conspiracy theorist, he is using original sources and looking at them objectively to view the truth of claims to a "great, pre-Islamic civilizations". He got to a conclusion based on his studies, therefore he isn't a conspiracy theorist.

P.S. he is ethnic Persian, "Pourpirar" is not an Arab name MB 17:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

First of all, be civil. I am quoting his book, the evidence is his own word which goes against all the academic wisdom and knowledge. He unequivocally denies the existence of major historical figures and dynasties, which he calls "Jewish inventions", that's called a conspiracy theory. --Mardavich 18:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

P.S. He's not an ethnic Persian, Shahrestani is not Arab name either, but Shahrestani is an Arab who was on verge of becoming the Iraqi prime minster. --Mardavich 18:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, so he called the claims to a great pre-Islamic Persian civilization "Jewish inventions", and he didn't call it "made by modern Jewish historians"? Also, who's this Shahrestani, and when was he on the "verge of becoming the Iraqi prime minister."? This has no bearing on Pourpirar, just admit that he's ethnic Persian and let it go. You could call a "self-hating Persian" if it'll make you feel better but just admit the truth and stop these games.

P.S. Thank you for telling me to be civil; do feel free to follow your advice anytime now. ;) MB 18:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

No, he makes the claim that many of the pre-Islamic dynasties and the historical personalities did not exist, and that they're "Jewish inventions". Shahrestani is a famous Arab politician, and he has a Persian name. That does have a bearing on your flawed argument that Pourpirar has a Persian name and therefore he cannot be an Arab. --Mardavich 19:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

What the hell? Where's your source that he said they didn't exist? To my understanding he simply said they were war-mongers without a civilization. Also, who's this Shahrestani? First time I heard of him. And what do you mean by saying 'flawed argument'? Are you saying that because he has a Persian name that makes him an Arab? I can't read Farsi, provide a proper, verifiable, scholarly source that identifies him as an "Arab Iranian" and then we'll add it, ok? MB 21:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Your understanding is wrong, he says the Parthians and Sassanids did not exist, perhaps you should actually read his writings before arguing about it. If you don't understand his writings, get someone to translate it for you into Yemeni Arabic. As for Shahrestani, look him up, he's an Arab with a Persian name, just like Pourpirar. --Mardavich 22:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

So, you make farfetchd claims that I need to go find sources for? WTF? Are you on crack or something? What's this yemeni Arabic you speak of? Also, I asked for English sources, or take the false info. off the page.

P.S. Shahrestani brings many gooigle hits, none on an Arab politician who almost becam Iraqi prime minister, *sigh* keep trying, though. MB 00:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

