Talk:Anti-Arabism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I think this non-NPOV statement would be better if someone was quoted or a good external link provided.

"Arabs would claim that they currently suffer discrimination in the Western world on a far greater scale than Jews."

I assume this refers to Europe, where both anti-Semitism and anti-Arab sentiment appear much more popular than either is in the US. Ortolan88 21:43 Aug 8, 2002 (PDT)

PS--I started this article, so I don't think I'm unsympathetic, but the bald statement bothers me.

PPS -- Also, I'm glad someone overrode me and took out the pejorative terms that I included in the first version. I was fresh from fighting to get the White trash article into shape and maybe not as keen as I should have been.

Contents

[edit] Semantic debate

Some Arab publicists advocate the use of the term "Anti-Semitism" for Arabs as well as Jews; they claim that both Arabs and Jews are Semitic peoples. The proposed use of this term has largely been rejected for a number of reasons. The first is that there is no such thing as a Semitic ethnicity; rather, the term "semitic" refers only to language groups, and not to ethnicities or nationalities. Secondly, this usage distracts attention from genuine Anti-Arab prejudice. Thirdly, the term "anti-Semitic" was invented to specifically and solely refer to hatred of Jews, and has always been used as such.

Why was this article redirected? The new title fails the Google test. The previous title ("Anti-Arab") is somewhat common, returning over 22,000 hits, but this new title (Anti-Arabism) isn't used much at all, returning less than 500 hits. When we title an article, we should generally use the most common terminology, unless there is some compelling reason to do otherwise. RK 19:28 21 May 2003 (UTC)

I can understand why someone disliked "Anti-Arab" as a title, because most Wikipedia titles are nouns. "Anti-Arab" isn't a noun, unless it names an entity like the "Antichrist" or an "Anti-pope", which I doubt. The question is, how do you make the title into a noun? "Anti-Arabism" is the most obvious guess, except that it hardly exists as a phrase. The alternatives, like "Anti-Arab sentiment" and "Anti-Arab prejudice", sound a bit woolly, but are closer to what we are trying to describe. -- Heron

[edit] NPOV edit may 5, 2005

regarding: "I think these people [Arabs and Muslims] need to be forcibly converted to Christianity ... It's the only thing that can probably turn them into human beings." [05/12/03] --(Michael Savage on his radio show The Savage Nation)

Savage never said "Arabs and Muslims." One's opionion should not be displayed as fact on wikipedia. He was referring to terrorists that beheaded Nick Berg, and Paul Johnson. In fact, Savage often states that Islam is a peaceful religion except for a very small, but very violent minority.

Jm51 00:39, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

I still don't see your point. So is he saying that terrorists need to be forcibly converted to Christianity? That terrorist being a Christian will automatically make him non-violent? It doesn't make it any less offensive. The quote should stay.Yuber(talk) 00:13, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
Offensive or not, the quote has nothing to do with the subject of this article, Anti-Arab. The only way you can make a connection is if you stereotype and believe all Arabs are terrorists, and all terrorists are Arabs. This quote would belong under a section called anti-terrorist, or perhaps even a list of (subjectively) offensive quotes, but not an anti-arab article. Jm51 05:49, 8 May 2005 (UTC)


What Savage said in the past or following this quote is irrelevant. The section illustrates things people have said which can be construed as perpetuating negative Arab stereotypes. It was a poor thing for him to say, and it is, as with the other quotes, not entirely in context, but the fact remains that he said it. Further, I suspect that nobody is going to be swayed for or against Savage based on the inclusion of this quote. Junjk 00:16, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
Again, I think we need to set all stereotypes aside here. Not all Arabs are terrorists, and not all terrorists are Arabs. Once we free ourselves from that mentatility, we will realize the quote is completely unrelated and irrelevant to this article about Anti-Arabism. It would belong in a list of (subjectively) poor things for people to say. Furthermore, whether people will be swayed for or against Savage based on the inclusion of this quote is irrelevant. The motive of removing the quote is not to protect savage's name, but to follow wikipedia's guidelines for factual, npov, relevant articles. Jm51 05:49, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
If we're removing quotes based on unclear context, I imagine a few others (most notably Yosef's) should go also. That said, now that I think about it, shouldn't this quote be moved to Islamophobia anyway? If it's talking about conversion to Christianity, it can't possibly be an anti-Arab quote contextually. It seems to me that since Savage didn't specifically refer to Arabs we ought not to assume that he was making the factual error that there are no Arab Christians. It seems that, whether he was talking about terrorists in particular or a group as a whole, the group he was talking about were most likely Muslims. Junjk 06:30, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
The context of Yosef's is clear. Read the reference. The quote was taken from a sermon calling for the annihilation of Arabs. Savage's quote, however, was taken out of context from his talk radio show. Savage was condemning terrorists and terrorism, which he does every day (if you have ever listened to his show), not Arabs and Muslims. Savage was only denouncing the extremist terrorist Muslims/Arabs, who are responsible for widespread pain, suffering and death, not the ordinary peaceful Muslims. Again, if you listened to his show, this would be clear. Jm51 18:05, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
I have indeed read the article, and it seems to me that in delicate situations such as these we ought to take the word of the speaker. Surely, having read the BBC article yourself, you know that Yosef was, at least supposedly, referring to Arab terrorists. Further, I have listened to Savage's show on multiple occasions. I won't pretend to have any fondness for the man, but just as he rails constantly against terrorism, he has also been known to occasionally slip and refer to Muslims in a similar fashion, as have a great many conservative talk show hosts. It seems to me that the most reasonable courses of action would be to move the quote to Islamophobia and/or provide a disclaimer, either for Savage's quote alone or for the entire quotation section, that often statements such as these are taken out of context or do not reflect the speaker's usual viewpoint. Junjk 23:04, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
I agree, it should be moved to Islamophobia. Savage's dehumanization of Muslims is disconcerting. Regardless of whether he's referring to terrorists or not, he's still implying that only by converting to Christianity will they become human again. I think we're all pretty sure that converting a mass-murderer to Christianity won't change their ways.Yuber(talk) 23:19, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
I can't find a single quote where Savage dehumanizations Muslims. I can find plenty of quotes where he dehumanizations terrorists. And yes, he is saying that the only way to to make terrorists human again, would be a conversion to chrisitiantiy. Again, there is no Anti-Arabism, or Islamophobia in that belief - only anti-terrorism/terrorism-ophobia/pro-chrisitian. We need to move past stereotypes. Just because a "great many of conservative talk show hosts" slip and are anti-arabic, does not mean Savage is the same. Again, we need to move beyond stereotypes to see the issue at hand clearly and not have our political affilations sway our judgement. Jm51 00:56, 10 May 2005 (UTC)


Yea he is the same. get your pasty ass out of here

[edit] Quotes

Why are all the anti Arab quotes on this page from Jewish or Jewish related sources. Surely some should put be put in frok other people such as Robert Kilroy Silk or the far right French politicians.

Find the quotes, cite your sources, and then include them.Yuber(talk) 23:38, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

No quotes from Ann Coulter, or nothing from the Anti-Arabist website Little Green Footballs? Prairie Dog

I don't think anyone really takes LGF seriously outside internet bloggers/the internet community.Yuber(talk) 13:31, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV regarding anti-arabic quotes

each of the anti arabic quotes are attributed to Jews. this is hardly a proportional representation of those involved with anti-arabism. what about the media pundits, the american religous leaders, and international politicians who have made such statements? this needs to be changed or the quotes should be removed. --jonasaurus 02:42, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

That doesn't make the entire article NPOV, just that section.Yuber(talk) 10:47, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

In editing this article, I removed unsourced claimes, such as anti-Arab feeling rising after the oil embargo and the perception that some Arabs felt they were treated less well than Jews. The quotes section I removed in its entirety, as all the quotes were from Jews (lack of NPOV) and many of them were in fact irrelevant to the discussion, being more anti-Palestinian than anything else (among other things). I also removed some comments about the JDL that appeared only in the edit section and not the article itself and which were incomprehensible. IronDuke 23:11, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I reverted this article back to my original edit (with apologies to Jayjg for erasing his request for citations). Yuber, a couple of points: I need to know what it was you disagree with in my editing in order to know if it was justified. For example, some of my editing was for clarity. Did you find that my edit made every section less clear? Please let me know if you did and why you did. Happy to discus this, and happy to have other people weigh in on this. IronDuke 23:57, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Please stop removing the anti-Arab quotes section. I didn't revert all your edits by the way. Yuber(talk) 00:39, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for not reverting back entirely. It makes it so much easier to discuss and edit things. My feeling is this, and I would very much welcome input from others: so far everyone but you who has weighed in on this page thinks that the quotes page is inappropriate at best, and antisemitic at worst. I would argue that it is at the very least un-encyclopedia-like. I'll leave it as is for now and wait for other people to express opinions. IronDuke 00:56, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
The quotes section makes this article a complete disgrace and significantly demeans the subject, which is completely valid and desperately needs a serious encyclopedic article. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 01:54, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
The quotes section has been here a long time, and it is not "anti-semitic". Humus sapiens removed a totally valid image from this article showing anti-arabism because he felt it was too offensive to the JDL. I feel that because of this totally unilateral removal of his he should not interfere with the quotes section as he has already pushed POV on this article. Instead of solely focusing on the quotes, please improve the article in other ways (as you claim your true intentions are). Yuber(talk) 01:58, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
I just did, as I did earlier - and I don't need a special invitation. Still unable to refrain from ad homs? Check WP:NPA. BTW, a picture from an unknown origin on an unknown wall also demeans the subject. On another note, this article is not and should not be about the Jews or the JDL, or the ADL or unrepresentative quotes that Yuber cherry-picked to validate his POV. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 02:21, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
The quotes were here long before I came, so I recommend you don't try to blame everything you find offensive in this article on me as I didn't write most of it. I only added two particularly salient quotes, Mr Barak's and Mr. Bukay's.Yuber(talk) 02:27, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
The picture wasn't from an unknown origin, and it wasn't on an "unknown" wall either. I got the picture from here [1]. Please look thru that album for other pictures if you don't like this one. Yuber(talk) 02:41, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Yuber blaming the Jooos again. I don't particularly like JDL, but a serious encyclopedia would require a better proof than "I found it on the net", especially on such a sensitive subject. The image looks like a provocation. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 04:08, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Humus here. I went to the site the pic came from, and found it to be uniformly anti-Israel (which doesn't necessarily mean the picture isn't real), and also their photo gallery suspicious at best (the handwriting was similar in most of the pictures, the sentiments expressed were in English, rather than Hebrew and Arabic, as would more likely be the case), and I believe the JDL signature likely to be a forgery. Also, I was unable to find any other websites with ant-Arab graffiti in English in Israel/West Bank/Gaza. And again, this picture in combination with the inflammatory, one-sided quotes section raises serious NPOV issues. IronDuke 04:22, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Let's try not to steer away from the title of this section. The quotes section looks like a cheap shot to scapegoat another group of people. How come Anti-Semitism doesn't have the Quotes section and does have quality images? If you think there are not enough quotes or not enough graffiti, think again. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 04:30, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the Christian Peacemaker Team is definitely forging images. Yuber(talk) 11:25, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Who has cited these quotes as examples of "anti-arabism"? Can we have some encyclopedic citations for them, please? Jayjg (talk) 18:30, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Told you to stop this before - sadly I'm now telling you to strop this again. You are now no longer asking for secondary research. You are looking at a meta level search for evidence not that the material exists but that it has been identifed and identically labeled as existing by a thrid party. This is NOT what the policty on original research says. Please comply with WP policy - your use of this tactic in the past has been noted and it no longer works. Thanks. Unbehagen 13:15, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Couple of points. First off, everyone who's weighing in here, with the exception of one editor, seems to think the quotes are inappropriate. I'm thinking the quotes should be deleted, and will do so soon unless there is strong objection. I have stated (and others have as well) numerous objections to the quotes. I have one more, and it may be a sign of my own bias, but here goes: I think that an article on anti-arab prejudice is important (although I agree the locution "anti-arabism" is odd and clumsy-sounding). But I believe that the placement of content in the article that is borderline (if not over the line) antisemitic weakens the whole article, and makes it seem as though anyone who is sympathetic to arabs or sensitive to prejudice against arabs is an antisemite. I don't believe this is the case, but the quotes (and picture, now deleted) make it seem as though it is. IronDuke 20:57, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Everyone that's "weighing in here" has a very strong POV, you included. Wikipedia is not a democracy and therefore you should not delete the quotes section. Also, you keep deleting the picture so the quotes should stay, unless you want the quotes incorporated into a separate paragraph entitled "Israeli anti-Arabism". Yuber(talk) 20:59, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Yuber, your incessant edit-warring and sarcastic remarks are not welcome. Please get familiar with Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Yuber. See WP:ANI#Yuber2. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 22:35, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Please look here before you start complaining about quotes. Yuber(talk) 23:24, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
FYI, this is not Jews and anti-Arabism. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 23:29, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
The page you reference is indeed odious -- way more POV than this page. I need to think about it, but my first thought is, why does that page exist as such? Having said that, ought we to make this page POV to "even the score?" Let's try to make the whole wikipedia NPOV. IronDuke 23:31, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Let's discuss that article at the corresponding Talk page, without engaging in WP:POINT. Two wrongs don't make it right. These are sensitive subjects, they need to be well-sourced. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 01:52, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


The way to fix unbalanced but accurate material is to edit it so it's balanced, not delete it outright. The NPOV policy specifically addresses this approach, in fact.

Currently it seems to me that the section of quotations does indeed give disproportionate attention to anti-Arab racism in Israel; however, simply deleting it outright strikes me as an attempt to sweep the phenomenon (the expression of blatant bigotry by well-known public figures) under the rug. More informative would be an exposition of the reaction, if any, to Yehiel Hazan's statement. (For comparison, consider how expressing even a hint of racist views affected Trent Lott's political career.)

Likewise, the preponderance of material on Israel elsewhere in the article strikes me as unbalanced; there is certainly no shortage of material on anti-Arab prejudice elsewhere (a short sampler: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9], [10], [11], [12] is especially good, [13], [14], [15]). Neither, however, is there a dearth of people (all those listed in the article, for starters, plus the New Israel Fund, the Association for Civil Rights in Israel, even the apologists at the JCPA) decrying and opposing the racism in Israeli society—prima facie evidence that it exists and is a problem.

Regarding the image, it (and the others like it) illustrate the phenomenon, and vague suspicions that it might not be genuine are not, in themselves, sufficient reason to delete it. Reliable, independent sources have described such graffiti in Hebron. Using it as the sole image in the article does show only a small part of the picture, but again, the best solution is to add more and different images, not to delete this one. This site has a number of old cartoons that would serve to illustrate various stereotypes—which are still in use, by the way. —Charles P. (Mirv) 03:09, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm with Charles P on this 100% on this. That the article is unbalanced can easily be rectified by the inclusion of some quotes from non-Israeli sources (cue the pro-Israel guys putting in 2,000,000,000 other quotes not to make a point I guess... followed by an escalation by the anti's looking to put in 2,000,000,001 -> please dont). Those people objecting to POV would be better off trying to improve the article this way rather than edit warring. Unbehagen 13:18, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Assuming good faith, we are not that far apart. The quality of the article would improve if it includes verifiable images instead of questionable graffiti. I also tend to think that focusing on the vileness of Jews is detrimental to the article's quality. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 00:34, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
The more I think about it, the fact that the quotes in question are anti-Israel is obscuring the larger problem: why are there quotes at all? I began to think of Yuber's suggestion of collecting more quotes: after all, American anti-Arab sentiment is very different from French, which is different from Persian, etc. So what does that mean in practice? It means someone has to troll the internet looking for juicy quotes from every nationality that has a large amount of anti-Arab (or Muslim) prejudice. But then the article stops looking like an encyclopdia entry and more like notes for a term paper. I would encourage people reading this thread to look at the article on racism. There are few quotes there, and the ones that exist are from scholars discussing the issue, which is admittedly not as sexy as quotes from Evil Jews. And as I look at the quotes section and the section above it again, it seems mainly to be pointing to the fact that some Israelis may harbor hatred of Palestinians, which is not in and of itself anti-Arab, any more than Palestinians who are angry at Israelis are necessarily antisemitic. So leaving a bunch of quotes that are meant to malign Israelis while we "wait" for someone to do some original research and dig up more quotes seems wrong to me on many levels -- wrong because what kind of article is mainly a list of quotes (which this would turn out to be), and wrong because quotes themselves only indicate that someone, somewhere, doesn't like Arabs. Let's have scholarly, accredited input, not inflammatory quotes from nutbags. IronDuke 03:26, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
I was asked by an editor on this article to take a look and share my thoughts:
  • I have no reason to believe that the graffiti picture is fake, as similar photos are documented in the (not necessarily English) media and, of course, personal experience. However, for an encyclopedia and when disputed, it is appropriate to request a good source.
  • The quotes section should be treaded carefully, as adding lists of quotes here would also set a precedent in regard to other articles, such as here. As Jayjg said, is there a source that suggests that such quotes are examples of whatever they are supposed to be an example of? Or are editors themselves making such determinations (and therefore doing original research)? These are all contentious articles, so it is important that whatever viewpoints expressed take into account that they may be setting a precedent on other equally contentious articles.
  • Having said the above, this article is an example of a propaganda article (of the sort I generally try to avoid, other examples being Palestinian terrorism, Zionist terrorism, etc.) In this case, the article would more suitably be named "Jewish animosity towards Arabs" or something equally un-encyclopedic. When seeing a title such as anti-Arabism, things like discrimination in Europe, Hollywood movies (e.g. Delta Force or The Siege), the Patriot Act, or even MacDonalds' invasion of Arab cities come to mind. To have an article that is entitled "Anti-Arabism" focus almost entirely on Jewish quotes against Arabs or Palestinians is pretty close to defamation (as are articles that are the other way around). Like I said, I've personally focused on more constructive or neutral articles rather than destructive ones, but I'll help out on some aspects of this one if I'm asked to. Ramallite (talk) 22:06, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
Well, Ramallite, since you've put the problems of this article more succinctly and fairly than any of the rest of us, I am officially asking you to make an edit of it. As for the picture, my main objection is the "JDL" signature. It is unverified and, really, unverifiable. A press release from the JDL advocating the gassing of Arabs would still be problematic in my mind, but better. IronDuke 23:30, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
Me and my big.... fingers! Give me a little while to come up with something (although it won't be substantial). I will try to look up other agencies' opinions of anti-Arabism instead of making up my own examples. Thanks... Ramallite (talk) 06:53, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Intro and on and on

Let's start with the intro and try to make it more encyclopedic:

  1. Anti-Arab prejudice is hostility or violence... -- Prejudice is violence?
  2. ...and, in the USA, Arab Americans -- and in Turkey? and in France? Why single out any particluar country in the very first line?
  3. clichéd notions about Middle Eastern culture. -- I don't find this very compelling. The same may be said about Japanese/Vietnamese/Turkish/Iranian/Russian, etc. cultures. Besides, not all M.E culture is Arab. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 00:16, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
I agree with the above. Some cleaning up would be a good idea. I wonder, too, whether the issue of anti-Muslim prejudice clouds the issue of anti-Arab prejudice, that is, is there specifically in the U.S. (just to take an example) a prejudice that extends to Arabs but not to Muslims in general? Would your average Arab-hater make a distinction between an Egyptian Muslim, an Iranian Muslim, and an Afghan Muslim, as only the Egyptian is likely to be Arab? Are people who are "Anti-Arab" therefore by definition anti-Arab Christian as well? IronDuke 00:54, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Good point. Often racial/ethnic/religious hate targets "the others" and often it originates with ignorance or incitement. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 01:44, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
I just stumbled upon this article again and noticed that the intro still has not been changed. I took the liberty to rework it in good faith, please see if it works. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 02:52, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
Good job on your rework of the intro, but please don't reinstate the anon ip's vandalistic edits. The quotes section should stay as there are quotes sections in many articles such as this one. Yuber(talk) 04:00, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
I didn't get far with my promised edits, and I had the intro in a word processor and have since placed it here and added some more sections. Although far from complete, feel free to cut and paste, edit, and add to this. I'll continue to add more when I can. Ramallite (talk) 04:57, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
I like Ramallite's version, let's see what others say. As for the quotes, I'm going to revert their addition. For those who insist that the quotes belong: they need to illustrate some point. What is the point here: that Judaism is anti-Arab religion and Israel is anti-Arab state? Yawn. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 08:43, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Consensus