he does deny very clearly not only existence of parthian and sasanid but also a single moving creature in iran for 1200 years! that is why his book is titled 12 centuries of silence and is talking about how for 12 centuries ( from xerxes to rise of Islam) Iran was EMPTY of people and even animals since the Achamenid king and his jewish queen and friends murdered everybody! this is his theory that all Iranian of this era are imagination and creation of zionist conspiracy and did not really exist! he says clearly, babak, Mani, mazdak, salman the persian, etc didnt exist. He says nothing that moved, not even animals, live in what we call today Iran! if you read his books or even two paragraph of his speech you will see this claim. I dont know why someone who does not even know about his most important theory, according to pourpirar himslef this is his big achievement!, is supporting him.Gol 17:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure about that, to my understanding with a translation of an interview of him; he clearly states that the 12 centuries refer to zero contribution to culture or civilization from the Persians, and has nothing about Iran being an empty wasteland before Islam. Also, his name has the phonetic sound "p", a sound that doesn't exist in Arabic. MB 14:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I didnt say anthing about his name did I? but since you mentioned it while the name sounds persian that itself is not reason to assume he can not have some arab roots,but i dont know much about that and I frankly dont care. he is Iranian so does not really matter he is arab or persian or kurd etc. As for his theory he clearly mentioned that Iran was even empty of animals during those 12 centuries. this is why no one takes him seriously, he does not give an "alternative" view he give an unbelievable and stupid view and no historian has even bothered to challenge him since he is so unbelievable. this is why there are not that many matterial about him and also why his books were not translated to any other language. however ironically this is being used to his advantage here by some editors.Gol 18:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I know you didn't, I was referring to Madravich with that comment. What do you mean "Arab roots"? Do you have an English source for this farfetchd claim? The name is clearly persian, he's a farsi from Tehran; but I'll concede with keeping it "Iranian"...As to your claim that "no historian has even bothered to challenge him since he is so unvelievable" is most interesting, considering the library of so-called "responses", "rebuttals", or "refutations" as his detractors call them. Considering the huge number of web sites insulting, attacking, and threatening him to shut up, as well as the number of books in reaction to his book, not mentioning the furor he caused in Iran, I find that comment most definitley false. I'm not sure why they were not translated, but the reason you give is not it. MB 20:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I was talking about professional scholars, not weblogs or websites or what everyday people say. pourpirar is not a historian but a blogger and that is why most people who have answered him are also bloggers. If he was a real historian who had presented important theories and believable alternatives then people active in this field (most of them are not even iranian and cant be accused of being blind nationalists!) would pay attention to him and his writting would have been translated and presented in major events by now. one or more majore encyclopedia would consider mentioning his views as a possiblity. Of course it is his own theory that zionist conspiracy is stopping that from happening!! but the truth is that historians who teach Iranian iranology at UCI, UCLA, Harvard and Sorbon have better things to do than to talk about someone who thinks Iran was empty of people and animals for 1200 years!! Gol 20:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Is it encyclopaedic to have an article on a blogger who you admit is inconsequential? If scholars cannot be bothered to answer him, then it seems pretty obvious that he is not notable.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 22:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

You can be controversial without being scholarly..--alidoostzadeh 23:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Is the ability to be a controversial blogger worthy of an encyclopaedic entry?--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 23:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

He is mentioned in newspapers, anti-iranian t.v. shows and at one time was part of t.v. program of howiyat.. --alidoostzadeh 23:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

How strange that you should call him anti-Iranian when he is an Iranian citizen and this article says he is a supporter of the current Iranian regime. But we now know that, according to Ali Doost Zadeh, it is sufficient to be a blogger quoted in a newspaper to merit an article in an encyclopaedia.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 00:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

He is anti-Iranian, because he believes achaemenids, sassanids, parthians, babak.... are fiction of imagination. I guess the point is hard for you to comprehend since you are not Iranian and not from Iran. And he is not a blogger, he has around 10 books, a publishing house, and was a relatively high member of tudeh at one time, publishing most of their work. Strangely enough though anti-Iranian groups quote him. --alidoostzadeh 01:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

How is he a holocaust denier now?

Or was that just to strengthen the myth that he is 'teh ebul!!!!'? All what we have is a Farsi source, which for all we know might as well be talking about a cooking recipe...this article needs serious clean-up and we need reputable English sources, not links to Persian blogs. Whatever we can't source, we might as well throw out. MB 12:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I did not find such a accusation in the link given as a reference. I'll remove it untill it is explained that in which page he is described as such. Abed Hoseinian

and the sentence refering to him as praising Saddam, not only is not well sourced, but also is vague and is not accurate. He describes Saddam, as someone who is considered by Arabs and Muslims as a hero of Arabs and Muslims against Zionists and western occupiers. Abed Hoseinian.

He says: Saddam ghahremaneh shargh miyaaneh ast.." (Saddam is a heroe of the middle east). It is sourced by Mazdak Bamdad's article. --alidoostzadeh 23:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

What you say is out of context. If you read whole of his paragraph about Saddam, he describes him as a symbol of resistance against westerners. Abed Hoseinian.

Here is what he says, responding to one of the readers of his blog.

[سلام آقای کمیل. حقیقت را نمی توان برابر خوش آیندهای خویش مشاطه کرد و مسائل کلان را نباید به سرخاب سرسپردگی های فکری و عقیدتی خویش آراست. صدام هم چون تمامی سیاستمداران به قدرت رسیده، و از جمله سیاستمداران جمهوری اسلامی، در برخورد با مسائل ملی اشتباهاتی داشته است، اما هر دو در مبارزه با صهیونیسم و غرب، قهرمان خلق عرب و مردم شرق میانه شمرده می شوند. صدام را مردم عراق سرنگون نکردند چنان که عراقیان او را محاکمه نمی کنند و سراپای این نمایش کثیف یهودی وش، از آن شوی دستگیری او، تا صحنه هایی که اینک در دادگاه می گذرد، جز به کارگیری ابزاری غیرقانونی برای تحقیر و انتقام کشی از مبارزی نیست که حقوق ملی و منطقه ای را به میل و کیل یهودیان نفروخت. متجاوزین و دژخیمان مسلح غربی حقوق و اختیاری در عراق ندارند و از جمله مجاز به محاکمه ی صدام نیستند. در شرایط و اوضاع و احوال کنونی و در برابر سلطه گران بین المللی که به تلافی سرسختی صدام هرلحظه طناب دار را در برابر چشمان او می آویزند، به گمان من، صدام یک قهرمان مقاومت اسلامی در برابر صهیونیسم و اگر کشته شود مانند هر اسیر دست کافران، یک شهید است. آن چه در عراق امروز می گذرد را نمی توان در پس زمینه ی جنگ ایران و عراق قرار داد. برای روشن تر شدن مطلب لحظه ای بپندارید که ارتش غرب به ایران حمله ور شده بود و اینک رهبران این جمهوری، به بهانه های مختلف، در غل و زنجیر محاکمه می شدند، آیا شادمانی دولت و ملت عراق را روا می دیدید؟]

Abed Hoseinian.

Good enough: صدام یک قهرمان مقاومت اسلامی در برابر صهیونیسم و اگر کشته شود مانند هر اسیر دست کافران، یک شهید است. Saddam killed millions of Iranians and Kurds. We should mention this alongside what he says about Saddam. --alidoostzadeh 00:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

But this article is not about Saddam. Abed Hoseinian.

Well it is related to historical revisionism and one can not be considered a martyr in Islam if they have killed a million human beings. --alidoostzadeh 01:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Please try to be constructive, your edits were destructive, and strongly biased. <<Well it is related to historical revisionism>> Well, Saddam's issue is political not historical, so here you are not right.

<<one can not be considered a martyr in Islam if they have killed a million human beings>> So you are critising him? In a wikipedia article related to biography? Abed Hoseinian.

Saddam killing 1 million Kurds and Iranian is historical as well as political..it is a historic fact and can be mentioned. It is well in context as well.--alidoostzadeh 01:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that you mix Saddams war with Iranian troops with Saddams last day in prison. Pourpirar described Saddam as a hero of Islamic resistance not for his war with Kurds of Suleimania province or Iranian troops of Khumeini. He was talking about Saddam in prison while his country destroyed by occupiers. Your adition of Saddam's alleged crimes to this article which is suppoused to be about Pourpirar is totally irrelevant. Abed Hoseinian.

Baba vel kon. Saddam is a mass murdered. He killed 1 million Iranians and Kurds. Expelled jews from iraq. So a praise of Saddam is unlikely by 99.999999% of the Iranian population. This is important to mention. --alidoostzadeh 01:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, hi Zadeh-shah, how is your lovely discussion related to my question about calling his a 'holocaust denier'? Oh, and didn't I mention the fact that this is the English wikipedia not the farsi wikipedia, so please, English sources. MB 17:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Ahwaz don't start an r.v. war