I have just made some minor-ish changes to the first graf, removed some POV there, and removed the POV later in the article. I think it's fair to say at this point that a number of people have commented on the POV of this article, or lack thereof. As I review the comments (and please, if I mischaracterize anyone's position, let me know), I see comments for deletion of Israeli anti-Palestinian or anti-Arab quotes, comments for keeping them, and comments for keeping them but adding more balance to them. Here's how it looks to me:

Delete the quotes: IronDuke, jonasaurus, Humus Sapiens, Ramallite

The quotes page is unbalanced, balance it: Charles P., Unbehagen

Keep it just like it is: Yuber

So, as I make it, there are six people who think the article is biased and one who doesn't. Of the six, two think that the quotes could stay but need to be supplemented by more quotes. In any case, I think what's clear is that there is a consensus that the article cannot remain the way Yuber would like it to remain. To that end, I have made the changes you see.

To add a few more thoughts, I just looked at the antisemitism article for the first time, and I think it's a wonderful template for this article. There are no quotes there from Arabs demanding the deaths of Jews, nor need there be. The article is balanced, well-written, and scholarly in tone. This article, in some of its iterations, is shrill and unconvincing. But if people are really, really keen on quotes, I won't object as long as it's balanced. But honestly, can't somebody find more quotes from professionals telling us how much anti-Arabism is out there, and why? That kind of quote would be a lot better than quoting anti-Arab rants. IronDuke 16:23, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

That's because all the quotes from Arabs are in article of its own entitled "Arabs and anti-Semitism". I request that you cease from deleting the anti-Arab incidents because you feel that it is imbalanced, instead, make it more balance by quoting non-Jewish anti-Arab personalities.

--69.85.162.99 21:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Why did you also remove the anti-Arab incidents section? By the way, I'd be happy to balance the quotes section or integrate it in some other section. Yuber(talk) 16:24, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
More than 75% of Arab Americans are in fact Christian, while terrorism is an international phenomenon. This sentence doesn't make sense to me in this context. What is it telling us? That people who are anti-arab and anti-Muslim aren't very bright? And what does international have to do with anything? The vast majority of Muslims are not terrorists, and victims of terrorist attacks worldwide count many Arabs and Muslims. The vast majority of every ethnicity aren't terrorists. The sentence is pleading with the reader not to hate Arabs. I agree entirely with this sentiment, but not with an emotional appeal in a WP article. And what difference does it make if Arabs or Muslims are victims of terrorism? That people are therefore silly for conflating Arab and terrorist? They may well be, but again, this article should not be about making an argument against ant-Arab prejudice, merely explaining what it is and where it came from. IronDuke 16:43, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
What about your deletion of the incidents section? Yuber(talk) 16:44, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
The incidents section is not encyclopedic. There are many incidents of anti-Arab bias. What makes those three so special? And the incidents themselves are POV in the same way in which the quotes were. Let's not single out a particular group for condemnation. IronDuke 15:54, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
I'm starting to find some quotes that should balance the section out so I've reinstated it for now but with the sectnpov template. Yuber(talk) 22:40, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Let's not put the quotes back at all until balance has been achieved. Adding one quote from Fallaci isn't balance. But Yuber, since you seem to be very interested in making this article better, can you not locate a quote from a reputable scholar saying why it is that anti-Arabism exists, when it began, etc., a quote that does not blame the Jews for all persecution of Arabs? That would make the article better. Quotes meant to paint Jews as anti-Arab and no one else is, at best, borderline antisemitic. IronDuke 18:26, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Your removal of the incidents section is highly incivil. The incidents are sourced, and yes the JDL has been the main source of anti-Arabism in the US, at least the anti-Arabism that has resulted in death. As for the quotes, there is a NPOV template on the whole section which shows your dispute. Yuber(talk) 21:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm sorry if I seemed less than civil, I certainly didn't mean to be. As I discussed at some length above, you, Yuber, are the only person who thinks the quotes should stay as they are. That they are sourced and "true" does not mean they are npov. Adding a tag doesn't mean that it's okay to have an article that's not as good as it could be, or has offensive or inappropriate material. IronDuke 22:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Are you trying to remove the incidents section discreetly or something? I've reinstated the incidents section as no-one but you seems to have a problem with it. Yuber(talk) 22:38, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with IronDuke. As it has been already pointed out, Anti-Semitism or Racism are good examples for articles such as this. I find the quotes section degrading for the rest of the article and pointless, at least without some supporting text - and unless you believe that vile Jews are out to get you. Instead, what is missing is the history section. Did AA appear in the 20th century? Knowing a little bit about historical racial/ethnic/religious tensions, I'd be surprised if there were no anti-Arab notions present in the medieval Europe, in the British Empire (I remember seeing racist anti-Turk caricatures), Asia, etc. The text should not incite hatred or vie for victimhood status, but provide encyclopedic knowledge so these things won't happen again - or whatever else notable scholars say. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 00:59, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] persian arab grudge

should a section concerning arab persian relation be mentioned ?

[edit] Section on Anti-Arab in Iran is POV and ridiculous

Someone needs to edit that section immediately. Or, I will do some research and try to write an unbiased opinion. But I do know for a fact that there is a strong nazi-like anti-Arab sentiment among some Iraninians (and Kurds) that should be included in the article.

[edit] Anti-Arabism article is incomplete!

I think it is best that we merge the anti-Arab article with the article on Islamophobia because the two are tied together. If not, then I think we should complete this article.

On the subject of Anti-Arab in Iran, It seems that hatred against Arabs seem to be very strong in Iranian secularists and nationalists that oppose the "Islamic" regime in Iran, and these haters usually live in Western countries. I have no clue as to whether or not anti-Arabim exists in Iran and to what extent. The only information I have come up thus far is that Arabs in Iran in the past have suffered discrimination:

"The Iranian Arabs' major grievances were discrimination in jobs, under-representation in government posts, and the poverty of the Arab community." -- Collier's Year Book 1979 article: I don't know if that is the present situation, and if this would be considered "anti-Arabism". Also, I like to note that MOST Arabs are totally oblivious to the fact thatsome Iranians have an intense hatred for them and that these Iranians are holding a grudge over an event that occurred over more than 1300 years ago. The event I'm referring to is the Arab conquest of the already deteriorating Sassanid empire. Author Richard Foltz in his article "Internationalization of Islam" states "Even today, many Iranians perceive the Arab destruction of the Sassanid empire as the single greatest tragedy in Iran’s long history."

Also, some Iranians feel that Iran had been Arabized by the "barbaric Arabs" and that Iranians should purge themselves of the "Arab subculture". See http://www.iranian.ws/iran_news/publish/article_11026.shtml

All this information should be included in the section anti-Arab and Iranians. Furthermore, there has been denounciation of this type of hatred by Iranians even among secularist and nationalists, saying that their beef is with the Islamic regime and theocracy and not with Arabs or the majority of Arabs. Here is denounciation by an Iranian Muslim on the forum of the aforementioned web site: http://www.iranian.ws/iran_forum/viewtopic.php?t=19 see second post.

Thank God that there is no anti-Persianism among Arabs (as far as I know) phew! That is all for now. --69.85.172.146 04:34, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adding a list of Anti-Arab personalities

I think that we should add a list of media and political figures from all over the world that are notorious for espousing hatred towards Arabs like Ann Coulter, Don Imus, Debbie Schussel, Daniel Pipes, etc. Also we should include quotes of any anti-Arab statements they have made.

I think that's not a super-terrific idea. It's an invitation to POV warring, which this page already suffers from. I also think the whole list concept is pretty lame in general. IronDuke 23:11, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Added Anti-Arabism in the U.S.

I added a new section, and quoted AAI's poll findings. Should we paraphrase the writing instead using directly quotation?

Also, I added a link to a October 2001 report on hate crimes against Arabs (and Muslims).--Inahet 17:00, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I added more information to the section on anti-Arabism in the U.S. It needs more information and refinement. Also, I added a reference to the AAI report that I mentioned above.

Another thing, should I mention that Steven Emerson contributed to (perhaps even ignited) anti-Arab and anti-Muslim backlash to the Oklahoma City bombing by blaming the attack on Muslims on national TV a day after the event occurred? He also said Muslims were responsible for the the TWA flight 800 tragedy. --Inahet 23:19, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I added to the Anti-Arabism in Iran section and it also need more information and refinement. --Inahet 20:33, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-Arabism amongst Hindus

Are we sure that the prejudices among some Hindus are not directed towards Muslims as a whole rather than Arabs in particular? I don't think there is any evidence that Hindutva is anti-Arab, although there is evidence of anti-Islamic attitudes. Arabs and Muslims are not the same. There are many Arab Christians, for instance.--Ahwaz 09:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

This statement under the Hindu section, Although not as prevalent as with Iranians ... needs a source to back it up. You have polls conducted in the United States to come up with some idea of how prevalent anti-Arab sentiment in the U.S. But none have been provided as regards Iranian attitudes (in Iran, of course) towards Arabs. Unsourced, the statement is POV. SouthernComfort 02:19, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Arabism among Hindus has to be defined. Is it as basic as negative perceptions of Arabs among common Hindus, or is it as serious as federal anti-Arab policies? This has to be noted. Furthermore, the section just lists events and situations rather than reflect the impact of what these situations has had on Hindus. This could be easily corrected, but it must be cited from a notable source--Inahet 07:36, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I have removed two sentences relating to workers' rights in the UAE as this is unrelated to anti-Arabism. Unless someone can come up with a good reason as to why South Asians in the Middle East have anything to do with alleged anti-Arabism among Hindus, then this should be left out. I am still uncomfortable about the anti-Arabism among Hindus section as I do not believe the case is substantiated enough. Yes, there is anti-Muslim sentiment in India (as the Gujarat massacre shows), but it is far more directed towards Pakistan and Indian Muslims than towards Arabs. I have visited India many times and have not seen any evidence of anti-Arabism. In fact, India has long been supportive of the Palestinian struggle. I think that unless we can come up with a definition that shows specific anti-Arab hatred as a phenomenon among Hindus, then the section should be removed entirely.--Ahwaz 17:34, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Actually, if you read up on Hindutva propaganda, they are virulently anti-Arab and anti-Muslim. They are also pro-Zionist and anti-Palestinian. But that's Hindutva - I don't know whether their ideas are popular amongst most Hindus, but I don't think its likely considering how fringe their views often are. SouthernComfort 20:41, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
It would be good to have sources that actually proove that Hindutva is anti-Arab and not simply anti-Muslim. As I understand it, Hindutva has a religious agenda rather than a racial one, so it hates all Muslims whether Saudi, Iranian or Pakistani!--Ahwaz 06:17, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
"Anti-Arab (and anti-Muslim) sentiments exist with many Hindus in India and abroad (particularily with those who subscribe to the Hindutva ideology)" - This seems to be the only sentence in this section dealing with "anti-arabism amongst hindus". Further many is clearly against Wikipedia policy per Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_words. I am going to suggest removing this section entirely unless someone has references in this regard. gunslotsofguns 10:18, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, I've been saying that some Hindus have an equal prejudice against all Muslims, regardless of nationality or race. It is a religious thing rather than a racial thing. There is an oblique reference to "Hindutva's hostility to the Arab civilisation" by Amartya Sen here [16] and there is a mention of a book by Muslim apostate Anwar Shaykh entitled "Islam is the Arab National Movement" here [17], which is critiqued and is one of the better references I have found. I think the section should stay but it needs more work.
I think people are being a little impatient about this article and should bear in mind that it is a large subject that needs work. Some have criticised the article's content, but please bear in mind this is early days and with contributions this article could stand up well. I hope you will contribute.--Ahwaz 10:42, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
The Amartya Sen reference is good. However, consider:
1. Hindutva is a socio-political ideology and not religious.
2. Not all Hindus either support it or believe in its ideology.
3. Even, support for the BJP, the so-called Hindu Nationalist party, does not automatically translate in support for Hindutva. Support might be due to its economic policies, non-support for Congress (the other major political party in India), local factors, host of any number of reasons etc.
I have no problems with the article as such, only with this section, and specifically with that sentence. It claims many without any basis, and clearly falls into the weasel word category. I agree with your racial/religious argument. My suggestion is to either delete the section or to change Hindus to Hindutva Supporters or some such title.gunslotsofguns 11:12, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree that not all Hindus support Hindutva. But also among those who do not support Hindutva, there are strong anti-Muslim sentiments - few Hindus would allow their sons or daughters to marry a Muslim, for instance. Whether this transfers to an anti-Arab sentiment is another matter, for anti-Muslim and anti-Arab are quite difference matters. In some sense, Hindutva makes more arguments against Arabs as a malign and alien influence that brought Islam to India. They want Muslims to either convert to Hinduism or become more "Indian". This goes beyond simple prejudice against a religion and interprets Arab as oppositional to Hindu or Indian (which are often conflated by Hindutva "intellectuals"). So, I don't know how you would title the section, since anti-Arab sentiments are not exclusive to Hindutva but the level of anti-Arab sentiment among Hindus is hard to quantify particularly when it is not articulated as such. Perhaps "anti-Arabism in India" could be a better title.--Ahwaz 11:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
The marriage issue is a South Asian thing, and affects not only inter-faith marriages, but inter-community, inter-lingual, inter-ethnic, inter-regional and what have you. That does not necessarily mean they are all anti-all the other communities. Moreover like you said this has no connection to anti-arabism. So this section should not contain the word Hindus in the first place. Also Hindutva is not confined to India, so that would be correct title either. Hindutva is a fringe movement within the greater right-wing ideology which might have leanings towards anti-arabism and the title should reflect that.--gunslotsofguns 12:04, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Regarding marriage, I was attempting to distinguish between general prejudice and the politicisation of prejudice, which in my mind is what Hindutva represents. I do not believe that Hindutva is a fringe movement at all. It is central to the Sangh Parivar, which includes the BJP (the second largest party in India), the RSS (one of the biggest mass organisations in India) and the VHP (an evangelical Hindu organisation). It also includes organisations outside the Sangh Parivar, such as Shiv Sena. Hindutva as a political movement involves Indians, including those who are non-resident. But you can hardly say that Hindutva extends to non-Indians (even in the context of Nepal, Sri Lanka and Thailand). I think only "Anti-Arabism among Indians" or "Anti-Arabism in India" should be applicable. If Hindus elsewhere are anti-Arab, then we can have Anti-Arabism in Guyana or Fiji, although I don't think religion has been politicised in these countries.--Ahwaz 12:11, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Regarding this section, I have not been able to locate suitable references. As Ahwaz mentions there is just one oblique reference and that too deals with Hindutva. Further it contains just one line dealing with the topic which is grammatically wrong and contains weasel words. The second line ostensibly provides a reason for the first and again is not referenced. As i stated earlier, i would suggest deletion of this section. Thanks. gunslotsofguns 18:41, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Polls

I notice that User:SouthernComfort has changed the poll section with a separate heading for France. There is also a poll under the Anti-Arabism in America section. Should that be moved to the poll section or should we have a new section entitled Anti-Arabism in France? (there should be a lot to say on this, given recent developments there).--Ahwaz 06:22, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I think creating a new section on anti-Arabism in France is a good idea. We can place the American poll under the polls section until the French section is created. --Inahet 06:36, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Claims of exaggeration

A paragraph saying that some people accuse groups of exaggerating has been deleted, with an edit summary of "Malkin is a bit too controversial don't you think? not a neutral source at all to be quoting". Malkin may or may not be neutral, but she is notable.

The same editor also re-inserted antiarabbigotry.blogspot.com. Blogshares gives it a fairly low ranking. The web site may or may not be a good read, but it's not very notable. Andjam 00:40, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm the editor you're referring too. If you search the term anti-Arab in Google, you'll find that the blog is among the top results, actually the 3rd result [18]. I have no problem deleting it but you removed it without a valid reason, so I returned it. Also, Malkin is very controversial, Ann Coulter-controversial. I don't know why we should have special consideration for Malkin's opinion. However, her perspective could be added if it is prevalent, i.e. shared by a number of notable (not controversial) people and organizations. Those are my concerns, I would appreciate a 2nd opinion though. --Inahet 00:51, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

You say that Malkin is "Ann Coulter-controversial". But comments by Ann Coulter are mentioned in the article. Andjam 01:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Ann Coulter's comments on anti-Arabism and on anti-Arab organizations are not in the article (if there are any), but some of her anti-Arab comments are -- as examples of anti-Arabism. Anyway, to include Malkin comments into the article, you should make it clear to the reader that Malkin tends to hold a controversial position on some issues, e.g. she defends the internment of Japanese Americans during the World War II and she is also accused for making unfounded accusations and poorly researched arguments [19]. And many feel that she is critical of Islam. But it is best we don't include her opinion at all as she lacks credibility. However, if a credible organization holds this opinion then it could be mentioned, but not in this article, i.e. an accusation should be mentioned in the entries on either the accuser or the accused, perhaps both. --Inahet 03:24, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
How credible are Malkin's critics? Andjam 05:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
You make an interesting point, but then again Malkin has many critics and has made many controversial statements, which drew a lot of criticism. A Virginian paper dropped her column because readers found her rantings to be "mean-spirited" [20]. Also in that link you will find a list of "base-less attacks" made by Malkin. --Inahet 06:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

The fraudulent claim by the student is verifiable (albeit disputed by the student's supporters) [21]. If the article lists examples of anti-arab incidents, it should list fraudulent cases of the same, shouldn't it? Andjam 05:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

No, a single case of fraud is not notable. If you can cite a credible, notable source that claims there are many fraudulent claims of anti-Arabism, then do so. Deuterium 05:13, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Deuterium. If we were to label that case fradulent ourselves and accuse some Arab organizations of exaggerating the extent of hate crimes, we would be pushing POV and it also would be considered original research. As Deuterium suggested, cite notable, credible sources that make that claim. --Inahet 06:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Naveed Khan is another example of fraud, mentioned in Second arrest in grocery-store arson. But I can't win with the rules you play by - any person or group that is doing research into this kind of stuff will be described by you as non-credible. Andjam 06:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
First, calm down, right now we're only debating and we haven't got into an edit war and already you have become accusatory. I have a right to make arguments, and to object to and remove your edits, which I have done only once. I give my reasons, but I have compromised. I told you that you can use Malkin's comments but make sure you point out that she is controversial, and I also suggested that a credible source would be better. I would appreciate if you can debate without being accusatory, I will listen to your arguments. --Inahet 07:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Why must Malkin be listed as "controversial"? Controversial is a fairly meaningless scare-word used to poison the well regarding someone you don't like. Who has described her as "controversial"? Does this description come from a reliable source? Is it cited? Oh, and while we're talking about reliable sources, please review the policy. Blogs are generally not included as links because they are not reliable. Jayjg (talk) 17:43, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Of course, she is controversial since she tends to hold (what are preceived to be) controversial opinions. For example, many from all political sides have criticized her justification of the internment of Japanese Americans and she has also been criticized for claiming that some of John Kerry's injuries in the Vietnam War were self-inflicted. And if you have read my previous postings, you would know that I have cited sources that criticize Malkin for her tactics. Also, read the Wikipedian article on Michelle Malkin, which has a section on her controversies. And must I mention that columnist Bronwyn Lance Chester states that Malkin "habitually mistakes shrill for thought provoking and substitutes screaming for discussion… She's the worst of what's wrong with punditry today. She adds absolutely nothing to genuine political discourse." Furthermore, she accuses ADC of exaggeration, I don't know why this would be in this particular article since this article deals with anti-Arabism and not with organizations that report anti-Arabism. Concerning the blog, it was not listed under sources, it's listed under external links. I have reviewed the policy on External links as I have stated, and there is nothing against placing relevant blogs in external links, did you read the policy?--Inahet 06:50, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Regarding Malkin, while she may be considered by some to be "controversial", she is also notable, and the ADC stuff appears to be in direct response to various ADC claims made in the section. Regarding blogs, WP:EL specifically states they should not be linked to. Jayjg (talk) 04:31, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, yeah, now the WP:EL states that blogs should not be linked to. When I edited and posted, this part was not included: see [22]. And it was only less than a day that this guideline was added (by user:Bluemoose) [23]
I hope this is not an attempt on your part to try to make me look like an idiot who can't read or who doesn't follow the rules. You should have mentioned that the policy changed. Regarding Malkin, I think that my recent edits in some way shows the nature of her accusation, so as long as it is kept this way, I don't plan to contest the inclusion of the comments. --Inahet 05:20, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
You're right, it only appears to have been officially added to the page recently. However, it's been policy for a long, long time, precisely because blogs are almost never reliable sources. I know I've been removing links to blogs for at least a year now, and many others do the same. Jayjg (talk) 15:47, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Okay, Jayjg, I have to know: are you being very, very witty, or did you not know you were linking to an incredibly obscure band? IronDuke 02:27, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Um, I wish I could say very, very witty, but instead I just fixed the link. Jayjg (talk) 04:31, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The American Gulag Blog

Okay, so I reviewed the policy and according to WP:RS... "Rare exceptions may be when a well-known professional person or acknowledged expert in a relevant field has set up a personal website using his or her real name." This certainly seems to be the case here. From the the front page of the "The American Gulag" website:
Name:Ray Hanania
Location:United States
"I first started in journalism in 1976 and I have worked for many Chicago newspapers and regional magazines, mainly focused on politics. I covered Chicago's City Hall from 1976 through 1992, and wrote a great backgrounder piece on that experience for the Chicago Reader, which is archived on my web page under Journalism. I am also a successful stand-up comedian performing a very unique Palestinian-Arab-Jewish comedy act,".
Sounds like both a well-known professional and an expert in a relevant field (journalism). Deuterium

Actually, he is neither. A murky journalist specializing in Chicago local politics and comics is no authority to talk about anti-Arabism, even if he is of Arab descent himself. Pecher Talk 14:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sydney race riots

user:Pecher seems to believe the syd. race riots are not an example of anti-Arabism, despite the premier of NSW himself (not to mention many commentators) describing it as racism (see my version for the cite). Do you believe that anti-Arabism is not a form of racism? Extraordinary. Deuterium 12:46, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Did he say that the racism was directed against people of arabic descent, rather than against people of Lebanese descent? Andjam 13:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Do you think that if Syrians and Jordanians were present, the thugs would have distinguished between different Arab nationalities? Also, racism applies to race and I would imagine that, in this sense, "Arab" was a race that was being targetted. Being anti-French does not make you racist, but xenophobic.--210.211.238.138 13:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Exactly. How can "racism" be directed against a nationality? The Lebanese are of Arab descent and Iemma was talking about anti-Arab racism. Deuterium 13:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Not all Lebanese are arabs. Andjam 06:48, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but I don't think a racist knows or cares about the diversity of Lebanese society.--Ahwaz 07:02, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
If we have any credible sources saying that the riots were a form of anti-Arabism, we may include the incident; otherwise, their inclusion is original research. Pecher Talk 13:52, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Are you seriously trying to argue that the Iemma did not mean anti-Arab racism? Because it's the same thing as anti-Arabism [24]. As you can see, the two terms are used interchangeably in the media. What else could anti-Arabism mean anyway? Deuterium 14:11, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
The link you supplied is completely irrelevant to the Sydney race riots issue. I have no idea what he meant; if he had explicitly called the riots an incident of anti-Arabism, I wouldn't object to including them in the article. Pecher Talk 14:17, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
You are being purposefully obtuse. "Racism against Arabs" (which is what the Sydney Race riots clearly were) and "anti-Arabism" are one and the same. Wikipedia doesn't have separate articles for anti-Jewism and anti-Semitism though both forms are used. If you believe otherwise, take it here first: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categories_of_Racism. Deuterium 14:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

This is the first time I encounter the word "anti-Jewism". Judeophobia and anti-Judaism are synonyms of anti-Semitism, but "anti-Jewism" looks like a neologism. Pecher Talk 14:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Pecher: So, let me get this straight. If a Nigerian is set upon by a gang of white skinheads in London and a politician says it is a racist attacks, you would contend that the politician is not clear about what kind of racism it referred to and would refute the suggestion that it they were referring to anti-black racism and could mean anti-Nigerian racism? And if a Russian Jew was knifed in the street and the attack was called racist, would you argue that he was killed because he was Russian rather than Jewish? I just want to understand your logic and what you think racism is.--210.211.238.138 14:23, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Agian, Iemma said nothing about "anti-Arab racism", he talked about simply "racism". Violence came from both sides during the Sydney riots. Pecher Talk 14:30, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
So what kind of racism could he have referred to, apart from anti-Arab racism? I don't think the Lebanese can be considered anything but Arab.--Ahwaz 14:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
No possibility of "Arab" rather than "anti-Arab" racism? Pecher Talk 14:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
In this context, obviously not. Perhaps you should read the report. It states that the riots were started by white racists. Quotes from the article:
"NSW Police Minister Carl Scully said "white supremacists" were among those who took part in the riots."
"A white nationalist group said the violence could spread to Melbourne. The Patriotic Youth League, whose members distributed "Aussies Fighting Back" pamphlets at Cronulla on Sunday, said it had been inundated with callers wanting to riot in Melbourne."
"Australian Federal Police commissioner Mick Keelty said federal and state police forces would investigate whether there was any evidence that white supremacist and neo-Nazi groups were organising themselves nationally."
The article clearly states that police and some politicians believe that this is white racism, rather than Arab racism.


Thank you. And to Pecher: there may or may not have been racism on both sides, but that doesn't change the fact that the riots have been widely described as racist, and one side was Arab (Lebanese) and faced racist violence. Hence, anti-Arab racism. Feel free to also argue that the race riots were an anti-White racist incident on the anti-Whitism page. It is of no concern here. Deuterium 15:01, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article looks more like a collection of notes

How many "citation here" tags can you even add to an article? One after every sentence? phrase? --Inahet 05:14, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Some articles have over half a dozen references in a single paragraph. Are there any specific "citation here" tags you object to? Andjam 06:46, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response by ADL

Does the paragraph on the response by the ADL seem a bit long? Andjam 06:35, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it does. Pecher Talk 19:50, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-Arabism in America

Has anyone thought of adding something about the P&O dispute?--Ahwaz 12:16, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

I would like to remind that WP:RS is still applicable to this article, so any factual information must be sources to reliable sources. Pecher Talk 12:21, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Tell me, what is there to source in the paragraph on Othello? There is no doubt that Othello was a "Moor" (read the play!) and that Laurence Olivier, Orson Welles and Ben Kingsley portrayed Othello as an Arab. If you want to see their performances on screen, you can. I referenced an article on how Arabs have interpreted Othello. What else needs referencing?--Ahwaz 12:51, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
First, Othello is not in "history", but in "fiction"; the failure to distiguish between the two is, incidentally, the hallmark of this article. Secpndly, Othello has n connection to anti-Arabism, escept for an unsourced statement that some people see Othello as "a man driven to despair by the racial prejudices of European society". Pecher Talk 14:54, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
OK, I have retitled the section "in literature", if that makes you happy. Isn't the fact that Othello's Arab identity and the exploration of Shakespeare's theme worthy of comment?--Ahwaz 17:29, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
However, the problem of lack of sourcing persists. Pecher Talk 19:46, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Pick out exactly what you want sourced and I will find sources for it.--Ahwaz 19:48, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
"There is some debate about whether Shakespeare's depiction of Othello was racist or sympathetic, with some interpreting the character as a jealous and violent lover and others a man driven to despair by the racial prejudices of European society." Pecher Talk 19:52, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Incidentally, the discussion on whether Shakespeare's Shylock was anti-semitic has no citations. Will you put a tag there?--Ahwaz 12:55, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-Arabism among Iranians

This section is not in line with NPOV and WP:VERIFY guidelines. I'll briefly summarize just a few of the problems with the section:

  • The title "Anti-Arabism among Iranians" is generalizing and misleading, as 3% of Iranians are actually Arabs
  • Unsourced statement: "Arabs were mistrusted and accused by fellow Iranians for supporting and collaborating with Iraqi forces in the Iraq invasion of Iran in 1980"
  • Unsourced statement: "Anti-Arab sentiment among Iranians can range from distrust to outright hatred."
  • Unsourced statement: "popular Iranian media outlets like The Persian Journal"
  • Asserting that extreme views expressed in an editorial on "The Persian Journal" or Iranian.ws, a personal/political website based outside Iran, represents the views of a significant number of Iranians, by labeling the obscure website a "popular Iranian media outlet".

Overall, the entire section looks like original research WP:NOR, making its own conclusions based on non-existent or secondary sources. --ManiF 18:34, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

So nice to see you engage in dialogue for a change!
1. Anti-Arabism among Iranians does not refer to all Iranians, as made clear in that section, with reference to an objection to The Persian Journal - so your concerns are groundless
2. The citation is just before the sentence. I will move it to the end of the sentence, just so it is clearer to you.
3. I will take that sentence out for you.
4. I will take out the word "popular".
5. It can hardly be called "original research" if it uses secondary sources.
For your information, I have put forward in the article the common claim that Shamkhani is proof of social mobility of Iranian Arabs. If you want that taken out because there is no citation, I can do that. I have, however, cited a source to show that some Iranians believe Arabs were loyal to Iran in the Iran-Iraq War. Do you disagree with that as well? The Amnesty International report is fairly clear about discrimination against Arabs under the present political system. Or perhaps you think that is my invention?--Ahwaz 18:57, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
If "Anti-Arabism among Iranians" does not refer to all Iranians, then you are admitting that the title is misleading and should be changed. Also, taking out the word "popular" from the description of Iranian.ws, simply won't do it. Anything related to Iranian.ws should be taken out, as it's just a personal/political website, operated from outside Iran. The website is as significant as a personal blog. --ManiF 19:04, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Oh and where is the source for this broad, generalizing statement "Arabs were mistrusted and accused by fellow Iranians for supporting and collaborating with Iraqi forces in the Iraq invasion of Iran in 1980". I can't find that statement in this article which by the way looks an entry from a personal weblog, not a scholarly source. --ManiF 19:11, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't deny that iranian.ws is a political website, but it is not a weblog. The news items published there are syndicated to Google's news pages, it has a large directory and other features as well as columns written by leading Iranian Americans. If you want to call it a political news portal, then fair enough. If you want to call it a website run by Iranian ex-patriates, then that's fine as well (they are still Iranians). But it is not insignificant and certainly not a weblog. As for the title, please suggest an alternative.
As for that source, it has been used in Khuzestan-related articles and has not been challenged for the past year. But I'll find another source, don't worry.--Ahwaz 19:15, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
I have taken out the "travelintelligence" link and inserted a quote from Washington Times. Is that ok for you, ManiF?--Ahwaz 19:23, 8 April 2006 (UTC)'
No, don't remove the NPOV tag. The title "Anti-Arabism among Iranians" is generalizing and misleading, so is the inclusion of extremely marginal and racist views from a personal/political website (Iranian.ws), attributing it to Iranians, or a significant portion of Iranian society. --ManiF 19:29, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
It is not a personal website. The article makes no mention of a "significant" portion of Iranian society holding these views marginal. The article cannot state it is "marginal" as that would be a POV, no? In fact, I linked to a complaint by an Iranian published on the same website stating that the views are racist and marginal, which should put it into perspective from a neutral observer's position.
You have no come up with a better title for this section. Could you suggest an alternative?--Ahwaz 19:36, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Any material from Iranian.ws has no place on Wikipedia, read WP:VERIFY. --ManiF 19:40, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

This website verifies that some Iranians hold racist views. It is an illustration of this fact. How widespread the opinions in this website are among Iranians is a matter of debate, which we cannot make judgements on as that is POV.--Ahwaz 19:45, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

What is "Persian Journal" and why do you think that things published there are notable enough to make into Wikipedia? Pecher Talk 19:48, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

The Persian Journal is a news and culture portal, with regular news updates that are syndicated to Google news. It has an anti-Arab bias (eg uses terms like "Arab worshipper" to describe Iranian Muslims) that makes it an example of anti-Arabism among Iranians.--Ahwaz 19:56, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
"This website verifies that some Iranians hold racist views"? Again, Wikipedia is not a place for original research WP:NOR. You can't just quote an insignificant individual writing on an insignificant personal/political website to "verify" your own conclusions about a group of people. --ManiF 19:53, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't think you understand what this article is about. It is about anti-Arab viewpoints. Some Iranians are anti-Arab, some Americans are anti-Arab, some French are anti-Arab. Hence, Anti-Arabism among the Iranians, Americans, French. There is no suggestion that all Iranians, Americans and French are anti-Arab. In fact, I have tried to show that not all Iranians hate Arabs and not all Iranians think their Arab community is traitorous. Look at the citations I used. So, I have made no conclusions about Iranians, just showed that some hold anti-Arab views, just as some Arabs hold anti-Jewish views.--Ahwaz 20:12, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
"There is no proof that such opinions are widespread among Iranians, either in Iran or in the diaspora."[25] Ha-ha. Ahwaz is adding more original research to rectify the existing original research. Pecher Talk 20:09, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
OK, I will take it all out for you. There will be no Anti-Arabism article and then you will be satisfied that it has been suppressed. Happy?--Ahwaz 20:12, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Whatever I have written has been deleted by me. Now you can get on with reducing the rest of the article. It is a waste of time contributing anything here. I hope you're happy, ManiF. It's another medal for you!--Ahwaz 20:22, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup?

What needs to be cleaned up in this article? AucamanTalk 19:35, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Examples of Anti-Arab incidents"

Although I have been adding to this section I thoink maybe it should be removed. The reason bieng that there are a whole lot more anti-Arab incidents than those mentioned. Therefore we have two alternatives:

  • Move the incidents mentioned to Israel and United States
  • MOve all anti-arab incidents from their respective locations into this section

Personally I favor the first option.Bless sins 18:35, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

However, you rather deceptively POVd the sections while moving them, knowing the move would make this hard to discern. Please don't do this again, thanks. Jayjg (talk) 14:58, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for accusing me of something I didn't do.Bless sins 22:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Of course you did; remember this edit? Jayjg (talk) 22:42, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Leftists often have a difficult time in getting the local officials to remove such graffiti."

Bless sins, you keep inserting this claim: "Leftists often have a difficult time in getting the local officials to remove such graffiti". You must learn to use sources accurately; the source you use does not make this claim, nor does it make some of the other claims I have corrected here and elsewhere. Again, you must accurately represent what sources say. Jayjg (talk) 14:56, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I quote (from the Haaretz[26]) "That kind of graffiti pops up often in the streets of Jerusalem. Leftists have found that the slurs remain on the walls a long time so to hasten the city's action against them, they've found a chilling, but effective way to get them removed - they paint a swastika beside it. "Bless sins 22:40, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Exactly; they don't appear to have a difficult time getting them removed at all. Jayjg (talk) 22:41, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] anti-Persianism among Arabs.

Here's an article about Arab militants who exploded several bombs and killed tens of Iranians, I added it and you remove it ... why? your action is a vanadlism not nothing else ...Maxee 18:10, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV POV POV

I propose that an article such as Arab anti-Persianism be made to address the opposite viewpoint not even mentioned in this biased article. This article is so biased and POV charged that it merits an inaccuracy tag. I'll make sure it goes on the article once it is unlocked.

It is inaccurate on several counts:

[edit] only Shamkahni?

The article mentions only Shamkhani as an Arab in the Iranian government and even portrays him as anti-Arab thru his affiliation with the government without actually providing any evidence (none of the 2 links after his name actually mention his name).

Yet nothing is mentioned of the fact that the following prominent Iranians are Arab:

makes you wonder if what the text is claiming is merely another peice of anti-Iranian propaganda cooked up by the Bush team advocates.--Zereshk 23:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Why not create an article on Iranian Arabs and put a wikilink to it from this article?
I cannot see anything that suggests Shamkhani is anti-Arab in this article.--88.110.200.222 00:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Of course you cant. That's why I'll have to change and re-word it myself. Im only giving you a heads up.--Zereshk 04:13, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Are you willing to debate this and come to an agreement on the final wording or are you just going to impose your POV and turn this into an edit war?--88.111.86.206 10:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Debate on exactly what? That the above are not Arabs?--Zereshk 17:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
No, debate on the wording of the section you are disputing. You are saying you will impose your editing on the article after the block is lifted. If the matter is disputed, then perhaps it would be better to reach consensus before hand. Judging by what you have said, it should be a simple matter of changing the wording, e.g. "some", "many", etc. But the section itself looks like it is attempting NPOV and is well sourced. More sources are used in that section than many articles on Wikipedia. If you have more sources, then it is a case of "the more, the merrier". Again, how does the article cast aspersion on Shamkhani? It states that his appointment is used as proof of Arab social mobility in Iran. I can't see how this is "anti-Iranian propaganda cooked up by the Bush team advocates", but perhaps you can enlighten us all.--88.110.92.95 17:40, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
The article was not blocked because of me or a dispute with me. So your reasoning does not apply to me. I will stay out until the article is unblocked, then start editing. You might end up agreeing with my edits for all that matters, who knows.
Fear not. Patience. Patience. Let the article be unblocked. Then I will indeed enlighten "you all". I wont root out the article like you always do. I will only make wording adjustments and add counter evidence. That's all.--Zereshk 20:08, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
If it is a matter of simply representing a wider range of opinions, then I have no problem. Minor adjustments for the sake of NPOV is also fine, although I can't see how the article is POV and I disagree with your interpretation of aspects of the article.--88.110.92.95 21:08, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] deceptive writing 1

paragraph 2 presents a statement as fact "Iranians Arabs were mistrusted and accused by some fellow Iranians for supporting and collaborating with Iraqi..."

yet the opposing claim in paragraph 3 is presented as subjective: "However, many Iranians have stressed the role Iran's Arab population played in defending Iran during..."--Zereshk 23:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

There presumably is a difference between "some" and "many". It suggests to me that some Iranians distrusted Arabs during the war, but most appreciate the fact that they fought on Iran's side. I don't see anything controversial in this statement.--88.110.200.222 00:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Some and many are subjective words. Some could mean 12 people, or it could mean 12000 people. Besides, the second sentence is misleading anyway. Arab Iranians are "Iranians". And secondly, they did play a significant role in defending the land. It doesnt need to be stressed by anyone. saying: "However, many Iranians have stressed the role Iran's Arab population played in defending Iran during" basically implies the possibility that the Arabs necessarily didnt play a significant role. It introduces doubt to an otherwise established fact.--Zereshk 17:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Clearly, it is an allegation as it would not be published. It is important to stress all key viewpoints, not the "truth" as one person sees it. Some Iranians must have felt that the Arab population was potentially traitorous (just as German and Japanese populations were distrusted by the Americans during the Second World War), but many think that they played a significant role. How would you prefer it to be worded? Please come up with a proposed new version rather than slapping a dispute tag on it as soon as the article is unlocked..--88.110.92.95 17:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
"must have felt"? where do you get such conjecture from? How do you even authorize yourself to allow such speculation be presented as fact? Your analogy to Japan and Germany is totally incorrect. You cant draw parallels, because different cultures view things like ethnicity with totally different views.
Me and you have had this discussion many times before, havent we now. Being merely "published" is no criterion for anything. Neither are google hit counts. I could publish 1000 infallacies about Hawaii, make 2000 web pages on various websites. It wont change the facts. Secondly, "the truth as one person sees it" rather applies to you, not me. The view point you are presenting as fact is only substantiated by one subjective British reporter. The truth as he sees it. I dont see any evidence showing otherwise. And besides, you still havent defined what "some" means. 2 people? 200000 people? Or just 2 wishful thinkers? Furthermore, I am the one, not you, calling for diversification and inclusion of "all views"; The article as it stands is only from the minority perspective of the separatist advocate.
I will write in certainly a new version. Then we will debate on its details as we go along. Im not going to debate you beforehand on something I havent done yet, because we will end up debating principles, which we have always been doing in the past 2 years.--Zereshk 19:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I have not had this discussion with you before. It could be a subjective opinion that Iranians appreciate Arab involvement on Iran's side during the war! There is no fact or truth when it comes to representing a spectrum of opinions.
Where is separatism even mentioned in this article? How is stating the fact that prejudice exists against Arabs a call for separatism?
From your tone, I can see this is going to turn into a bitter dispute and perhaps an edit war. Oh boy, that's great! I just wanted an amicable agreement.--88.110.92.95 21:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
We'll have an edit war, only if you decide to want one. As for me, I will make the changes and see how you react. I dont have time for edit wars and pointless debates.--Zereshk 04:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Why is it that I feel you'll not accept anything I suggest when you do your "rewrite" on the article?--88.109.23.31 09:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Because you actually havent made any suggestions yet, have you now. I think youre just trying to prevent the opposite POV from being heard. I think I'll just go ahead and make the edits with the lock in place. It wont hurt.--Zereshk 18:16, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
You've just written a POV piece. We'll have to change that, but let's see how you butcher the rest of the article.--88.109.98.100 22:44, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm not like you. The only thing I will "buthcer" is your deletions, if you delete anything. I didnt delete your stuff. And I expect the same from you. Otherwise, you'll have the edit war you keep wishing for.--Zereshk 00:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] deceptive writing 2

paragraph 4 talks of an Amnesty claim about "Gozinesh" discrimination without mentioning the fact that a similar plight is experienced by other minorities of Iran, women of Iran, students of Iran, and even Persians of Iran. The majority of the political prisoners of Evin prison are in fact Persian. And notice the word "Gozinesh" on the placard held by the student protester (protesting student gozinesh laws): [27]

I'd like to know which area of Iran is experiencing a booming economy where Khuzestan is not. Iran is kept alive only because of its subsidized economy. Look at the picture on this page. Where do you think it is? Smack in the middle of Tehran.--Zereshk 23:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the Amnesty report is suggesting that the gozinesh criteria is used only against Arabs, just that they have been denied employment as a result.--88.110.200.222 00:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Well the article is.--Zereshk 04:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] the amnesty claim....again

Furthermore, the Amnesty link, like always is false in claiming that: "schools are reportedly not allowed to teach through the medium of Arabic". I have already proven the fallacy of this statement before. Not only is modern Arabic mandatory for all Iranians, teaching via the Arabic medium is in fact allowed thru "gheyr e entefa'i" schools, as guaranteed by Article 15 of Iran's constitution.

Being an Arab is encouraged by Ahmadinejad's govt. Being a Persian is what is frowned upon. Up until a few years ago, non-Arabic names like "Zhila" were not even allowed for naming newborns by the govt. But they always encourage Arabic names like salih, meqdad, ehsan, meitham, ...

The article makes no mention of any of this.--Zereshk 23:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

The issue of education isn't even covered in this section on anti-Arabism in Iran. So I don't understand how you can use this as an objection to the article.--88.110.200.222 00:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
The quote is about the educational aspect. It's quite obvious.--Zereshk 04:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Please pick out the quotation in the article concerning education.--88.111.86.206 10:12, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
It's given above. I'm posting it again: "schools are reportedly not allowed to teach through the medium of Arabic".--Zereshk 17:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
It is not in the article, though. So what is the problem here?--88.110.92.95 17:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
The article that mentions this as a fact is directly given as a source, link #15.--Zereshk 19:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
But if it doesn't actually mention it in the text here, then I don't understand the substance of your dispute. Do you want the education issue included in the anti-Arabism article and then refuted?--88.110.92.95 21:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
We can do that of course, because there is no education issue. And if we dont, I'll just add a note about the source not being verifiable.--Zereshk 04:49, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I object to that. Amnesty International is a respectable and independent source and you cannot say it is unverifiable.--88.109.23.31 09:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Ive already proven that it is. But then again, you shouldnt be objecting because I dont plan to erase it anyway. Im just planing to make note of things.--Zereshk 18:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Can you explain to me how industrial projects have anything to do with racism?--88.109.98.100 22:43, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm. Dont know. Now let's get back to the subject.--Zereshk 00:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] hiding facts

The article propagates inaccuracy by concealing relevant information. The article is quick to point out poverty in the province. Yet it makes no mention at all of any of the industrial and economic projects (whose money is coming from other provinces) (e.g. The Razi Petrochemical plant that comes online this year, investment in local universities by the govt (seen here e.g. is a Robotics competition in Ahvaz University), or other national projects [28]

The artcile makes it sound like the "policies" of depriving Khuzestan are ethnically driven, whereas in fact in reality they are only results of an incredibly corrupted and highly inefficient state controlled economy.

Why doesnt the article make no mention that provincs like Kohkiluyeh and Buyer Ahmad Province, Sistan and Baluchistan Province, Ilam Province, and a few others are even more destitute than Khuzestan?

Is it not merely to provoke an emotional response against Irana and Iranians?

That's why this article is a sham. When there are thousands of people in the heart of the capital of Iran selling their kidneys to bring bread to the table [29][30], articles like these talking of "poverty in Khuzestan" just reek with anti-Iranian racist drivel.--Zereshk 23:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

No-one is stopping you from putting counter-arguments to Amnesty reports, provided they are well sourced. Given the fact that Amnesty is commonly regarded as a reliable and independent source of information, I can't see why you are so upset.
If the world's leading human rights organisation devotes an entire section of a report on Iran to the discrimination of Arabs, then does it not deserve a mention in an article on Anti-Arabism? The article doesn't mention other provinces because they do not contain Arab populations and this article is about Arabs.
If you feel there is a need for an article on anti-Iranianism, then go ahead.--88.110.200.222 00:49, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Youre missing the point, Zora/Ahwaz. Nobody is "upset" for having the amnesty report included. However, if you want to include it, you should be fair and point out their erroneous judgement, and provide the opposite POV for a balanced view. And since I know that is something youll never do, then I'll have to step in and rewrite that entire section, once the lock is lifted.--Zereshk 04:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't know who you think I am. Please assume good faith. I am just trying to engage you in discussion about what you actually want. Let's find counter-balancing information, if that's what you want. Please state what you would prefer as the wording for the section, other editors can contribute their ideas and then when the block is lifted we can just paste in a consensus version. Either that or we can agree to have a dispute resolution.--88.111.86.206 10:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I think you are Zora/Ahwaz. But it really doesnt matter, and I really dont care about your identity as long as these sentences in the article get fixed. If you want me to assume good faith, then please log in using a username.--Zereshk 17:09, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Not having a username does not mean that others must view an anonymous editor as acting in bad faith.--88.110.92.95 17:33, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I think it does, because I could also go and log in with 10 other different IP addresses, and post messages everywhere, making my view look like a consensus. And if somebody says anything, I'll accuse them of "acting in bad faith".--Zereshk 19:33, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Actually the very fact that you are using multiple IP addresses (one for each message), and yet retaining the identity of one user throughout all discussions is all the more reason for my request (and suspicion). Please log in with a username. That way we can leave messages on your talk page as well.--Zereshk 20:16, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
You can discuss the matter of Anti-Arabism with me here. It doesn't need to be carried out on a user talk page. You'll just have to put up with it. I am not breaking any Wikipedia rules and it is not Wikiquette to assume bad faith.--88.110.92.95 21:14, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
WP actually encourages all editors to register: WP:ACCOUNT.--Zereshk 05:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
It may encourage, but it is not "law".--88.109.98.100 22:42, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zora is visiting this talk page for the first time

Someone told me that I was being accused of editing from an anonIP. I don't do that. I'm such a Wikiholic that I'm constantly logged in. Please don't accuse me of underhandedness. Zora 23:39, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Right. And I'm Marvin Gaye.--Zereshk 04:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Zereshk,

The anonymous user is not Zora. It's Ahwaz youre dealing with. And why are you so hesitant on making edits to the article? You really dont need his permission nor approval. "Be bold".--129.111.64.228 18:22, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

What difference does it make? In my view, Ahwaz is the specialized version of Zora.--Zereshk 20:24, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Ha ha! Is this a guess the IP game? You are probably Zereshk. Why not get on with your rewrite?--88.109.23.31 18:34, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Can you prove that I am that anon user? I think not. HA HA HA! It's easy: Just put up a request for an IP check, and we will see! :) --Zereshk 20:22, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Why don't you put up an IP check on my IP?--88.109.98.100 22:41, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I certainly am not Ahwaz. It would be great if I were, because then I'd know Farsi and Arabic. Zora 20:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Ahwaz doesnt know Farsi or Arabic.--Zereshk 00:46, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't know Farsi but I know Arabic. I have translated Arabic elsewhere on Wikipedia as others can testify. It is your intention to portray me as both a fraud and a supporter of terrorism, but this is not supported by any evidence. If you have personal problems with me, take it to my talk page and don't bring it into editing articles.--Ahwaz 00:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Oh really? Cool. Then we can converse in Arabic :)--Zereshk 02:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppets of User:Ahwaz have been confirmed

The following Anons, have all been confirmed to be sockpuppets of User:Ahwaz, just as I had suspected:

Thanx all.--Zereshk 02:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I have been editing using anonymous IPs for the past month. I have not violated Wikipedia policies, either here or elsewhere. If you have a complaint, then take it up with an admin instead of making accusations.--Ahwaz 11:24, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
The accusations are now confirmed to be true. I in fact received the confirmation that the Anons above were you with the help of WP Admins. But like I said, it really doesnt matter to me who you are. In the future, if you do plan to use anon IP addresses, just let people know it is you, instead of acting like it's somebody else thats backing "Ahwaz" up.--Zereshk 11:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Is there any evidence that I broke Wikipedia rules? No, none at all. I was editing using an anon IP because some editors go crazy whenever they see the spelling "Ahwaz". It was an attempt to stop racist abuse, baseless accusations and stalking so I could get on with editing other articles, many completely unrelated to Iran or the Middle East. This is regarded as a legitimate use of sockpuppets. But if you think otherwise, then take the issue to an admin.--Ahwaz 11:43, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
If that were truly your concern, you simply would have used another username, like everyone else does.--Zereshk 12:24, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
I could still be accused of sockpuppetry if I did use another username. In fact, I fear this would be even more controversial. I thought it better to edit anonymously. I hope that we can put past disagreements behind us and use our different, contrasting POVs to produce high quality NPOV articles. Previous arguments have wasted too much time and energy. Frankly, I think it is a shame that SouthernComfort is no longer involved as I managed to come to agreement with him on several matters of editorial dispute, but I wanted to stay out of the whole Aucaman business.--Ahwaz 13:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

Zereshk: I think you need to source this claim: [31]

Which one? There are several sentences there.--Zereshk 12:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
You have sourced the sentence now, although I think there are better sources to back this sentence up, since overall poverty levels in Iran have declined in recent years. I think it would be better to have a study on poverty in Iran rather than a news article. I will search for one.--Ahwaz 12:24, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Image of Arabs in Modern Persian Literature

The Image of Arabs in Modern Persian Literature by Joya Blondel Saad looks like a well-researched and comprehensive source that we can use to expand the section on anti-Arabism in Iran. A synopsis is available here [32] and excerpts can be found here [33]. --Inahet 19:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CfD

Category:Anti-Arabism (edit|talk|links|history|logs)

Please join the discussion. --Zoz (t) 18:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Kept long ago. --William Allen Simpson 05:43, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Page move to Anti-Arab racism

How would people feel about moving this page to "Anti-Arab racism" and keeping "Anti-Arabism" as a redirect to "Anti-Arab racism"?

The reason I'm suggesting this is because the page Islamophobia has become bogged down with arguments about the term "Islamophobia" rather than the meaning and extent of Islamophobia and a secondary page Anti-Muslim sentiment has had to be created as a storehouse for things which don't qualify the rigid definition of Islamophobia that some are insisting upon.

Also, anti-Arab racism is more commonly used than anti-Arabism according to Google - (76,000 vs 16,000).

So far this page hasn't become bogged down with arguments about the term anti-Arabism, but it may be in the future. Deuterium 02:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this would be right. Since when are the Arabs a race? Google test is not reliable. Also, check out the quality of links there. ←Humus sapiens ну? 05:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Arabs may not be a race, but they are an ethnic group, and the phrase "anti-Arab racism" is widely used by mainstream sources. Perhaps "Anti-Arab discrimination" would be a better phrase. Deuterium 05:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
I think that Anti-Arab discrimination is the best title for this article, so I'm for moving the article there. --Inahet 17:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] caricature in the intro

I question the inclusion of the leading caricature: is it specifically anti-Arabic, or is it a political cartoon against Saudi leaders/policies linked to supporting terrorism? (Let me know if you need references on that: there are tons) Also I find its caption misleading: Anti-Arabism's relation to anti-Semitism is WP:OR. Moneybags and crooked noses are a very common occurrence in cartoons. Please stop confusing the reader and making questionable political & historical parallels. ←Humus sapiens ну? 21:23, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The inclusion might be original research: the page it was sourced from didn't describe it as racist. Andjam 23:44, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
So...? It obviously is. And it has been described as racist.[34] // Liftarn
What I see is a retaliation for my edits on the Arabs and anti-Semitism, could this be in a violation of WP:POINT? Hmm, oh well, eye for an eye I guess. But you may have a point, it would be POV to label this cartoon anti-Arabism, so I'm not intending to return the cartoon. --Inahet 00:17, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I was planning to dispute the cartoon's inclusion myself anyway. Andjam 10:13, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, there are better examples available from http://www.drmenlo.com/lgfquiz/ where old anti-Semitic cartoons is deiplayed next to modern anti-Arab cartoons. // Liftarn

Once again: stop making questionable and offensive political & historical parallels. ←Humus sapiens ну? 20:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Why is a historical perspective on how some themes return offensive? // Liftarn

I believe the cartoon is a political one. The cartoonist made sure to let the word "Saudis" and not "Arabs" appear on the robe. What i am wondering about is this... Liftarn link got a very important point! It is easy and smart for anti-Arabist cartoonists to add a country name on the cartoon so to avoid controversy. Compare the two cartoons at the link provided by Liftarn above. According to some apologists, one is 'purely anti-semitic' while the other is just 'anti-Arafat/Mahmoud' and not even 'anti-Palestinian'. What a world! -- Szvest 11:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up ®

I also found http://cagle.msnbc.com/news/antiPALESTINIAN/main.asp where they openly admit that thair cartoons are anti-Palestianian. // Liftarn

There's nothing currently in the article saying that arabs are the targets of cartoons. Shouldn't there be well-written, well-cited prose first, and then the addition of pictures? Preferably cartoons that have been criticised by notable sources, rather than ones chosen by wikipedians using google. Or maybe use a movie screenshot (chosen by a notable source) rather than a cartoon, if movies are the main source of anti-arabism. Andjam 13:54, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, a section on orientalism could be interesting. // Liftarn

[edit] Anti-Arabism from Middle Eastern and North African Christians

This section is problematic because it contains original research, and none of the material is referenced. So, I support the removal of this section in its entirety, anyone else? --Inahet 20:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Done. Incidentally, the point form list near the start of the article looks a bit poor. Andjam 10:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree. It looked bizarre indeed. -- Szvest 12:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 85.81.20.149 edit warring

Anon 85.81.20.149 (talk • contribs) constantly removes this line "Anti-Arabism shares many of the common themes with islamophobia" citing 'bias'. Without again accusing me of proselytizing and whining, could you, 85.81.20.149, provide reasons why you think this line is biased?? ---Inahet 19:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

It is an unreferenced claim, that is based on nothing but original research.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.81.20.149 (talk)
Is that all? Where is the bias you speak of? --Inahet 19:49, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
First, Islamophobia is nothing but a ridicules concept that has been created in order to allege that those that dare to critizise the totalitarian Islamic ideology is somehow insane. To claim that "Islamophobia" actually exist or is anything but an Islamic propaganda concept, is very biased. Your original research comparison between anti-Arabism, which in some cases is a kind of racism, and concept of "Islamophobia" is as biased as it gets.
Exactly what I expect, you're trying to enforce your biased POV in the article. Just because YOU think that Islamophobia is a ridiculous propaganda concept, doesn't mean we should treat it as such. All I can do right now or in the near future as a solution is to attribute the comparison to a reliable organization. BTW, the comparsion between anti-Arabism and Islamophobia is NOT MINE, stop attributing edits to me that do not belong to me! --Inahet 20:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
"Exactly what I expect, you're trying to enforce your biased POV in the article. Just because YOU think that Islamophobia is a ridiculous propaganda concept, doesn't mean we should treat it as such." There are many notable scholars that has critizised it for being nothing more than a Islamic tool to silence criticism of Islam, and to choose a side and allege that it isn't, is what is biased and against the neutral point of view that Wikipedia should be written according to. The content you want to include imply that the concept is real, and that is biased.
"All I can do right now or in the near future as a solution is to attribute the comparison to a reliable organization." Hmm.. Such as CAIR or Runnymede Trust I guess? LOL!
"BTW, the comparsion between anti-Arabism and Islamophobia is NOT MINE, stop attributing edits to me that do not belong to me!" Well, I thought that if you wanted to restore something again and again, then it was because you agreed with it... But it not like that? I believe this adds a whole new dimension to our discussions...
The concept of Islamophobia is real, a description was provided by several organizations, and the term is widely used, whether you think the concept is ridiculous or insane doesn't matter. It is a concept just like any other, and every concept has its critics as well as its proponents (that is, they support that this concept is legitimate). Don't try to attempt to turn the article Islamophobia into a polemic criticizing the concept. There is already a lengthy section on its criticism.
I will cite CAIR, Runnymede Trust, or whatever to provide a counterpoint. Then readers can decide whether or not they agree with the organization or scholar. Likewise, readers will decide whether they agree with your "notable scholars".
I reverted your edits to this article because you provided no solid argument. Whether I agree with the line or not is not the point, but I think it is a valid claim that should not be taken out unless with consensus. --Inahet 20:48, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


According to an article in The Guardian Islamophobia is a variant of anti-Arabism. // Liftarn

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/n/t/Talk%7EAnti-Arabism_4160.html"