It is clear you do not read Persian. Quotes from Pourpirar's weblog have been brought as well as his books. Do not remove verifiable information from the authors weblog. Also you can not remove mentioning of published books that respond to him. Those books are not cited in the article. They are mentioned. Simple as that. If a website is quoted is one thing. But mentioning books that respond to him without quoting those books even is another. And there is nothing in wikipedia that such books can not be mentioned.(not even quoted).--alidoostzadeh 00:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Your "sources" include a website that you yourself have said is your "home page" - azargoshnasp.net - plus a number of blogs [27]. These are not verifiable, as stated by an admin here[28]. If you cannot find verifiable sources to prove that Nasser Pourpirar is a notable scholar and writer, then perhaps it is time to put this article up for AfD.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 12:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The website is run by several people. Yes I contribute as my name is listed[29]. But what does that have to do with the article? Alex said: If a site just publish online copies of books and paper articles it is better to refer the books and articles stating available online at .. So he said it is better not necessary. But your mixing different arguments.. First of all Naser Pourpirar is not a notable academic scholar. But he is a writer of 12 books. Furthermore he was the publisher of all of Tudeh's material at one time. Furthermore he went to jail on spying charges for Bulgaria early in the revolution. Furthermore at one time he wanted to blow up one of the Shah's Palaces (this is mentioned by the leader of Tudeh (Kiyanoori)). I am sure you did not know all of this information. As per my edit, you can see I did not quote the site. What I brought was books that have been published and expanded on those books(publisher, date, author and etc.). And then I also retained the link to the site for the books. Now as long as you do not remove material, I have no problem with providing citation for any claim. Conspiracy theorist is given , if you read his own weblog. He belies Achaemenid dynasty ended with Purim during the time of Darius I. He also believes Parthians, Seljuqids, Sassanids, Ghaznavids..etc. were fake. This is in his blog. There are other conspiracy theoriest that have pages and there is no requirement to be a notable scholar! For example here is a conspiracy theoriest who denies the holocaust. [30]. By no means he is a notable scholar, but he has a web page more because his bogus theories actually generate interest. This is the case with pourpirar with the addition that some anti-Iranian groups also like to quote him, just like I am sure neo-nazi's or whatever hate groups might quote Zundel. And note I did not quote the site you mentioned. (There was one part that quoted in the main article and I removed it). And Alex said better not must. --alidoostzadeh 00:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I would personally be interested in Pourpirar's background in Tudeh and how he made the ideological transition to support the current regime. I also think that the most important things to note in any biographical information on someone is their birth place, birthdate, education and occupation. This is absent or unclear in this article.

If you want to do a bibliography of criticism, it is best to reference the actual journal articles and books rather than referencing blogs that mention them. I think this is what Alex is trying to say. I don't see why this would be so difficult, particularly as you seem to know so much about this man.

Personally, I find it hard to believe the theories that you say this man holds and I wish you would stop trying to imply that I do. I hadn't even heard of him until this article appeared and I think the purpose of the article appears to be an attempt to cast an Iranian Arab journalist in a bad light on the basis that he made a passing reference to Pourpirar in a lecture. It's a shame because I read his articles on the Elaph website and I think he is an intelligent commentator. See what you think:[31]--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 00:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah Bani Torof is not bad guy..although he does make exaggerated claims about demographics(he claimed somewhere that there are 8 million Arab speakers in Iran. Not that I care since I do not have problem with Arabs, but that statement is false). and etc and does have a slight anti-Persian bent, so he is not fair either.. But anyways as per Pourpirar, I will add more information from Kiyanouri and etc. Also I did not quote any weblogs or sites in the article. I just mentioned a weblogs (except his own) that responds to his claim in the external link (which is not part of the main article). As per his background, his original name is Naser Bana Konandeh. Bust he changed it to Pourpirar.. I'll write more information soon from Kiyanoori (head of the Tudeh). As ber Bani Torof, he should have been more responsible. --alidoostzadeh 00:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see anything anti-Persian in what Bani Torof has written, nor anti-Iranian. His criticism of the government is little different from the criticism you can find from any progressive Iranian writer. He speculated on the size of the Arab population, which no-one has tried or dared to do - certainly, Pourpirar hasn't. No-one will ever know until a proper census is undertaken (the ethnic breakdown used by the CIA is based on the Iranian census of the 1950s - as some ethnic groups have higher birthrates than others, it is likely that these 50 year old figures are wrong), although I think there is a tendency in some quarters to downplay the true size. Anyway, this is a different debate for a different article.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 01:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually the CIA's number is not from 1950. But 8 million is not sound since the population of Khuzestan is around 4 million with at least half not being Arab-speakers. He also makes other claims.. but it is not for this article as you say.

BBC

Looks like BBC has a report on the yearly Iranian book fair. [32] It also mentions Pourpirar's pavilion..: مسايلی به شدت مغاير با اسناد تاريخی موجود طرح کرده است.

به نظر او سلسله های اشکانيان و ساسانيان وجود خارجی نداشته اند و ساخته و پرداخته مستشرقين آمريکايی و يهودی است.

First line: Masayeli beh sheddat maghayer baa asnaad tarikhi mojood tarh kardeh ast (Has raised issues that are totaly in contradiction with evidences that are used in modern history)(so saying he is a conspiracy theoriest). Second line: "In his opinion, the Parthian and Sassanid dynasties did not exist and are creation of American orientalists and Jews". --alidoostzadeh 01:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

will add the above soon. --alidoostzadeh 01:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

NILE Publication & sentence to Jail?

If this is a biography , then why it doesn't have any section on NILE Publication scandal and why there is nothing about 2 years of jail for spying that this person had ?--Alborz Fallah 07:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Your right. I'll add that information from Nourizadeh and also about spying charge from Kiyanoori (head of Tudeh). --alidoostzadeh 12:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you research and add the information yourself? If it is from a verifiable source, then there should be no problem.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 10:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

well , that's a personal problem : my best friend and classmate was the victim in the publication crisis , but I can't add my personal information here. I know pretty much about him personally , but I can't add them here officially ! His( Bana- Konandeh) friend's name in NILE was ZAHRAYE , and he is still going to court for NILE and also for Behazin books that he published without permission .He was also thrown out of Todeh Party because of the theft problems ! Also take a look at here : [33] مشغول بالا رفتن از پله‌ها بودم که در طبقه سوم در آستانه دری باز،ناصر بناکننده ناریا، ناصر پورپیرار، و خدا می‌داند کدام نام‌های مستعار دیگر مرا به کناری کشید.....

--Alborz Fallah 20:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks like the information is found in Kiyanoori (the leader of Hezb-e-Tudeh's) book:

The memories of Nur Ad-din Kiyani, eTela'at, Tehran, 1993 خاطرات نورالدين كيانوري, / نورالدين كيانوري . تهران , اطلاعات , 1372 pages 516-567

It's a lot to translate, but the part you are looking for is pretty much there.

« خاطرات نورالدين كيانوري» (انتشارات روزنامة اطلاعات، تهران، 1382) در صفحات 516 و 517، كيانوري (دبير كل وقت حزب توده)، ناصر بناكننده (پورپيرار) را اينگونه معرفي مي‏كند:

ناصر بنا كننده، كه «پورپيرار» امضا مي‏كرد، پس از اخراجش از حزب در سال 1358 به علت خوردن پول حزب و كلاهبرداري از شركايش در انتشارات «نيل» و بالاكشيدن حق التأليف آقاي محمود اعتمادزاده (به آذين)، با نام مستعار «ناريا» به انتشار جزوه‏هايي عليه حزب و بدگويي به شخص من، كه دستور اخراج او را داده بودم، پرداخت. آشنايي من با بناكننده در آلمان صورت گرفت. او، حدود يك سال پيش از پيروزي انقلاب، به برلين غربي آمد و به ياد ندارم به وسيله چه فردي [؟!] تقاضاي ديدار با ما را كرد. او در اين ديدار ادعا كرد كه با هوشنگ تيزابي همكاري داشته و وسايل چاپي را كه هوشنگ با آن اولين جزوه‏هاي به سوي حزب را منتشر كرده در اختيار هوشنگ گذاشته است. خود او حروفچين چاپخانه بود و بعداً با شراكت دو نفر ديگر يك بنگاه انتشاراتي تأسيس كرده و با كلاهبرداري از همه ثروت قابل ملاحظه‏اي اندوخته بود. او در اين ديدار ادعا كرد كه نقشه‏اي براي ترور شاه دارد. او اين نقشه را چنين شرح داد كه خيال دارد زميني در جاده نياوران ـ كه شاه معمولاً از آنجا با اتومبيل به كاخ ييلاقي‏اش مي‏رود ـ خريداري كند و از آن زمين نقبي تا وسط خيابان حفر كند و در آنجا بمب نيرومندي كار بگذارد و هنگام عبور اتومبيل شاه از آن نقطه بمب را منفجر كند. او نظر مرا درباره اين طرح خواست. اولين نتيجه‏گيري من درباره او اين بود كه يا ديوانه است و يا پرووكاتور. غير عملي بودن اين طرح را توضيح دادم و گفتم كه به جاي اين نقشه‏هاي غير عملي بهتر است كه با امكاناتش به تكثير نشريات حزب در ايران بپردازد. به اين ترتيب، اولين ديدار و آشنايي ما به پايان رسيد. پس از بازگشت به ايران و آغاز فعاليت حزب، [ پس از پيروزي انقلاب اسلامي ] بناكننده به دفتر حزب آمد و حاضر شد چاپ روزنامه مردم را در برابر پرداخت هزينه آن عهده‏دار شود. اين كار به او محول شد. پس از چندي شعبه انتشارات حزب، كه مسئول آن محمد پورهرمزان بود، به من گزارش داد كه با تحقيق روشن شده كه صورت هزينه چاپ روزنامه و كتب، كه بناكننده ارائه مي‏دهد، بسيار بيش از نرخ عادي است. به همين علت پورهرمزان خواست كه از دادن انتشارات حزب به او خودداري كنم. من موافقت كردم. اين تصميم، بناكننده را سخت عصباني كرد و من اطلاع يافتم كه او به اتاق پورهرمزان ـ در دفتر حزب ـ رفته و به شكل توهين آميزي با او صحبت مي‏كند. من از اتاق خود در طبقه بالا به اتاق پورهرمزان در طبقه پائين رفتم و شاهد برخورد اوباشانه او شدم. بلافاصله مأمورين انتظامات حزب را خواستم و گفتم كه او را از دفتر حزب بيرون كنند و ديگر راه ندهند. عليرغم اين مسئله و عليرغم انتشار جزوات توسط او عليه حزب، آقاي طبري به روابط «دوستانه» و «رفيقانه» خود با اين فرد فاسد ادامه داد و با او مكاتباتي داشت كه بعداً توسط بناكننده مورد سوء استفاده قرار گرفت. ناصر بناكننده پس از مدتي به علت ارتباط با مأمورين سياسي بلغارستان توسط جمهوري اسلامي دستگير و به زندان اوين فرستاده شد . او در دادگاه انقلاب ادعا كرده بود كه هميشه مخالف حزب بوده است! نمي‏دانم به چه مدت محكوم و كي آزاد شد.

--alidoostzadeh 22:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I put an accurate translation of what the leader of Hezb tudeh said about his encounters with Pourpirar, but perhaps Alborz can polish it. --alidoostzadeh 00:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Well , thanks so much for finding the text and also for translation . I think the jail time for spying for Bulgaria was 2 years and during that time he made connections with Saeed Emami and participate against Zarrin’kub in the TV show of HOVIAAT ... --Alborz Fallah 06:24, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. But perhaps it would be better to provide a summary of the text rather than a complete translation as I think this is too long for a Wikipedia article. Even putting the translation in the footnotes would be better.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 22:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC)