Talk:Anti-Iranian sentiments

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was nominated for deletion on 29/5/2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article was nominated for deletion on January 31, 2007. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

/Reduction leftovers

Contents 1 Problems 2 Anti-Persianism? 3 Anti-Shia 4 Does this Topic actually warrant an ARTICLE in Wikipedia? 5 Repeat of call 6 Unfair 7 Awesome link 8 Proposal 9 Opening paragraph 10 Title 11 The problem 12 Persian supremacism and racism 13 Deleting section 14 removing list of people who used the term anti-Iranianism 15 straw poll to establish consensus 16 Waaait a minute...! 17 removed from article 17.1 The Mongolian era 18 By colonial powers 18.1 Imperial Russia 18.2 British Empire 19 By the United States 19.1 Iran-Air incident 19.2 Siding against Iran during the Iran-Iraq war 19.3 Against scientists and UN envoys 19.4 Threats of a possible military attack on Iran by the US 19.5 Claims of plans for use of nuclear weapons against Iran 19.6 Other hostile gestures 19.7 US violations of Iranian sovereignty 19.8 Decisions of US courts against Persian heritage artifacts 20 The media 21 Citation 35 22 "Neologism" 23 In the US section 24 Shot for Consensus 25 Wikipedia is NOT a discussion 26 Lack of Citation 27 A picture tells a thousand words 28 Please someone include this in the article

[edit] Problems

Anti-Iran and anti-Persian are conflated. Ethnic Persians comprise around half the Iranian population, but the article uses the terms anti-Iranian and anti-Persian interchangeable. Please clarify what you mean by this. It is important in assessing whether for instance Saddam was anti-Iran in terms of opposing a state or anti-Persian in terms of racial supremacy.--Ahwaz 01:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with using them interchangeably. Persia was the official name of the country before 1935, and it is the word used by the Arabs to refer to Iranians. On the other hand Iran has been used since 300BC. Saddam was against Persians as an ethnic group. He was against Iran as a country.

So it's both.

Maybe a good solution is to change the article's title to "Anti-Iranism by Arabs".--Zereshk 02:40, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Why not just "Anti-Iranianism"? I am sure that you can find more "enemies" of Iran than just Arabs. The Greeks, perhaps?

Nevertheless, there still needs to be a distinction between hatred of an ethnic group - the Persians - and hatred of Iran. In parts, this article mixes and confuses the two. You need to define what you mean by Persian.

I dont think there needs to be a distinction, because the article addresses both.--Zereshk 13:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

The article does not define "anti-Persianism" as distinct from "anti-Iranianism". At points, it talks of anti-Iran and at other points anti-Persian. They are not the same thing.--Ahwaz 13:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

So what if they are not the same thing? Who cares? The point is that the article addresses both. What are you trying to imply? That Persians are not Iranians?--Zereshk 16:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Not all Iranians are Persians. You know that. Only half the Iranian population is Persian, but you are using actions and events that are perceived to be anti-Iranian to prove your claim that they are anti-Persian. It confuses the issue.--Ahwaz 16:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

It doesnt confuse the issue. I think youre just trying to be nit-picky and argue on just for the sake of it because you find the article to be uncomforting to your pro-Arab tastes.--Zereshk 20:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Being at war with Iran is not proof of anti-Persian or even anti-Iranian sentiment. The Iranian government always accuses the "Zionist Entity" of challenging its sovereignty, but is Israel's alleged transgressions anti-Iranian, anti-Persian, anti-Islam or just self-defence?

Yes it is. Have you seen pictures of the war? The murals Saddam painted of "The Persian Rostam being slain by the Arab muslim?" Have you even heard the speeches that Saddam gave during and before the war? Do you know anything about Magus, the Shu'ubiyah movement, the revolts, etc? These things are deeply rooted. Youre not an Arab obviously. Otherwise youd be well aware of such things.--Zereshk 13:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Must I continually defend my ethnicity from you? I am Arab. Many other editors can back me up on this. You continually accuse me of being a liar and continually make this accusation, but without any basis. It is a method of vilification and of trying to dismiss any of my edits and opinions. But you still haven't answered my point. Arab policies on Iran are not purely driven by racism, but other factors.--Ahwaz 13:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Why do you keep trying to legitimize yourself? I reserve the right to hold opinions just like you do. I think it's pretty obvious youre British or Anglophile, and youve learned some Arabic as a second language. I dont know, maybe youve lived in Dubai or somewhere for a while. Beats me. But youre definitely not from Ahvaz, Khuzestan, or anywhere inside Iran. That I can bet on. I have far enough experience to tell a genuine Arab when I see one. Because I have lived among them.--Zereshk 16:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Why do I keep trying to legitimise myself? Because you continually make personal attacks on me and portray me as a liar. Presumably you think I am a British spy part of some Bilderberg conspiracy invented by a couple of American hacks over 25 years ago. I don't know what your trip is, but I don't think you know many Arabs, at least none in the UK.--Ahwaz 16:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I dont think youre a spy. And I dont know almost anybody in the UK. Arab or Persian or...well except Kashk. Hes in Britain. But I do think you take things a bit too far, and mostly out of ignorance on Iranian matters (no offense), just like Zora does.--Zereshk 20:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

You don't know me and you know nothing about me. Do not assume things about me. I have not accused you of anything in this exchange and tried to keep it as civil as possible, but so far you have called me a ignorant, deceptive, in denial, "someone who doesnt know zilch about politics", "propagating a secessionist plague", etc. It doesn't seem that you want to discuss matters with people who do not share your POV - and you do have a POV that is strongly reflected in your tone and the opinions you portray as "fact".--Ahwaz 20:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

You also need to source the term "Anti-Persianism". I can only find five references to anti-Persianism on a Google search [1]), which may lead some to conclude that this article is about POV pushing.--Ahwaz 09:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. That's because the only folks who have sentiments against Persians are Arabs. The Brits do as well, but it is more political (hence targeted more against Iran). Furthermore, Ive told you 10 times before: google is not any criterion for anything. It gives 50,400,000 hits for "flat earth".--Zereshk 13:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I here you talking a lot about this or that editor being anti-Iranian or anti-Persian, including non-Arab editors. So the sentiment is not just held by Arabs, is it? Can you give me a reliable source that defines "anti-Persianism"?--Ahwaz 13:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Do you prefer the title "Arab hatred of Persians"? I think it's more revealing.--Zereshk 15:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, I fear that the "Tensions in Khuzestan" section is straying off the subject somewhat, away from "Anti-Persianism" to promoting the argument that Bilderbergers are conspiring to destroy Iran. I believe that the Bilderberger meetings are held in secret and are informal, so the reliability of this source is doubtful. You also talk of a "British plan for Iran's invasion", but this is a misrepresentation of British foreign policy as successive British foreign secretaries - particularly under the Blair administration - have gone on the record as saying that they oppose military action against Iran. The article you refer to was written in 1980 during the government of Margaret Thatcher and amid the unrest of the 1979 revolution. There is no proof that this was the stated position of the government and, 26 years on, there is no proof that this continues to be British policy.

Sorry. It is sourced. Cant erase it.--Zereshk 13:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, then I will have to put in something about verifiability.--Ahwaz 13:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

The source is certainly verifiable. Ive provided ISBN numbers, dates, and all the necessary things.--Zereshk 15:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

How do two American hacks get information on some Bilderberg conspiracy? This is just a conspiracy theory dressed up as fact and certainly not in keeping with Wikipedia's commitment to NPOV.--Ahwaz 16:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Uh-oh, we're not supposed to judge sources now, are we. That is exactly defined as "original research". I suppose you see no involvement whatsoever of your dear mother queen and her former empire in chopping up the ME into 16 little pieces. Why is it that everywhere we look in the ME we see Britan involved in the formation of every new country (Iraq, Israel, Bahrain, etc)? I suppose they were just having a vacation there. Kinda reminds me of these republicans we have here that still think Saddam was involved in 9-11. In total denial.--Zereshk 20:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

And why just the British? Iran has accused Israel, the US, Saudi Arabia, Canada, Ba'athists, Al-Qaeda, Shell Oil, etc, for promoting tensions - anyone the government regards as its latest enemy. None of it is proven and unless you are one of the few people who believe in all Iran's

Israel doesnt plan to dissect Iran through ethnic tensions: They very well know that a strong Iran is a counter balance to the 25 Arab states that wish to drive the Jews into the sea, no matter what the ideological view of Iranians on Islam may be. Hence the enemy of my enemy. If Iran is making loud noises about Israel, it's not because of "Zionist" hegemony (that's all surface smoke screen designed for the masses), but merely because Iran wants to define itself as a regional power. Saudi Arabia is no threat, they cant even pilot their own aircraft. The Baathists are already dead, thanx to Bush's war. Shell and Canada are your imagination.--Zereshk 13:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Canada and Shell Oil have been blamed for Arab unrest by Iran. You even put up a photo of some Arab opposition leader with a Canadian politician as proof of foreign involvement! "Loud noises" about Israel? Iran funds Hamas and Hezbollah!--Ahwaz 13:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Look, Im not going to argue with someone who doesnt know zilch about Iran-Israel relations and politcs. OK? (btw, I wrote the Iran-Israel relations article too.)--Zereshk 16:21, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, if you are not prepared to debate with me, then there is no point in trying to reach a consensus on NPOV. Do you think that is the best way to proceed?--Ahwaz 16:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I dont need a consensus on the fact that Iran doesnt see Israel as a threat. It's not even relevant to the subject. What do you know of Iran and Iranian politics?--Zereshk 20:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that the article would be best split into "Anti-Iranianism" as a racist sentiment and another article on "British relations with Iran".--Ahwaz 10:06, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

We already have Iran-Britain relations. I wrote it. Britain's plot to dissect Iran (and the entire ME) does not exactly fall under "relations".--Zereshk 13:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

So what is the purpose of exploring British policy in Iran in so much depth? Why not just refer to the article you wrote?--Ahwaz 13:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Because the British were so involved and active in the Iranian politics of Khuzestan, the Arabs, the south of Iran, the ME in general, and almost every aspect of Iran's contemporary history. And they still are. Look at you. Youre even denying the obvious word "anti-persian" as if it needs to be first defined to exist.--Zereshk 15:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, these are all Iranian allegations. The Iranian government has not published a shred of evidence of British involvement in Ahwaz. Secondly, I am not denying the term "Anti-Persianism", I am asking for you to give a definition using secondary material. This was a requirement imposed on the Anti-Arabism article. If you don't, then it is original research.--Ahwaz 16:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Britain has been involved, and directly involved, up to its neck, in Iranian politics, all the way up to the 1950s. We even have buildings that still stand in southern Iran that were built for british soldiers. roads built by them, Sir Charles this and Sir Harford that graffitti all over the stones and reliefs of Persepolis. Im not even going to debate that. Britain is still involved in the region, albeit not as much, nowadays. But it sure as hell lies somewhere at the roots of this Arab secessionist plague that you keep propagating on WP. Read Morgan Shuster's "The Stranglig of Persia" for an American account of how the British were involved in Iran. And they are still present in Iraq and have a direct say in Iran-EU negotiations, and are quite influencial in lobbying for or against Iran when needed.--Zereshk 20:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it should remain as Persian (600+ results) against, just to focus on the conflict and hatred and often jealousy that of the Arabs toward Persians. By the way, I didn't understand all that you said about the British. Every time the topic comes up about war against Iran, Blair has said that the military action is not off the table, they have never opposed it. --K a s h ^{Talk | email} 10:16, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

There still needs to be a well-sourced definition of "Anti-Persian" or "Anti-Persianism" - the term "anti-Persianism" is not commonly used, so I think you are going to have some problems here in justifying the existence of this article. In its present form, it could classify as "original research". Perhaps it should be renamed "Arab relations with Persia/Iran".

It's not used because there are no anti-Persians except for Arabs.--Zereshk 13:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

That's not really an answer, is it? Show me a source that defines "anti-Persianism".--Ahwaz 13:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

It doesnt need to be defined because its not a jargon or term. Are you denying that there are anti-Persian sentiments among Arabs?--Zereshk 15:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

An "-ism" is a term. If you put Anti-Persian Racism, then that is acceptable. But I cannot see the basis for turning it into an "-ism" when the term does not exist in reality.--Ahwaz 16:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Fine. What do you propose we change the title name to?--Zereshk 20:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

There is a difference between refusing to rule out military action - it is conceivable that Ahmadinejad has aggressive intentions, especially when he calls for the destruction of Israel - and having a plan to invade and break up Iran. See [2] for details on the new foreign secretary's approach to the issue.--Ahwaz 10:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, we Iranians dont see Israel as a threat. You may speculate what we think. But Israel is actually admired by many Iranians. The most Israel will do is bomb Iran's nuke installations. And not even that in my opinion. Dissecting Iran based on ethnicity however is a trade Britain has been involved with for over a century (since the days of Sheikh Khazal). Hence the popular Persian proverb: hamash zeer e sar e engeleesaast: "It's all because the of The British".--Zereshk 13:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

That could also be Iranian paranoia!--Ahwaz 13:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps. Perhaps not. Operation Ajax was led by the British. Khazal was supported by the British. Both Turkemanchai and Gulistan Treaties were arbitrated up by the British. Reza Khan was brought into power by the British (Edmund Ironside, 1st Baron Ironside). The Tobocco movement was specifically against the British. Iran was occupied by Britain several times in its southern ports. ...

I'd say there is plenty of reason for the way things are.--Zereshk 15:40, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Zereshk: Let me tell you a secret - the British Empire no longer exists.--Ahwaz 16:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

You dont need an empire to go around messing up other countries. Even little Belgium had an African colony.--Zereshk 20:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I followed your Google search link and many of the pages refer to military campaigns against Persian by the Greeks and Ottomans. I can find very few that refer to "anti-Persianism" as an ideology among Arabs. Perhaps you can say that some Arab states have advocated anti-Iran policies, but the context is not necessarily racial - there are also religious, political and strategic factors. Iran is a Shia majority country, it is militarily powerful and its policies towards some Arab states have been confrontational and often involve support for opposition groups (Shia extremists in Bahrain or the support for Sciri under Saddam). I am not trying to justify aggression towards Iran, but I don't think that all this can be seen as soley the result of hatred of Persians - it is a far more complex matter. Again, I think it would be better to have an article on "Anti-Iranianism" (to cover the points raised on British and American policies) and/or Arab-Iranian relations.--Ahwaz 10:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

If you have a problem with the semantics, we can change the title of the article. No problem. How about: "Arab hatred of Persians". I think that sounds more accurate and to the point.--Zereshk 13:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-Persianism?

Anti-Persianism gets 8 hits on Google. It is not noteworthy. This article conflates events from many different historical periods and it is ORIGINAL RESEARCH. I don't think that it is salvageable. Zora 23:54, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

1. "Flat Earth" gets 50,700,000 hits on google. Obviously not a research tool.
2. It is sourced. Cant call it OR. Sorry.
3. We can change the title. Im open to suggestions.--Zereshk 00:16, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

The subject is as "noteworthy" as "Anti-Arabism". Lets not be selective here, ok Zora? --ManiF 00:17, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

The main dispute on Anti-Arabism was its definition. Once it was established that the term had common useage, the term was accepted. Look at the early history pages. I think a similar requirement of verification should be applied to "Anti-Persianism".

By the way, Flat Earth has an entry in Wikipedia, Anti-Kurdishism doesn't [3]. The reason is that Flat Earth is in common useage, while Anti-Kurdishism and Anti-Persianism are associated with one or two sources. In the case of Anti-Persianism, there is only one article of note that explores the issue -[4] - and Anti-Persianism is mentioned just once and in relation to Osama bin Laden.

I think that some sections could be included could be incorporated into the Pan-Arabism article under a sub-heading "criticisms".

But the real reason for this article's existence is a reaction by Zereshk to the Anti-Arabism article, in an attempt to score points.[5] He thinks that the Anti-Arabism article is biased, so he intends "to address the opposite viewpoint" by creating this article. I am not so sure that this is the way encyclopaedia are compiled or the way to meet Wikipedia's NPOV policies.--الأهواز 00:41, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

1. Ahwaz, it's Anti-Kurdism, not "Anti-Kurdishism". (and he gets angry when I say he's ignorant...).
2. Not in common usage is no criterion for whether or not something should be acceptable. Otherwise 3/4 of Meriam Webster's dictionary would have to be discarded for words "not in common usage".
3. Youre the one whos trying to score points with your anti-Persian drivel on WP, Ahwaz. You inject this "Iranians support Terrorism in Bahrain" paragraph, which is totally unrelated to the topic (soccer feud), and dont have the decency to even mention the fact that Bahrain is predominantly Shia ruled by an undemocratic Sunni group! [6]
4. It was your own suggestion to create this article Ahwaz. So dont complain.--Zereshk 01:00, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Where have I been "anti-Persian"? I have pointed out that Iran has sponsored terrorism in Bahrain. This is not an accusation against Persians, but a fact about the regime in Iran and a reason why Bahrainis would be glad to defeat Iran in soccer. I have lived in Bahrain and I know how much they hate the bomb attacks by the terrorists. Bahrain is a multi-ethnic state with a sizeable Persian minority. If there is proof that the Persians are racially persecuted in Bahrain, then provide the information. But in reality, many Persians go to Bahrain because they want to earn a good living. And what has religion got to do with this?--الأهواز 01:13, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, I suggested an article on anti-Iranianism. Only half of Iranians are Persian, so any attack on Iran is not just an attack on Persians. Zereshk has repeatedly pointed out that Ahwazi Arabs are Iranian, so attacks on Iran are also attacks on Ahwazis. Am I right or am I right?--الأهواز 01:18, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

User Ahwaz says: "Zereshk has repeatedly pointed out that Ahwazi Arabs are Iranian, so attacks on Iran are also attacks on Ahwazis. Am I right or am I right?" !! playing with words! Just like saying those who say "Death to America" mean also "Death to arabs" as there are more than three milion arabs living in the US! User:Ahwaz! Iran is known for its Persian (ajam) and Shia population, as you know quite well. Is it difficult to digest ? --Sina Kardar18:08, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Iran is 50% non-Persian. The Azeri Turks are about a quarter of the population and hold considerable power and influence. Iranian is not necessarily Persian. Iran is one of the world's most ethnically diverse countries. So, when you say someone is anti-Iranian, it applies to the entire country not just the Persians. The issue of Jawahiri is not proven as anti-Persian, even if it is true that it was anti-Iranian. As the article makes clear, he was an Arab (and I think Husri would have known this due to the man's name, family and place of origin) and was the victim of anti-Iranianism - ie a fear of Iranians. Anyway, this article says he was born in Najaf [7]

In fact, your text has been copied and pasted from [8] - the only article I have come across that even mentions "anti-Persianism". This is one man's opinion published on a pro-monarchist website which states that its aim is "to demystify and clarify the barbaric nature of the three (3) Adam & Eve based religions: Judaism, Christianity and Islam, in the hope of reawakening the brainwashed and blindfolded public, who incidentally are, and have always been the main target of the three (3) man-made mythical dogma"[9]. It should be presented as such, instead of being passed off as encyclopaedic.

I think this article needs to be renamed "Anti-Iranianism" as it will carry more weight and credibility. It could also be applied to arguments concerning various countries' policies and attitudes towards Iran. At the moment, it is just a copy-paste job that is premised on a particularly POV.--الأهواز 20:16, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-Shia

There is a lot about anti-Shi'ite sentiment in this article, but not all Shi'ites are Persian - many are Arabs. I cannot see how you can conflate Persian with Shia and I think sections particularly to religious conflict should be move to more relevant sections.--الأهواز 00:52, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Does this Topic actually warrant an ARTICLE in Wikipedia?

Regarding above discussion and so termed " anti persianism", Zereshk, dooste azeez, with all due respect, i think the subject matter encompasses too vast a terrain, that it can be squeezed into a single term and associated with Arabs alone. You will surely agree that sentiments against IRAN and/or its inhabitants can have many causes and have been ubiquitously prevalent at different points in time, during the last two and a half millennia. Be it Babylon or Egypt or Greece in Antiquity, or the Arab Caliphates,as well as India , Afghanistan and the Ottoman Empire in more recent times. Too complex and too different in nature were the myriad respective misgivings, fostered against Iran and its inhabitants, that a single term would do the subject justice. Animosities by Sunnites against Shiites surely differ from the contempt and hatred evoked among US Americans in recent years. Israel, a staunch ally during the Sha's days has changed its position by 180 degrees, due to Iran's stance during the Islamist Republic's tenure. I would delete the Article and, instead, seize the countless opportunities to address the subject in ALL the many articles touching on it, by virtue of dealing with Iran as a subject (Kerbela, Nadjaf, Ottomans, Safavids, CIA/MI6 supported (counter-) coup 1953, Iraq, Bahrain, Islands in the strait of Hormuz....... etc., etc.) I am not at all taking sides here (I am not defending User Al-Ahwaz's position, to be sure!) The relationship between Arab peoples and the inhabitants of Iran, be they of Arian, Turcoman, Jewish,or Christian extraction -beside the Arab minority, dwelling mainly in Khuzestan- reflect, in fact, only one of many facetts of unfriendly dispositions toward Iranians, as both of you will surely agree. Pantherarosa 14:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

You say you are not defending my position, but essentially you are I are saying the same thing. I actually suggested that Zereshk start an article on Anti-Iranianism last week, which would obviously cover all the aspects of fear or hatred of Iranians and could include anti-Persian sentiment as a basis for Anti-Iranian ideas. Instead, he has chosen to write an article on "Anti-Persianism by Arabs", which conflates a wide range of issues that are not necessarily related to anti-Persian racism. I have repeatedly said that it would be better to have an article on anti-Iranianism (and not just among Arabs), but have been over-ruled. Consequently, another editor has decided to AfD it.--الأهواز 15:31, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually I would opt to do without an article on the subject altogether, as I tried to express further up. While the subject would surely make great reading as an essay in a periodical, it seems hardly suitable for an article in an Encyclopaedia, i would say. There are ample opportunities to exhaust the subject in countless articles touching on it, as mentioned above. And as for you, akhi Al-Ahwaz, you would make it much easier for readers not familiar with the Arabic script, if you kept your name HERE in Latin letters, for them to to know whom they are dealing with. Pantherarosa 16:19, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Pantherosa,

I am all for expanding the article to be more inclusive. Ahwaz et al however have simply decided to nominate this article for deletion, as a means to deal with the information presented in this article.--Zereshk 20:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I didn't nominate it, but I backed deletion for the reasons I have stated on this talk page and on the article's AfD. I also have a problem - as do some who have voted to keep the article - with the POV slant of the article and the plagiarism.--الأهواز 21:03, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

This topic may warrant an article in Wikipedia, but certainly not in its existing format. It reads as a polemic that conflates all instances of hostility towards Persia/Iran the state as somehow being a form of discrimination. There is no treatment of (real) ethnic hatred and condescension from Imperial Russia, while Russian territorial aggression is supposedly passed off as being an example of ethnic hatred?! Russia expanded because it wished to become more powerful. It expanded into Iranian territory because Iran at the time was weak and an easy target. That's only one example from a long list of fallacious assertions in this article. If we are to keep this article, we should start over from scratch with a coherent and limiting definition of what Anti-Iranianism (awkward term in my opinion) actually is. I would suggest: statements or beliefs regarding the cultural or ethnic inferiority of Iranians and actions taken based upon such beliefs. To include an action in this category, therefore, it would have to be demonstrable that it took place because of a belief in cultural/ethnic inferiority of Iranians.

I don't believe that this article is being nominated for deletion because of a desire to stifle discussion of this topic. I believe it is nominated for deletion because it is 1. presented in an unencyclopedic, unscientific, and unprofessional manner and 2. about a english term which neither exists in the popular consciousness nor is widespread in academic literature. --Treemother199 03:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Repeat of call

Ahwaz,

You still havent replied,

What do you suggest we change the article's name into?

I suggest Iranophobia or something like that.--Zereshk 20:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I have stated before, Anti-Iranian prejudice is fine by me as this covers the whole of Iran and not just one ethnic group and not just one group deemed prejudice. There is a lot that can be said about the portrayal of Iranians in the American media, for example.--الأهواز 21:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

And what do you think of Iranophobia? It's much more concise and shorter.--Zereshk 21:22, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I think "Anti-Persian sentiment" sounds better. --ManiF 21:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Ahwaz, agree with Mani's sug.?--Zereshk 22:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be better as part of a broader article on Anti-Iranian sentiment as it is clear that you have repeatedly referred to anti-Iranian prejudice in this article. Also, I do not think that anti-Iranian sentiment is exclusive to Arabs.--الأهواز 22:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I would add that anti-Persian sentiment could be included in an anti-Iran article as explaining some of the causes of anti-Iranian prejudice and how this is articulated. I am not arguing that prejudice does not exist, just that there is a lot of confusion in this article as to the distinction between anti-Iranian and anti-Persian. As for the content, I think there are issues with copyright violation and POV that need to be cleared up - in certain circumstances, it is a matter of simply changing the wording, in the case of using other writers' work (parts of this article [10] have simply been copied and pasted into the Wikipedia article without proper sourcing), it needs to be stressed who is saying it and that it is properly sourced.--الأهواز 22:27, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I would like to know where there is any copyright infringement. Please point to the specifics. Also, the "confusion" can be addressed easily. I plan to inject an entire section involving the British and other Europeans as well.--Zereshk 22:33, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

1. The copyright infringement that I have found is here [11] Compare it with paragraphs in this article [12]

Link [5] has been provided as reference in paragraph 4. In fact the author of that article has been in contact with me suggesting more sources.--Zereshk 22:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it is clear that this is a direct quotation from the source in question.--الأهواز 22:58, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I also think you should point out that some of this article is from your own opinion pieces on iranian.com, eg[13]. I am not sure about the rules on Wikipedia editors using their own work to write their own Wikipedia articles, but I feel it needs to be made clear that much of the article is previously published work written by you (Nima Karaie).--الأهواز 23:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

WP laws allow it Ahwaz. And besides, it is heavilt sourced. Unless you have a problem with the sources, which seems to be the case.--Zereshk 23:22, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, if you say it is fine to use your own work as the basis of an article, then it is fine.--الأهواز 23:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

It's sourced Ahwaz. The article has twice the number of sources that your Anti-Arabism article has.--Zereshk 23:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

2. The confusion is related to the interpretation of "anti-Iranian" policies or actions as "anti-Persian". The Bahrain soccer incident, for instance, is obviously a bit of xenophobic nationalism against Iran, not specifically against Persians. It also comes in the context of terrorist attacks in Bahrain by Iranian-backed groups, although you claim this is irrelevant. To use an example, British anti-German sentiment commonly seen at soccer matches comes in the context of past wars against Germany and is not just targetted at the people of Bavaria, where Hitler spent most of his early life.--الأهواز 22:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I digress on this one. It is against the "ajam", which can refer to both Persian and Iran. The word Ajam has a long history that ties in anti-Persian sentiments in this article together. The word ajam in fact appears in the links presented as evidence. And furthermore Persia was simply the name of Iran prior to 1935.--Zereshk 22:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I think you need to point this out more clearly, if this is what you mean. But this is just one example of anti-Iranian sentiment and I think the way this article has been constructed is restrictive, not allowing for other forms of anti-Iranian sentiment that might influence policy-making in America, Turkey, etc, or the fact that the ancient Greeks led anti-Persian wars.--الأهواز 22:58, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

That's why we're changing the title.--Zereshk 23:14, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Mani, what do u think of Ahwaz's title proposal?--Zereshk 22:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

No, the title should include "anti-Persian" or "Anti-Persianism", "anti-Iranian sentiment" is a different subject. --ManiF 00:08, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

How about Sentiments against Iranians and Persians?--Zereshk 00:18, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

That's too long, "Anti-Persian sentiment" is the best in my opinion. --ManiF 00:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand why Persians are a separate category. It's like suggesting the hatred of Americans and New Yorkers. Persians originate from Iran and most are Iranian, but not all Iranians are Persian - a quarter are Azeri Turks and the rest are Kurds, Balochis, Arabs, Turkomen. If someone hates Iran, they hate all Iranians including non-Persians. What is the objection to Anti-Iranian prejudice? It would be a more substantial and broader article than focussing specifically on Arabs-versus-Persians.--الأهواز 00:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Ahwaz, "Persia" was OFFICIALLY the name of "Iran" prior to 1935. "New York" was never the name of "America". OK? Why cant we just use all the anti-Iranian titles as redirects?--Zereshk 00:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps a better example is "anti-English". There are some Scottish and Welsh who hate the English, but people who are anti-British hate them all. Likewise, there are some non-Persian Iranians who are anti-Persian, but it would be wrong to confuse them with anti-Iranians. Of course, Persia existed as a nation-state. But it no longer exists in name, so does all contemporary anti-Iranian sentiments cannot be considered anti-Persian. If you are talking of hatred towards one particular country, then "anti-Persianism" ended in 1935.--الأهواز 00:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

The artciel doesnt refer to "Persia" as a current nation-state. That's where the word Iranian is used. Ahwaz, these arguments of yours are simply incorrect now that I have added the disclaimer.--Zereshk 00:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unfair

Dear Friends, I dont think its fair to change the name of this article to "sentiments" when it is more than that. It should be "Anti-Persian racism"' and we should not try to deny or hide that. Its very upsetting. Khorshid 05:20, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

What can I say? They are bullying us to even delete the article as it presently is.--Zereshk 06:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

They cant bully anyone since they cant deny racism. The book you mention below is not an anti-Persian "sentiment" but an evil racist tract by a sick-minded man. That is only one example, and there are many more and with much regret they also include school textbooks from some Arab places which depict Persians and Jews as subhuman. Khorshid 07:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Awesome link

In the midst of the international crisis over Iran's nuclear program, journalist Ted Koppel spent three weeks speaking with people around that country. Iran: the Most Dangerous Nation examines terrorism, politics, women's rights, ... The Most Dangerous Nation is how the Bush administration described Iran, ...hers is the link Iran: the Most Dangerous Nation

Just added this one in: Three Whom God Should Not Have Created: Persians, Jews, and Flies.--Zereshk 06:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the anti-Iranian (citizen of Iran) parts should be moved to a new article since this article is about racism, not really anti-national sentiment. I think the people who want to delete this use this as an excuse, that they say "Zereshk and his friends" use Iranian and Persian the same way. We should call their bluff and make sure the articles use the right terminologies. Khorshid 07:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I make clear again that everyone should voice their support for Anti-Persianism or Anti-Persian racism. If you want to talk about sentiments, then create another article about anti-Iranian sentiments. This article is about racism. Khorshid 10:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Khorshid. There is plenty of material here for two articles, one on anti-Persian sentiments and other on Anti-Iranian prejudice. I just saw the link to the store selling t-shirts advocating nuclear attacks on Iran [14]. It is not "anti-Persian" in the sense that it is not directed at the Persian people but all Iranians. It is also an American website and I think that there is a lot of material on such attitudes in the US.

I disagree with Zereshk on his claim that Persian is just an old form of Iranian. In the contemporary world, Persian commonly applies to the ethnic group not Iran. Some may still use Persia as the name for Iran, but in my mind they are in a minority - most Persians describe themselves as Iranian. I still don't understand the reluctance to use the term "Anti-Iranian prejudice/sentiments/etc". It would completely settle the whole dispute, since "anti-Iranian" is a far more commonly used term. While Zereshk may dispute Google as a research tool, "anti-Iranian" gets just under 100,000 pages [15] while "anti-Persian" gets under 700 [16]. However, I think it is good that the "by Arabs" bit is dropped.--الأهواز 11:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Khorshid,

It was Ahwaz who was and is against the title "Anti-Persianism", because he says no such "ism" exists, basing his claim on a google count.

As for having 2 different articles, one for anti-Iran and one for anti-Persia, I can deal with that. I have more than enough material and sources to fill up both articles and more.--Zereshk 22:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal

Here is my suggestion for an article on Anti-Iranian prejudice (or whatever other title you think appropriate):
1. Definition, linked to good souce
2. Roots/Origins - the religious, political, historical and racial origins, eg anti-Shi'ism, anti-Persian racism (with link to Anti-Persian sentiments), the international response to the Ahmadinejad administration, etc
3. Anti-Iranian sentiments by Arabs
4. Anti-Iranian sentiments by Americans
... etc
Some of the content in the Anti-Persian sentiments relating to Iran could be used in this article, such as the theories about British plans for a division of Iran.

Maintain an Anti-Persian sentiments article that focusses on prejudice against Persians as an ethnic group - this could include any anti-Persian sentiments among other Iranian ethnic groups.

How do other editors feel about this? I think it could dissipate the arguments and make more coherent and less confusing articles. For me, a clearn distinction between the racism facing Persians and the anti-national sentiments facing the whole of Iran - in two separate articles - would solve my remaining objections to the way in which this article has been formulated and I would vote to keep the article. But while there is a conflation of racism and anti-national sentiment in the whole premise of this article, I will maintain my vote for deletion.--الأهواز 11:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I state again my suggestion that the ethnic bias (Anti-Persian) and national bias (Anti-Iranian) be made separate. We cannot and should confuse the two. Also the part about "Arabs" should not be included since it is only some Arab regimes that are anti-Persian. My original suggestion avoids this general terminology. Khorshid 12:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

And also it should be clear that "sentiment" is different from "racism". Khorshid 12:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't have any problem with Anti-Persian racism or any other formulation.--الأهواز 12:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I can make both articles. But it will take me several days time. I need to organize the material. And Im a bit busy this week. I'll have to work on it in steps.--Zereshk 22:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

OK. There is a lot to cover, so it will take time. Briefly, which sections of the Anti-Persian sentiments article do people think should be moved to an Anti-Iranian article?--الأهواز 22:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, the sections on early Islam should be kept as historical background to Anti-Persian sentiments, but the section on Shi'ism should be moved to a "religious origins" in the Anti-Iranian prejudice article, since Shi'ism is not just the religion of Persians and Saudi Arabia's conflicts with Iran have had a religious dimension. "Anti-Persianism in modern times" largely relates to Anti-Iranian prejudice, although references to Saddam's attempts to whip up some civilisational conflict between Arabs and Persians is more appropriate to Anti-Persian sentiments. Issues relating to Western foreign policy or Western perceptions of Iran should go into the Anti-Iranian prejudice article as it is clear to me that this is driven by fear or hatred of a nation rather than an ethnic group. Also, political and territorial disputes should be explored in the context of Anti-Iranian prejudice.--الأهواز 23:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

That's pretty much what I have in mind too. But let me take care of it, Ahwaz. After its done, then read both articles, and then see what you think, and we'll take it from there. Right now, there are parts that need to be added, which I havent done so yet (like Alexander, the Mongolians, etc). And also, there will be lots of overlapping and common sections. The farther back in time you go, the more overlapping there will be. I need to carefully separate the two and properly word the articles.--Zereshk 23:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Opening paragraph

I very consciously mirrored the opening lines of "antisemitism" in this article. If anyone has any issues with the opening paragraph, lets discuss it here. Adambiswanger1 02:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Ill leave fixing/expanding/adjusting the opening paragraph to you guys.--Zereshk 02:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Title

Thank you guys for removing the "Arab" part of it. I also seem to be responsible for the "sentiments" part of the title and even though it was my word, I don't like it. I think "prejudice" would express the point better.

I am waiting to see how Persian and Iranian are going to be differentiated. The U.S. neocons who are pushing for a strike on Iran are whipping up hatred for all Iranians, and gullible Americans won't make any fine distinctions. They'll be just as prejudiced against Azeris and Khuzestani Arabs as they are against ethnic Persians. Zora 03:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

If theres one thing the neocons are after, it is to chop up Iran into 13 little ethnic pieces by fueling up ethnic differences. Divide and Conquer.[17] You wont even need a strike if you successfully encourage the fragmentation of Iran.--Zereshk 04:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Iran has had an "ethnic problem" ever since Reza Shah tried to convert an "empire" into a modern nation-state. You can't blame that on outsiders. It's a problem for all the old empires. Austro-Hungary fell apart. The Ottomans fell apart. Russia (finally) fell apart. China and Iran may fall apart. Depends on the wisdom of the central government. Old adage says that that when you pen cows into a small area, they will try to break out until they succeed. If you give them a huge pasture, they won't try to leave. Iran is trying the "small pen" gambit.

BTW, you seem to be accusing me of wishing the dissolution of Iran. I don't. I wish the government was so humane and competent that Azerbaijan and Uzbekistan were pounding on the doors to get in (vide Turkey, EU). Zora 09:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I agree with you Zereshk. You have continually called me a liar and a separatist and I have repeatedly said I am not. The most diverse countries can maintain political unity with systems that, like you say, are functional. And in my mind, in the Iranian context, functionality would mean a certain amount of devolution of power to provincial governments, with elected governors, greater power of taxation and spending, etc. You will find many countries with a federal form of government that has been adaptable: mature, functioning, tolerant and developed democracies. A United States of Iran would be a good way forward. You know that Texans have a strong sense of identity, but also feel American.

There is a minority rights issue in Iran. There is a minority rights issue in every diverse society in the world. And where there is a minority rights problem under a tyrannical regime, it manifests itself in ugly forms: racism, discrimination, land evictions, ethnic cleansing and genocide. The sad thing is that despite all the evidence, many Iranians see minority rights and calls for a federal democratic system of government as tantamount to separatism. I guess they see what is happening in Iraq and are scared that Iran will spin out of control. But this won't happen if Iranian opposition groups build minority rights into their platform, instead of shoving them aside and handing over the issue to groups that advocate more extremist ideologies and methods. The problem I see is that while many Ahwazi Arabs do not see separatism as a way forward, an increasing number are cheering on the extremists because no-one else is prepared to recognise the problems they are facing, which are bound up with racism.

Zereshk will probably deny that Ahwazi Arabs are treated any differently from other Iranians, but I think he is ignoring the evidence pointing towards a systematic persecution of a minority group who are perceived by the government to be an obstacle in the development of the oil industry and agro-industrial enterprises as well as an "enemy within". That's my point of view and I hope that Zereshk understands and respects that.--الأهواز 09:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The "enemy within" which Ahwaz is talking about, is every single Iranian who wants a democratic and free nation and fights for their rights. Be it Persian, Azeri, Kurd or Arab. Ethnicity is not the issue. I am sympathetic to every Iranian who has been mistreated by the opressive regime but I am not sympathetic to those who instead of uniting with the rest, all they care about is themselves and their mistreatments and even try to make it an ethnicity issue by becoming the enemy, wouldn't they realise that they will only be left alone and become even more minority?! I call it super-minority. Making yourself the victim will not change anything. --K a s h ^{Talk | email} 12:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't you think that the abuse of ethnic and religious minorities is an important aspect of the regime's oppression? You say that ethnicity is not the issue, but provinces with large non-Persian populations are witnessing rising anti-government unrest - and I don't believe the propaganda that this is all conducted by Tony Blair. People are not so stupid that they can be programmed by foreigners en masse. I'm not saying that minorities are the only oppressed people, but there is an issue of ethnicity due to the nature of anti-government activism among non-Persian groups and the nature of the oppression they face.--الأهواز 12:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Religion for sure, but ethnicity? One or two protests a year in Tabriz doesn't mean there is uprising in ethnic areas. I encourage them to come out everyday and fight it. Tehran witnesses a lot more and as far as I know Tehran is a multi-ethnic city but with majority Persians. Even after a newspaper was closed because of some cartoon, it was the Tehranis who got out there and protested. The government is responsible, but government is not Persian. Same with Kurds who say Oh both Shah and Khomenini attacked us. None were Persian. The supreme leader is Azeri, so is the president of Iran, it doesn't get much higher than that. There is no Persian vs Minority issue. It's opressive regime against everyone who doesn't support their existance --K a s h ^{Talk | email} 14:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Kash: I think you have a very Tehran-centric view of the situation in Iran. In May, there were demonstrations in Shilang-Abad, Masjid-Soleiman and Abadan. There are protests every month in Khuzestan, mainly by Arabs. But you are right, this is not an Arab-versus-Persian issue and there is no violence between Arabs and other communities in Khuzestan. It is directed at a government that is treating the local Arab population poorly, a situation that predates 1979.--الأهواز 14:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The problem

The problem, my friends, is not complicated, but simple. Most of you are scholars on this issue, but unfortunetly most readers know nothing about Anti-persian sentiments, much like myself. So, I would appreciate it if in the first paragraph someone could dumb-it-down to provide a basis of understanding. Thanks Adambiswanger1 01:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Persian supremacism and racism

I think a good duo for this article is one talking about persian racism and supremacism, especially in relation to surrounding ethnicities in specific Arabs, Indians and Kurds. Most of my experience with this issue comes from discussions with Iranians, and some of the statements I heard would put people of other ethnicities in western countries in serious trouble if they said them. I'd appreciate it if someone writes about the history of Persian supremacism and how widespread and persistent it actually is.

[edit] Deleting section

The addition of the new "usage" section is aimed to improve the article and is directly pertinent, and not to "prove a point".

You cant AfD an article, and at the same time not allow improvements to take place. That's illegal.

Also, WP:point is a guideline, not policy.--Zereshk 01:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] removing list of people who used the term anti-Iranianism

I don't agree that Zereshk's list of people who have used the term "anti-Iranianism" actually improves this article. First, it doesn't contribute anything to an understanding of the concept of anti-Iranianism. I searched through several of the links and I did not see anything in them that would help a reader understand the issue, they are generally brief mentions. Second, it adds needless clutter at a key point in the article (right in the beginning) which dramatically effects readability. Third, it is a violation of WP:POINT. Don't add clutter to an article just to prove that the topic isn't a neologism. Zeresh himself said: "If nothing, at least it refutes your claim of "neologism" which is what this AfD is based on." Here is my suggestion: move the list to the AfD page as evidence that the term is not a neologism. GabrielF 02:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, note the word "at least". "At least" means that there are other reasons too. The section improves the accuracy of the article by letting readers know that the phenomenon is well established and discussed by academics, the media, and even the United States Senate. That is by itself a top notch merit, and clearly negates the AFD's premise.--Zereshk 02:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

If you want to establish that the term is discussed by scholars, provide a list of scholarly publications about the topic. For example, a quick google books search shows that there are 16,000+ books on antisemitism[19]. However, I found almost know scholarly books on "anti-Iranianism." Your citations don't prove that this is a term that is being used. The Farrokh article mentions the term once, the MacArthur piece uses the phrase once, the Pollack piece uses the phrase once, the Asia Times piece uses the phrase once, the Reid piece uses the phrase once, the rantbug piece uses the phrase once and is not a reliable source. I didn't open the links requiring external programs or JSTOR. This is not evidence that the phrase is a neologism and it is not helpful to anyone. GabrielF 02:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't hurt to include it there as well. Maybe they were added hastily, but I definitely think this stuff is workable in the long run. Assuming there is a long run; I still don't see why you don't think that this can be improved upon, Gabriel. The Behnam 02:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Improving this article will require following the suggests made by User:Black Falcon and others at the AfD. This will mean at the very least (1) renaming (2) deleting a number of sections of the article such as the sections on imperial russia and the US (3) basing the article on a scholarly discussion of what anti-Iranianism actually is. Are you and Zereshk willing to accept the changes that have been proposed at the AfD? If you are than maybe I can change my mind about this article's prospects.GabrielF 02:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

You arent in a position to issue an ultimatum regarding the fate of this article. So far, the concensus is against the deletion and your AFD. And, the suggestions must be met with concensus too. I dont agree with all of the items specified. But some I do. The article can be trimmed.--Zereshk 02:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not issuing an ultimatum, Behnam wanted to know why I thought the article couldn't be improved. I told him what I thought it would require. GabrielF 02:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, those sound like improvement issues, not deletion issues. (1)Why rename? Apparently, Persian Google uses this term. It describes the situation well. (2)I agree that the talk of Russia and US wars don't belong unless examples of anti-Iranian sentiment during these events are provided. I think that it is possible to do so, at least for the US case. (3)As I have said, I agree that the article should actually discuss anti-Iranian sentiments, rather than random military history that involves Iran.

These were my concerns when giving a "Weak Keep," but I definitely think that the article can be worked with, especially with the stricter oversight it now receives. Unfortunately, the Afd has, understandably, angered Iranians, especially since some have reason to believe that this may be somehow related to the anti-Iranian sentiments of certain voters(not saying its you Gabriel). I think it would be best if we all agreed to improve the article based upon these principles, and close the Afd with a "Keep" before more hostile comments are levied. In sum, this article is workable if the correct approach is taken. The Behnam 02:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I think we can work out a reasonable compromise along these lines. I would like to see some of the proposed changes implemented before I withdraw the nomination. If, for example, I removed the section on the US would you support me? I don't mind an article on this topic discussing prejudice against Iranians in the US, but I don't see anything in the section right now (correct me if I'm wrong) that is actually sourced as being prejudice against Iranians. GabrielF 02:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that should be removed. The article currently has a silly military-oriented focus; usually "anti-" trends are with the people. I definitely know this exists in the US; while it may be reflected through political/military actions against Iran, a source needs to make this connection. For now, simply hide the section text, and if Zereshk or anyone else finds something that meets the criteria that was overlooked, it can be cropped back in. Ultimately, there will be a US section, but not as currently written. Really, just hide everything that can be soundly described as irrelevant, and then discussion can decide the rest after that. Thanks for being open to compromise. The Behnam 03:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I would definitely support this proposal (to remove the US section). I also support removing the following sections:

1. "The Mongolian era" – the Mongolians treated everybody horribly (no special sentiments proven/sourced)
2. "By colonial powers" – purely political history (no hostile sentiments proven/sourced)
3. "By the media" – single quote, probably applies to Iranian regime —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Black Falcon (talk • contribs) 04:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC).

Sure, copy it here, I guess. I thought maybe it could simply be hidden in the actual article. Put the stuff in a separate section here; I don't know, Redaction Leftovers or something. The Behnam 04:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Done, I don't want the material to be lost, so I've created an archive at the top of the page as /Reduction leftovers. I am not opposed to anyone restoring some of the content as long as it is relevant, NPOV, and sourced, or to merging some of the content into other articles. Black Falcon 04:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's on the road of improvement. Hopefully, Gabriel will defuse that Afd now. The Behnam 04:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I dont agree with any of the 3 proposals. The only thing I can agree with, which Im sure all of you also favor, is to trim down the US sections, which I'll do.--Zereshk 07:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

As has been said, you need to show special sentiment against Iranian peoples in these actions. The Behnam 08:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

And what exactly does that mean? Millions of non-Jews were also killed by Hitler. Concentration camps also existed for Eastern Europeans. And yet we have Anti-semitism. Why is that? Why should there be a "special sentiment" requirement anyway? That's illogical. If thousands of others were also killed by Genghis Khan, then it needs to be told in its own place. Not withheld! I think the very fact that mountains of severed heads were built in Neishabur, even the cats and dogs killed, and salt scattered everywhere is enough reason to qualify the Mongolian Raid as a classic case of "Anti-Iranianism". Think about it: if the victims were Jews, we would probably have 342 movies of it made by now, with 3420 pages of WP articles on them. Is it not enough that millions of Iranians have been killed by this Anti-Iranianism in history? I dont understand the position you people advocate.--Zereshk 08:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Did the Mongols kill the Persians because they were Persians or just because they happened to be in the path of their conquest? A ruler can order the killing of thousands or millions of people without holding any ill-will toward them other than that their existence hinders his/her political aims (or that their extermination furthers them). Note: I am not mentioning this with particular reference to Hitler. The information on the Mongol raids should be in a Mongol raids and the History of Persia articles. The more modern, concerted international effort to isolate Iran (since the Islamic Revolution, possibly earlier--my knowledge of Iran before then is rather limited) may also deserve its own article (separate from the United States-Iran relations article), but it should not be conflated with past (and I would argue present as well) animosity toward Persians and/or Iranians. That being said, I still maintain that the article should be kept and that time be given for these matters to be discussed on the talk page. Black Falcon 08:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Why play with semantics? It's like me raping a girl and then telling her: "I hold no ill-will toward you other than that your existence hinders my political aims (or that your extermination furthers them)". By that very statement, I am declaring that I do not recognize her as a fellow human with rights and integrity. In your dictionary, what do you classify that as? And besides, what does it matter what the intention is anyway? I'll still face charges no matter what the intention for such a crime. "Anti-Iranianism" doesnt necessarily carry with it anti-Iranian sentiment. It can carry with it acts of war, acts of destruction, harm, and death to any entity affiliated with Iran, or Iran itself. Hence we can change the definition and be more clear: Anti-Iranianism is that act of which brings, or has brought, great harm to the Iranian people, culture, integrity, usurping their rights, and which is irrespective of the intention to which that act was carried out.--Zereshk 09:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

BTW, Genghis Khan invaded Persia because the Kharazmshah monarch killed his envoys. But Genghis Khan reacted by mass slaughter of civilian populations, not just by overthrowing the King. He even rode his horse into the mosques, turning the mosques into stables. Wouldnt you say that's a bit more than acquiring self interest?--Zereshk 09:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I've literally erased half of the US section. The article is now much leaner. More meat, less fat.--Zereshk 11:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] straw poll to establish consensus

This is a straw poll to establish consensus for the changes suggested on the AfD page by myself and User:Black Falcon:

Do you support restricting this page to things that a reliable source identifies as hostility, prejudice or racism against Persians or other Iranian peoples that occurs because of the their nationality or ethnicity? This would require eliminating all of the material that deals with political actions taken against the Iranian government that have not been identified by a source as being motivated by racism? These sections include the Mongols, the colonial era and the US. (Note that there is no reason that in the future this article can't deal with racism against Iranians in the US, such as hate crimes, it just can't talk about purely political actions).

Support

• GabrielF 14:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• - for reasons I have already provided, tying a bunch of political acts together in this article as "anti-Iranianism" most definitely constitutes an original synthesis, hence it is OR. The Behnam 15:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Black Falcon 18:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

Comment

• As I said in the AfD discussion page, racism can have political manifestaions. I agree with GabrielF and Black Falcon's suggestion to adhere to reliable sources. But I have to disagree with deleting racist actions taken by politicians. In many ocassions racism become notable when racist ideas are put into practice by peole who have power. About Iran-US relations, I would prefer to be a bit conservative as the subject is more or less a "current event" and like any other "current event", it takes time before we can cover it at a high quality. Sangak 15:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, racism can be politically motivated. I agree that there was a connection between Saddam's racist ideology towards Persia and his political goals, but his propaganda manifested itself as prejudice. I agree that the reverse can also be true, although I don't think that racism is what motivates US foreign policy. The point is that we now have 35k of text that is making a highly controversial claim (that the policies of various governments towards Iran amounted to racism) without any supporting evidence that racism played a role. Not only is this a smear on the US (and the colonial powers and, I suppose, even the Mongols) but it also devalues legitimate racism against Iranians in the same way that crying "antisemitism" every time someone attacks Israel makes it more difficult for ordinary people to identify legitimate antisemitism as such and oppose it. As for wikipedia, if there are notable critics who identify a political decision as being racially motivated (say Bob Woodward writes that the President's has decided to take a hard line on Iran because he thinks Iranians smell funny) than it can be included here, but right now, nothing in the sections that have been removed (and correct me if I'm wrong) is sourced as being racially motivated. GabrielF 15:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

About US your arguments seems plausible to me. We can only include issues that are supported by reliable sources. Sangak 16:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I do not think all political actions should be excluded. The Rwandan Genocide was a political action but I it qualifies as an example of "anti-Tutsi sentiment" (pardon the understatement). Moreover, I also believe that notable accusations of anti-Iranianism (or racism) by the US should be noted. If Ahmedinejad has accused the Bush administration of such, that should definitely be included. To exclude it would constitute POV. Black Falcon 18:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree 100% although you may have said it more clearly. GabrielF 18:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Sources are key. We should only include material from reliable sources that describe something as driven by anti-Iranian sentiment, or maybe notable accusations . Even with good sources, I would be wary of combining individual incidents to support an original thesis about anti-Iranianism. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Waaait a minute...!

1. Why are you unilaterally deleting out parts that have not been agreed on yet? I find it especially unfair that you decimate the article while the AFD discussion is going on, disregarding everybody else. That's just not right.
2. Setting up a strw poll is also a unilateralist act. WP:POLL states:

"A straw poll is not a binding vote, or a way to beat dissenters over the head"

"Even if a large number of people vote for one option but some don't, this doesn't mean that that's the "outcome". It means some people are disagreeing, and that has to be addressed."

"If you try to force an issue with a poll, expect severe opposition,...and your poll not being regarded as binding."

I hope you realize that I dont support the deletion or polling of predetermined questions. I changed the article to a large extent. I trimmed out half the US section. Instead of meeting me half way for a compromise, you continue to simply delete out the rest.

I cannot agree to that. It's just not valid to wipe out entire sections based on weak or unfounded accusations. If you want sources, I'll give you sources. But that's not a reason to delete. This is not acceptable. You guys are not willing to discuss. You're just here to enforce your POV.--Zereshk 23:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Decimated? I deleted a couple of ludicrous paragraphs! GabrielF 23:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Gabe, in my latest RV, with respect to your edits, I only added back in the Teller quote. Teller is a Nobel Laureate. That by itself qualifies his quote. Also, I will be adding to the Mongolian section. I have sources to emphasize the impact the raid had on the progress of Iran in the second millenia CE.--Zereshk 01:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The raid may have had an impact, but were they acts done from anti-Iranian prejudices? Attacking a country alone isn't evidence of a prejudice against its people. Consider the Achaemenids; even though they took over other lands by force, this wasn't because of a special hatred for the peoples who lived there. Of course, the Mongols were much more brutal, but it appears that they were like that to just about anyone they attacked. The sources you add have to cite the Mongol raids as anti-Iranian acts, and preferably this will be backed up with historical evidence. The Behnam 02:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The intention doesnt matter, because that's not what "anti-Iranianism" means. Anti + Iranianism is clear in its meaning: Anti-Iranianism refers to any act act that causes the vast mass suffering of any entity affiliated with Iran. Trust me, if it were the Jews, they would have 10 names for it: "Holocaust", "Genocide",... . We dont have to drag the article into a scrutiny of semantics. The purpose of the article is clear: To give an overall account of the forms of suffering and assault the nation and country of Iran has gone through in its long history.--Zereshk 02:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Your definition of anti-Iranianism is off; this may explain the problems at this page. I don't believe I am alone here in saying that the "anti-" concepts for ethnicities refer to bigotry/racism, not merely the committing of wrongs against the people. Holocaust is antisemitic because the reason for killing those Jews was because of their Jewishness. German belief had held them as subhuman abominations that needed to be destroyed. On the other hand, the killing by the Mongols doesn't appear to be motivated by a profound hatred of Iranian peoples. It is possible that this was indeed the case, but right now, the Mongol section doesn't include any actual evidence that it was bigotry motivating the Mongolian actions. Only content that directly attests to Mongolian bigotry should be included in this article. The Behnam 02:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Your analogy with the Jews is not applicable. Jews are a religious group, Iran is a country. Jews were murdered during the Holocaust because of who they were. Iranians were murdered by the Mongols because they stood in their way. If a Jew in Nazi Germany had blond hair and blue eyes he might hypothetically have been able to hide his Jewishness and survive. As far as I know, the Mongols pretty much killed everyone who wasn't a Mongol. There's a bigger problem here though. You are defining the term "anti-Iranianism" as "any act act that causes the vast mass suffering of any entity affiliated with Iran" - this is NOT the same as antisemitism or the other forms of racism you are comparing your "anti-Iranianism" to. If a guy puts a big rock in front of a train and unbeknownst to him a train full of Jews gets deraield and all the passengers die, it isn't antisemitism because the religion of the passengers was purely coincidental. However, under your definition, if a train full of Iranians derailed and all of the passengers died it would be anti-Iranianism because under your definition anti-Iranianism is "any act act that causes the vast mass suffering of any entity affiliated with Iran." This article is completely OR because it defines the term anti-Iranianism to include actions that are not racist. GabrielF 02:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Teller is a nobel laureate in nuclear physics, not history. Including a quote from him just looks silly, not to mention that Teller's analysis of Persian history encompasses about two sentences in an article about SDI. If Teller's analysis of the situation is in line with historians, than it shouldn't be a problem to find a real historian who can say exactly what Teller is saying. Of course this doesn't address the more fundamental problem which is that the Mongols don't fit in the same category as modern racists, at least without a source. GabrielF 02:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

So u think a Nobel Laureate is not qualified to state his view on anything outside his field of expertise?! Maybe that's why Bush continues to ignore physicists in matters pertaining to Iran. He's following your line of thought :) --Zereshk 02:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

No... Teller can say whatever he likes. I don't think an encyclopedia should quote a physicist's throwaway comment about history as if it is a definitive analysis of the situation, especially when we already have three historians saying the same thing.GabrielF 02:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Teller was also a political activist. I think it's important to have a Nobel Laureate in there, because it diversifies the sources. Some people might be thinking that muslim historians arent trustworthy. But anyway, WP:V states that:

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth."

"It's important to note that "verifiability" in this context does not mean that editors are expected to verify whether, for example, the contents of a New York Times article are true. In fact, editors are strongly discouraged from conducting this kind of research."

IOW, it's not up to u to decide if Teller is a qualified source or not. Also, if you think he's just a nuclear physicist, then look at his list of medals and honors that he won.--Zereshk 02:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I have to go for now. But I will soon start going through the colonial section and see if I can trim it down as well, to make you folks happy. G'night.--Zereshk 02:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

"any act that causes the vast mass suffering of any entity affiliated with Iran?" First of all, who says anti-Iranianism exists, and who says that is its definition? Further, does "any act act that causes the vast mass suffering" include instituting benighted domestic economic policies, working hard to antagonize nuclear super-powers, suppressing political opposition, and maintaining a repressive theocracy? Tom Harrison ^Talk 03:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

It should be any act from outside-in (i.e. external). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Echopapa (talk • contribs) 09:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] removed from article

The only problem with Gabriel's edits is they did not go far enough. If you want this to be a serious article that does not get deleted, follow our policies. be encyclopedic. If anti-Iranianism is a real form of racism, use appropriate verifiable sources - no primary sources, and no nuclear phsyicists - as sources. To not muddle the article with irrlelvant information. For example, Wikipedia ought to document conflicts between persia and the Macedonians and Greeks, or Iran and the British or Americans - but that belongs in articles on Iranian history, or on "history of Iran-US conflict." Also, avoid NOR. This article was FULL of NOR.

The following was in the article but is not about anti-Iranianism any more than the war of 1812 is about anti-Americanism. However, some of this content may be valid. I suggest that people see what is appropriate to move to an article on Iranian or Persian history, that is where this contents belongs: Slrubenstein | Talk 12:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Mongolian era

Historian Ali ibn al-Athir in his compendium The Complete History wrote such of Persia's destruction by the Mongolian hordes:

"اگر گوینده ای می گفت جهان از زمانی که پروردگاربزرگ و منزه ادم را افرید تا به امروز به چنین بلایی گرفتار نشده راست می گفت"
"If someone said that the world has not seen such calamity and disaster since God created Adam,
he would be saying the truth".^[1]

Historian Ata al-Mulk Juvayni wrote:

"«… هر كجا كه صدهزار خلق بود … صد كس نماند"
"Not even 100 persons survived where there used to be 100,000."^[2]

So vast was the destruction of Persia by the invading hordes that started in 1219CE, that the streets of cities like Neishabur, the center of science and technology and cultural capital of Islam in the east, "turned into rivers of blood, as all persons were beheaded in the city". The severed heads of men, women, and children were neatly stacked into carefully constructed pyramids around which the carcasses of the city's dogs and cats were placed.^[3] In a letter to King Louis IX of France, Hulegu alone took responsibility for only 200,000 deaths in his raids of Persia and the Caliphate. ^[4]

"There is no doubt that the destruction that happened on the emergence of the Mongol state and the general massacre that happened at that time, will not be repaired in a thousand years, even if no other calamity happens."^[5]

It didn't take a thousand years, but it was until the mid 20th century when the population of Iran reached that of its pre-Mongol levels.^[6] Some Persians commemoratingly even believe that the reason roses grow so red on Persian soil is because of the vast intensity of blood spilt during the Mongol raids. ^[7]

What Ata al-Mulk Juvayni in his famous Tarikh-i Jahangushay-i Juvaini called the "center of light in science and learning"^[8] faced such destruction that Ibn Khaldun termed the conquest as "returning the region back to primitive life"^[9], while the only purpose of scholars and scientists became "counting the number of dead bodies"^[10] and "taking care of animals".^[11]

In the end, similar to Alexander, the conquerors eventually became the conquered. Before long, the Ilkhanate opened up to Persian culture and identity, and made it their own: they started converting to the local faith (e.g. Sultan Khoda-bandeh, Ghazan-Khan, etc), began embracing local customs and traditions (e.g. edifices such as Goharshad Mosque and Soltaniyeh were built under their patronage), and even took up ancient Persian names (e.g. Anushiravan, Shahrokh, etc). The Asiatic features on many Persian miniatures is a testament to this gradual mass conversion.

[edit] By colonial powers

Patrick Clawson writes:

"Since the days of the Achaemenids, the Iranians had the protection of geography. But high mountains and vast emptiness of the Iranian plateau were no longer enough to shield Iran from the Russian army or British navy. Both literally and figuratively, Iran shrank. At the beginning of the nineteenth century, Azerbaijan, Armenia, much of Georgia, and Afghanistan were Iranian, but by the end of the century, all this territory had been lost as a result of European military action. Iran translated her territorial losses into a sense of both victimization and a propensity to interpret European action through the lens of conspiracy. This in turn has helped shape Iranian nationalism into the twenty first century."^[12]

[edit] Imperial Russia

Iran has lost more territory to the Russian Empire than any other colonial power.

The Russian policy vis a vis her southern neighbor can readily be understood by reading the text of this cable, sent on July 6th 1945, by the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, instructing the local soviet commander in Soviet Azerbaijan to:

"begin preparatory work to form a national autonomous Azerbaijan district with broad powers within the Iranian state, and simultaneously develop a separatist movement in the provinces of Gilan, Mazandaran, Gorgan, and Khorasan".^[13]

While the Portuguese, British, and Dutch, competed for the south and southeast of a weakening Safavid Persia, Russia was largely left unchallenged in the north as it plunged southward to establish dominance in Persia's northern territories.

Plagued with internal politics, the Qajarid government found itself incapable of rising to the challenge of facing, if not even recognizing, its northern threat from Russia.

A weakened and bankrupted royal court, under Fath Ali Shah, was forced to sign the notorious Gulistan Treaty in 1813, followed by a second Turkmanchai treaty after efforts by Abbas Mirza failed to secure Persia's northern front.

With the Russia Empire continuously advancing south in the course of two wars against Persia, and the treaties of Turkmanchai and Golestan in the western frontiers, plus the unexpected death of Abbas Mirza in 1823, and the murdering of Persia's Grand Vizier (Mirza AbolQasem Qa'im Maqām), Persia lost its traditional foothold in Central Asia to the Russian Tsarist armies. ^[14] The Russian armies occupied the Aral coast in 1849, Tashkent in 1864, Bukhara in 1867, Samarkand in 1868, and Khiva and Amudarya in 1873. The Akhal Treaty was to top off the losses of Persia to the global emerging power of Russia.

By the end of the 19th century, Russia's dominance became so pronounced that Tabriz, Qazvin, and a host of other cities were occupied by Russia, and the central government in Tehran was left with no power to even select its own ministers without the approval of the Anglo-Russian consulates. Morgan Shuster, for example, had to resign under tremendous British and Russian pressure on the royal court. Shuster's book "The Strangling of Persia" is a recount of the details of these events, a harsh criticism of Britain and Russia.

These, and a series of climaxing events such as the Russian shelling of Mashad's Goharshad Mosque in 1911, and the shelling of the Persian National Assembly by the Russian Colonel Liakhoff, led to a surge in widespread anti-Russian sentiments across Iran.

One result of the public outcry against the ubiquitous presence of Russia in Persia was the Constitutionalist movement of Gilan. The rebellion, headed by Mirza Kuchak Khan led to an eventual confrontation between the Iranian rebels and the Russian army, but was disrupted with the October Revolution in 1917.

Russian involvement however continued after the Bolshevik seizure of power with the Persian Socialist Soviet Republic in 1920, followed by the short-lived Republic of Mahabad, the last effort by Soviet Union to establish a communist republic in Iran.

The end of World War II brought the start of American dominance in Iran's political arena, and with an anti-Soviet Cold War brewing, the United States quickly moved to convert Iran into an anti-communist bloc, thus ending Soviet influence on Iran for years to come.

During the Iran-Iraq war, it was the Soviet Union that became Saddam Hussein's largest supplier of conventional arms.

[edit] British Empire

The British have been involved in the politics of Persia longer than any other European power. (See Iran-Britain relations) The involvement quickly developed into one of colonialism with policies vested against Persia in the interests of the British East India Company. With Russia's involvement as an adversary, this arena came to be known as The Great Game.

On numerous occasions, the British government acted against Iran, either as a nation-state, or against her interests. The Gulistan Treaty of 1813, followed by the Turkmanchai treaty were both prepared by the notorious Sir Gore Ouseley with the aid of the British Foreign Office in London. In fact, Iran's current southern and eastern boundaries were determined by none other than the British, after deafeating Nasereddin Shah in Herat in 1857. The British government assigned Frederic John Goldsmid of the Indo-European Telegraph Department to determine the borders between Persia and India during the 1860s.^[15]

Many British policies against Iran such as concessions of the 70 year contract of Persian railways to be operated by British businessmen (such as Baron de Reuter) became increasingly visible and threatening to the Iranian public. In 1872, the Shah signed an agreement with Baron Julius de Reuter, which George Nathaniel Curzon (who was one of the greatest statemen of his day) called:

"The most complete and extraordinary surrender of the entire industrial resources of a kingdom into foreign hands that have ever been dreamed of..."^[16]

The Reuter Concession was immedialtey protested by all ranks of businessmen, clergy, and nationalists of Iran, and the concession was quickly forced into cancellation.

Such negative visibility became particularly pronounced again during the famous "Tobacco fatwa", decreed by Grand Ayatollah Mirza Hassan Shirazi, which spiked popular resentment against the British presence in Persia in lieu of a diplomatically decapitated and apathetic Qajar throne. Other similar incidents were the Anglo-Russian Convention of 1907 in which Britain openly proposed the partitioning of Iran to Russia, as well as the discovery of oil in Masjed Soleiman in 1909 and the establishment of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company with the inking of the "D'Arcy Concession".

By the end of the 19th century, Britain's dominance had become become so pronounced that Khuzestan, Bushehr, and a host of other cities in southern Persia were occupied by Great Britain, and the central government in Tehran was left with no power to even select its own ministers without the approval of the Anglo-Russian consulates. Morgan Shuster, for example, had to resign under tremendous British and Russian pressure on the royal court. Shuster's book "The Strangling of Persia" is a recount of the details of these events, a harsh criticism of Britain and Imperial Russia.

The popular view that the British were involved in the 1921 coup was noted as early as March 1921 by the American embassy and relayed to the Iran desk at the Foreign Office ^[17] A British Embassy report from 1932 concedes that the British put Reza Shah "on the throne". ^[18]

The "Arabian Gulf" was another British creation, implemented after Iran's government took over British Petroleum in the early 1950s. The repercussions of this politically motivated policy is still seen today. (See section on Persian Gulf dispute).

One of the architects of Iran's partitioning was Bernard Lewis, who in fact first unveiled a project for the separation of Khuzestan from Iran during the Bilderberg Meeting in Baden, Austria, on April 27-29, 1979. There, he formally proposed the fragmentation and balkanization of Iran along regional, ethnic and linguistic lines especially among the Arabs of Khuzestan (the Al-Ahwaz project), the Baluchis (the Pakhtunistan project), the Kurds (the Greater Kurdistan project) and the Azerbaijanis (the Greater Azerbaijan Project). ^[19]

British footprints can also be seen when exploring the origins of the Iraqi invasion plan of Iran in 1980, which were reported in a New York Times article early in the Iran-Iraq war. ^[20]. The report was largely ignored by the mainstream press and media. The points of this report are summarized as follows:

1. A detailed invasion plan had been prepared for the Iraqi armed forces in 1950 by the British Military advisors for Iraq, a full 30 years before the invasion of Iran by Saddam Hussein.
2. The main draft of the plan had been in preparation by the British since 1937. The main axes of advance detailed in the plan corresponded exactly to the Iraqi invasion of Iran on September 22, 1980.
3. The main objective of this war plan "...called for Iraqi forces to occupy Khuzistan province and then negotiate an armistice with the Iranian government that would include the relinquishment of the province to Iraq...also liberate the Arab-speaking people living in Khuzistan". Significantly, successive changes in the Iraqi government over the next thirty years did not alter the major objectives of the British plan; these were simply updated as time progressed.

The alleged British plan for Iran's invasion indicates that even before the Bernard Lewis Plan was unveiled in the Bilderberg Conference, detailed British plans for eliminating Iran as a state have been in place long before 1979, and thus claims of foreign support in instigating ethnic unrest in Iran are not totally unfounded. Nevertheless, Bilderberg meetings are informal and are held in camera, without minutes - a situation that has attracted much criticism for lacking transparency and accountability (see). Consquently, the veracity of such reports is a matter of considerable debate, with many "insider" reports remaining unproven. What does remain certain however is that "the British would regularly toy with the idea of partitioning Persia, usually as a temporary response to a crisis". ^[21]

However, there is no evidence that the present British government is planning an invasion of Iran, with Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett denying plans for a military strike on Iran.[20] However "Blair has been more circumspect, saying publicly that one should never take options off the table" [21], refusing "to rule out a British military invasion of Iran".[22][23]

What follows belongs either in an article on Iranian history, or history of Iran-US conflict:

[edit] By the United States

The first anti-Iranian move by the United States was the deposition of Iran's elected Prime Minister Mossadegh in 1953 via the infamous Operation Ajax.

After the revolution, Iran and the US were inevitably led to a collision course with the US making every effort to destabilize Iran with repeated allegations of Iran being a major if not the largest "state sponsor of terrorism"^[22], culminating with George Bush labeling Iran as the "Axis of Evil".

On February 5, 2006, Iranian blogger Persian Majeed listed a number of alleged human rights violations by the US in Iran and alleged attacks by the US against Iranian democracy of the preceding half-century, requesting judicial enquiries and appropriate compensation payments to Iranians. His judgment of the severity of the US actions against democracy in Iran concludes with the request that the US should be referred to the United Nations for sanctions. ^[23]

[edit] Iran-Air incident

While issuing notes of regret over the loss of human life in the tragic event of Iran Air Flight 655, the U.S. government never admitted any wrong-doing or responsibility in the tragedy, nor apologised, but continues to blame Iranian hostile actions for the incident. The men of the Vincennes were all awarded combat-action ribbons. Commander Lustig, the air-warfare co-ordinator, even won the navy's Commendation Medal for "heroic achievement," his "ability to maintain his poise and confidence under fire" having enabled him to "quickly and precisely complete the firing procedure."^[24] According to a 23 April 1990 article in The Washington Post, the Legion of Merit was presented to Captain Rogers and Lieutenant Commander Lustig on 3 July 1988. The citations did not mention the downing of the Iran Air flight at all. It should be noted that the Legion of Merit is often awarded to high-ranking officers upon successful completion of especially difficult duty assignments and/or last tours of duty before retirement.

The then Vice-President George H. W. Bush declared a month later:

“

I will never apologise for the United States of America, ever. I don't care what it has done. I don't care what the facts are.[25][26][27][28]

”

[edit] Siding against Iran during the Iran-Iraq war

Main article: U.S. support for Saddam during the Iran-Iraq war

[edit] Against scientists and UN envoys

In September 2005, U.S. State Department refused to issue visas for Iran’s parliamentary speaker and a group of senior Iranian officials to travel to US to participate in an International parliamentary meeting held by the United Nations. According to UN rules, US has to grant visas to the senior officials from any UN member states, irrespective of their political views, to take part in UN meetings.

Main article: Sanctions against Iranian scientists

[edit] Threats of a possible military attack on Iran by the US

The United States' official position on Iran is that "a nuclear-armed Iran is not acceptable" and that "all options" - including the unilateral use of force and first-strike nuclear weapons - are "on the table". ^[29] However, they have denied that the United States is preparing for an imminent strike. This came while three European countries, the United Kingdom (UK), France and Germany (the "EU-3") attempted to negotiate a cessation of nuclear enrichment activities by Iran, and American claims that these activities are aimed at producing nuclear weapons. [24]

As of 2006, the United States has either a large or significant military presence or a history of several decades of tight military cooperation in four other countries bordering Iran: Iraq, Turkey, Afghanistan and Pakistan.

An American journalist, Seymour Hersh, claimed in January 2005 that U.S. Central Command had been asked to revise the military's war plan, providing for a maximum ground and air invasion of Iran and that the "hawks" in the U.S. government believed the EU3 negotiations would not succeed, and the Administration will act after this became clear. A former high-level intelligence official told him "It's not if we're going to do anything against Iran. They're doing it." ^[30]

Scott Ritter, former UN weapons of mass destruction inspector in Iraq, 1991-1998, claimed in April 2005 that the Pentagon was told in June 2005 to be prepared to launch a massive aerial attack against Iran in order to destroy the Iranian nuclear program. He claimed in June 2005 that the US military was preparing a "massive military presence" in Azerbaijan that would foretell a major land-based campaign designed to capture Tehran. He also claimed that the US attack on Iran had "already begun" (see below).^[31]

In his article published March 27, 2006, Joseph Cirincione, director for non-proliferation at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, claimed that "some senior officials have already made up their minds: They want to hit Iran." and that there "may be a coordinated campaign to prepare for a military strike on Iran."^[32] Joseph Cirincione also warned "that a military strike would be disastrous for the United States. It would rally the Iranian public around an otherwise unpopular regime, inflame anti-American anger around the Muslim world, and jeopardize the already fragile U.S. position in Iraq. And it would accelerate, not delay, the Iranian nuclear program. Hard-liners in Tehran would be proven right in their claim that the only thing that can deter the United States is a nuclear bomb. Iranian leaders could respond with a crash nuclear program that could produce a bomb in a few years."

Professor at the University of San Francisco and Middle East editor for the Foreign Policy in Focus Project, Stephen Zunes, also claims that a military attack on Iran is being planned.^[33]

[edit] Claims of plans for use of nuclear weapons against Iran

In March 2005 US revised its doctrine on when to use nuclear weapons to include preemptive or possibly preventive use on non-nuclear states.

In August 2005, Philip Giraldi, a former CIA officer, claimed that US Vice President Dick Cheney had instructed STRATCOM to prepare a contingency plan to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States... [including] a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons... not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States. The reason cited for the attack to use mini-nukes is that the targets are hardened or are deep underground and would not be destroyed by non-nuclear warheads.^[34]

Claims that the US plans to use nuclear weapons in an attack on Iran have also been made in 2005 and 2006 by Jorge Hirsch^{[35] [36]}, in January 2006 by Michel Chossudovsky ^[37], and by the Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention on Iran^[38] and in April 2006 by Seymour M. Hersh ^[39].

On April 18, 2006, on CSPAN, in response to a journalist's questioning, "Sir, when you talk about Iran, and you talk about, how you have to have diplomatic efforts, you often say all options are on the table. Does that include, uh, the possibility of a nuclear strike, is that something that your administration has plans about?", US president George W. Bush replied "All options are on the table".^[40]

[edit] Other hostile gestures

Stephen Zunes stated that the Republican and Democratic Parties of the USA have

"an urge to punish, isolate, and militarily threaten an oil-rich country [Iran] that refuses to sufficiently cooperate with U.S. economic and strategic designs in the Middle East."^[41]

One of the notable features of President George W Bush's 2007 State of the Union speech was its hostile attitude towards Iran. References to Iran ran like a drum beat through the speech. GW Bush resembled Iran to Al-Qaeda.^[42][43][44]

[edit] US violations of Iranian sovereignty

Several claims have been made that the US has violated Iranian territorial sovereignty since 2003, including the flying of drones^[45][46][47], sending US soldiers into Iranian territory^[30], and the use of former or current members of the Mujahideen e-Khalq (MEK or MKO)^[48] and the Party for a Free Life in Kurdistan (PEJAK)^[49] to carry out provocations such as bombings on Iranian territory in order to provoke pre-existing ethnic tensions.

Since 2003 the U.S. has been flying unmanned aerial vehicles, launched from Iraq, over Iran to obtain intelligence on Iran's alleged nuclear weapons program, reportedly providing little new information.^[45]The Iranian government has formally protested the incursions as illegal. A U.S. RQ-7 Shadow and a Hermes UAV have crashed in Iran.^[46]

In June 2005, Scott Ritter claimed that US attacks on Iran had already begun, including US overflights of Iran using pilotless drones.^[47]

Seymour Hersh has claimed that the US has also been penetrating eastern Iran from Afghanistan in a hunt for underground [nuclear weapons development] installations.^[30]

[edit] Decisions of US courts against Persian heritage artifacts

Main article: Chicago's Persian heritage crisis

Slrubenstein   |  Talk 11:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The media

Jonathan Hoenig of Fox News participated in a roundtable discussion on June 5, 2006 on Your World with Cavuto where he suggested to bomb Iran in order to help improve the stock market:

"I think when it comes to Iran the problem is we haven't been foreceful enough. Frankly, if you want to see the Dow go up, let's get the bombers in the air and neutralize this Iranian threat. We've gone to the negotiating table, we've danced around with these people and that's not going to help this country nor this stock market."[25]

In his new book "Never Quit the Fight", Ralph Peters has a map of what some Americans think Iran should become. The map was also reportedly presented at a NATO meeting as well. The map can be seen here. ^[50]

Among the celebrities in the media that have openly advocated "bombing Iran" are Donald Trump^[51] and the Beach Boys from their 1979 hit song "Bomb Bomb Iran". Their hit song continues to reverberate today with the possible military US threat against Iran nearing (videolink), with the internet showing no shortage of such sentiments.[26][27][28][29]. Ann Coulter went even as far as calling Iran's president a "Jihad monkey"^[52], and advocating an invasion of Iran^[53], while calling Iranians "ragheads"^[54].

Following the notorious Seymour Hersch article, and a report quoting Dick Cheney to alert American troops of a possible use of a "nuke" aghainst Iran^[55], even Greenpeace issued a statement titled "Don't nuke Iran".^[56]

All of the above belongs in an article on history of Iran or Iran-US conflict. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citation 35

Citation 35 is to the book Republic of Fear by Samir El-Kalil. My understanding is that Republic of Fear was written by Kanan Makiya. Is this a different book? GabrielF 18:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

If you do a LCCN number search for "90052933" on LOC's Basic Search catalog, youll see the name el-Khalil on the title.--Zereshk 21:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Neologism"

Im still waiting for a response: what is the difference b/w "anti-semitism" vs "anti-Iraniansm"? Why is one allowed, but the other suppressed?--Zereshk 22:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I completely disagree with the "neologism" criticism. It may not be a term that is widely used by the English-speaking world, but if it has currency within Iranian scholarly circles, then it is no longer a neologism (could you perhaps add some Farsi sources documenting that the term is used?). In any case, trying to have the article deleted for that only approaches WP:POINT in my opinion. However, also note that "anti-Semitism" refers to antagonism against Jews, not the state of Israel itself (even though too often criticism of Israel or its politicians is labeled as anti-Semitism). Black Falcon 22:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

See my (and Behnman's) response to you in the "Wait a minute" section above. GabrielF 22:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Well in that case, then youre both wrong. You said: "Your analogy with the Jews is not applicable. Jews are a religious group, Iran is a country". That's false. "Iran" is not a country. The "Islamic Republic of Iran" is. That's why you have the name "Iran" mentioned in 200BC. Thats why it is derived from the word "Aryan", which is the name of a race and group of people. See etymology for Iran--Zereshk 04:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I consider Jews an ethnic entity, a people, not just a religious group (though there are converts). The discrimination against them in Germany was because of their "racial" aspect; converting to Christianity did not usually save Jews from the destruction. And by the way, Anti-Iranianism is "allowed", but currently needs a lot of improvement as dictated by certain principles, and I cannot help but note that you aren't being cooperative in this compromise attempt to save the article from deletion. Deletion currently seems imminent because of the greater merit of the "delete" arguments. I hope you will try to be open to the problems others have with this article and try to work with us in addressing these problems. The Behnam 05:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Deletion is actually not "imminent" because there arent enough votes for that to happen. And no, Jews are not a race. There is great genetic difference from the Jew from Iraq or Iran, and the Jew that comes from Poland. Furthermore, Arabs are alsoby definition "semites". Please look up the word in a dictionary. Also, Genghis Khan did in fact respond only to Iranians, because his envoys were killed by Kharazm-shah. In return, he invaded Persia and executed Iranian civilians by the hundreds of thousands in public events, because they were Iranian, i.e. subjects of the Iranian king. And finally, if there is anyone that is being cooperative, it is me: I am the only one making actual changes to the article to improve it (adding sources, re-writing, re-phrasing, etc). All other edits so far have been nothing but mass deletions of multiple sections.--Zereshk 06:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

It ain't a poll. The delete arguments have merit, and some pretty well-established editors behind them too. I want it to stay, so I think that the compromise is a good idea. Based on your narrative, the Mongol killed a ton of civilians to get back at the king who killed the envoys. How was this because they were Iranian, because of their Iranian-ness? If any other king had done the same thing, would Genghis have let them go, saying "I could slaughter many of your people for this, but they aren't Iranian, so I'll let them go." By the way, while Arabs are technically Semites, "antisemite" only refers to Jews; please see [30]. You may consider yourself cooperative, but as far as working with the concerned editors to improve the article goes, you haven't put much of an effort. The sections were deleted for very specific reasons, and given very specific criteria for re-inclusion, which you mostly ignored. However, I am glad to have you talking here; I hope you will soon realize our concerns. The Behnam 07:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

1. Yes, it's not a poll, but there isn't any consensus for deletion. And consensus is what determines the fate of the article.
2. Good answer, and now here's mine: Why do u think Hitler hated the Jews so much? Do u think he just decided one morning out of nowhere to hate Judaism? Do u think he hated Jews from day one, because of Judaism? Do u think he hated Jewish people from day one, just because of who they were? If your answer is yes, well then I have news for you. Because the answer is no. Hitler grew to hate the Jews because of his personal failures in his academic career. In 1939 Hitler personally permitted Dr. Bloch, a Jewish physician to emigrate from Austria. Dr. Bloc was the gentle physician who provided intensive care for of his ailing mother, and on several occasions Hitler expressed his gratitude. Another Jew was his WWI commanding officer, who recommended Hitler for the Iron Cross. Hitler's years in Vienna from 1907 to 1913 were the most difficult years of his life. He was trying to become an Architect and to make himself a name in field of arts. He was twice rejected from the Vienna Academy of Fine Arts. The second rejection by the Academy was one of the most traumatic experiences of his life; all his dreams were shattered.(and the very words Im using here are from an actual Holocast surviver) After discovering that four out of seven professors that rejected him were Jewish he blamed the Jews for his failure. Contrasting to his own failures he saw the successful and prospering Jews in all fields of arts and culture, business and politics. That's why he writes in Mein Kampf: "Gradually, I began to hate them." So no, youre wrong. The wrath of Hitler against Jewry are in the same exact category of the wrath of the Mongols against the Iranians. Only, they took place in a different time and different place and in a different manner. But the reason was exactly the same: A "reaction".
3. I dont know what u mean by "pretty well established editors". Firstly, I am the primary author of this article. Second, I have nearly 20,000 edits on 2,500 WP articles of Iranian relevance. So that makes me more established than all of you combined. Thirdly, I actually speak the Persian language and know its history better than those who are voting for its deletion. That by itself makes them un-knowledgeable of Iran. Basically, they are voting for deletion based on a false premise.
4. So "Semites" refers to Arabs, and yet its "anti" does not. Now how ludicrous is that? Hence I hope you realize that "anti-semitic" referring only to Jews is a popular (and well established I might say) misnomer.
5. As for me not "working with the concerned editors", an "editor" is one who has actually participated in the formation of the article. None of the people on this pro-AFD are actual "concerned editors". They contributed NOTHING to this article's body. I am THE ONLY one present who has. The people I am going up against, only want the article erased from public exposure. And that's sad.
6. The "criteria" you speak of are based on a fallacies: There is no "neologism". There is no such thing as a country called "Iran", and yet the article defines itself to cover both sentiments against the country and the people.
7. I have to go. Peace.--Zereshk 07:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

1. The point is you should realize the legitimate concerns others have regarding this article. It's a close call; you need to work out the issues they have with the article, or their deletion arguments will retain merit.
2. How is that the same as Genghis Khan? So what if his antisemitic sentiments started with some bad experience with Jews? The sentiment was still because of who they were. Besides, since when was Hitler the origin of the German anti-Semitism of that period? He definitely was a big player but it had its roots in crazy academics, traditional antisemitic views, and more. But really, you need to point to a specific anti-Iranian sentiment of Genghis, not just killing civilians to punish a king who killed a diplomatic envoy.
3. Well, if you don't think that the people voted at the AFD are well-established, that is your opinion. Of course, minor editors like me aren't that established, but I was surprised at some of the people who showed up there.
4. Yes, the "semite" thing is silly, but that is the way it is. On the bright side, you have just learned a new thing.
5. I was referring to "editors" in the sense of "Wikipedia editors," though they still qualify as editors even if they just remove passages. Plus, some have added improvements, and the removals were done for specific and justified reasons. If you want to prevent this article from being erased, I recommend working with the other editors. The compromise is possible because the AFD nominator GabrielF was willing to drop the AFD if certain things were removed or changed because were not actual examples of anti-Iranian prejudice. On the other hand, your reverts and similar reverts from other editors have threatened this compromise and have strengthened the AFD by demonstrating that the article is unworkable.
6. The criteria I spoke of are the ones regarding improvement, not the deletion. Specifically, the removal of irrelevant passages, primarily from the Mongol, Russian, and USA sections. The article should address what all of the other "anti-ethnicity" ideas address; prejudice. Not simply any act that happened to affect the people negatively. Until agreement is found on the definition, this article will remain unworkable.
7. Peace to you as well. The Behnam 08:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Come on Behnam, ghabool kon I have a sound conculsion: If instead of Jews, he had suffered his personal misfortunes from (say) Chinese people, he would have developed his (evil) theories of hatred against the Chinese. He says it himself that he didnt harbor initial hatred against Jews, but that he "grew to hate them". And also, anti-semitism was an academic thing going around. But it was Hitler that massacred 6 million Jews, just like the genocide of Persia by the Mongols. And btw, there is no real difference between a mass deletion, and an AFD to delete the article. That's not a "compromise". You remind me of Condi Rice agreeing to talk to Iran about its nuclear program, on the pre-condition that it abandons its nuclear program. And finally, I actually dont mind if at the end, GabrielF et al successully delete the article, because it proves my point: it's all a politically motivated move. Iran is about to be invaded in a new great war, and pro-Israeli WP editors are denying that anti-Iranianism exists? sweet.--Zereshk 08:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] In the US section

I have added what could be a start for an "In the United States" section (actually, I'm thinking of adding 1-2 sentences in front of what's there now about Iranian immigration to the US and/or general animosity against Muslims in general). I don't think that content should be put under the "By the United States" section. The anti-Iranianism I have noted is not "by" the United States. Black Falcon 06:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shot for Consensus

I cant revert anymore because of the 3rr rule. However I will copntinue to revert the mass blackout of 2/3 of an article with over 100 sources until we reach a consensus. That's just not right. Here's my proposal and position:

1. I can help with improving the article, but I wont agree on a mass deletion of entire sections. That's just not justifiable, unless you convince me that there is a difference between Anti-semitism and Anti-Iranianism.
2. I cant let the Mongolian section be totally wiped out. I challenge u to prove to me that the genocide of Persia by the Mongols is any different than the genocide of the Jews by Hitler. Behnam tried, but failed (and obviously he refuses to accept the failure of his argument, but u can read the discourse 2 sections above and see for yourself).
3. I cant let the colonial sections be wiped out. From an Iranian perspective, and Im talking what is officially taught in schools in Iran, the policies carried out by Imperial Russia and Great Britain during The Great game are the most "despicable moments of Iran's history", both against the country, and against her people (which is why the clerics were so involved, issuing fatwas against both GB and IR). For example, the Turkmanchai Treaty and Golestan Treaty are seen by Iranians, as one of the, if not the saddest events of Iranian history. I can bring u sources that exactly say this, if u want me to. Im not making this stuff up. Theres even a proverb in Persian language/literature: "If there's any blaming to be made, blame it on the British". I urge u to study Iran's history in the past 3 centuries, then pull out your judgement. If it werent for the Colonialist policies of the British, Iran would be a VERY diffferent country today. (Morgan Shuster would not have been forced to resign, Operation Ajax would not have happened and thus Khomeini would probably not have had an Islamic revolution, etc etc)
4. I cant allow the US section to go either. That is directly relevant. And I wont buy the nonsense hogwash that "I need to prove" that shooting down 290 Iranian civilians by the US navy, or unilateral sanctions against Iran, or supporting Saddam in the Iran-Iraq war, is anti-Iranian. That's just plain ridiculous. Killing Iranians IS anti-Iranian. IT NEEDS NO PROOF.
5. Instead of going back and forth on reverts, let me go thru the article again, and further trim out the sections that I think can be condensed, trimmed, transferred, or cut out. Then we can discuss the rest. But u have to discuss why an ENTIRE section has to be deleted. U have to convince me historically a case of non-significance to drop an entire section.--Zereshk 09:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Provide verifiable and reliable sources to support your contention. They should not be primary sources. Without appropriate sources, you are violating NOR.

You need to distinguish between conflicts between states and racism. They are not the same and deserve separate articles. There may be specific moments in history where there is overlap or convergence and both articles should summarize those moments of convergence. But these are otherwise two topics that do not belong in the same article. Killing Iranians is no more anti-Iranian than French killing Germans is anti-German or Germans killing French is anti-French, in any sense other than that used in International Relations. A better analogy: during WWII there was plenty of racism betwen Japanese and Americans. But an article on American racism against Japanese that discusses the entire war in the Pacific is absurd and would be deleted or severely edited. We would have one article on racism against Japanese and another on WWII. You are conflating many different things here just to push your own agenda. Moreover, you rely heavily on primary sources thus violating NOR. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

The killed Jews in WW2 have their own set of categories, not just articles. And this article does not talk about all wars and killings that happened to Iranians. So I dont buy your argument one bit. It's your opinion that suffering of the people and suffering of the country are separate. But what do you know of Iran.--Zereshk 12:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Please explain to me by what stretch of the imagination are the following two paragraphs (with no citations by the way, looks like original research to me) in any way relevant to "anti-Iranianism?":

H. Pir Nia, for example states that Alexander adopted local customs instead of imposing his native Macedonian ways during ceremonies, continued using the same administrative system of Darius I, Started dressing as an Achaemenid royalty and practicing their traditions while choosing the Persian city of Babylon as his capitol, allowed Persians to fill in senior ranks in his army, and married into Persian royal households e.g. Roxana of Bactria, Statira daughter of Darius III, and Parysatis daughter of Ochus. ^[57]

In medieval Persian literature, Alexander came to occupy not the mighty image of a conqueror, but rather an expeditious leader and traveler in search of wisdom and truth. Many Persian authors have written works on such topics, titled "Iskandarnama", such as Nizami Ganjavi. He was even believed to have been whom the Quran refers to as Dhul-Qaranayn.

This is not your own blog.Slrubenstein | Talk 12:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Ruby, the reference is given. I even gave u an ISBN number for the quote.--Zereshk 12:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I am glad you are pruning back some sections and being more careful with sources. However, since you cannot explain how the two paragraphs in question have to do with anti-Iranianism, out they go. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

The Mongolian arguments still stand; you can't just dismiss them by claiming you defeated them! Anyway, do you even have a source defining anti-Iranianism as a 'anything that affects Iranians negatively'? I really doubt it, since in my experience, the usage refers to bigotry against Iranians. And that appears to be what most of the other editors consider it. This isn't your research page; you can't define anti-Iranianism as 'anything that affected Iranians negatively' and then go and narrate upon everything bad that happened to Iranians. Everything needs to be relevant according to the sources themselves, not just your interpretation of them, and of course, this article needs to operate upon a sound definition of the term. The Behnam 17:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Anti-Iranianism laabod means anything that positively effects Iranians. Just look at what your saying. Im happy that youre showing your true colors.--Zereshk 21:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

• Possible solution with multiple sourcing? - Zereshk, if you can provide sources (I don't even think they have to be English-language) that show that certain people (either in the Iranian government, high-profile social figures, or academics) perceive the Mongol raids and actions by the US as anti-Iranianism (in the sense of being motivated by animosity against the Iranian people and not just the Iranian regime), then I think these claims should be included. However, as there is controversy surrounding this, they should be presented as claims, not as obvious facts. On a side note regarding the Iran Air incident, killing certain members of a group is not proof of animosity against the group in its entirety (it is not even proof of animosity against the individuals killed). Note that if the Iranian government claims the shooting was motivated by hatred/dislike of Iranians, then that should be noted (and sourced). If such sourced claims exist (and you've noted that they do), deliberately excluding them would (in my opinion) constitute WP:NPOV. I hope this can be a satisfactory solution. Black Falcon 17:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with both of the above comments, which I think point the direction for a real consensus. Anyone who shouts "it needs no proof", like Zereshk, could probably benefit from reading out core policies, WP:V and WP:NOR carefully. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Very well then. You all agree that all of it stays with more sources. Luckily, ضد ایرانی (which means "anti-Iranian") gives 272,000 hits on google. Unfortunately, I have a full time job, and dont have time to spend disputing you people 24/7. But then again, on the long-run, your efforts are useless: Iran is about to be invaded and bombed into a new war. Trumpeting things like "how does killing Iranians relate to Anti-Iranianism?" just makes you look even more ridiculous.--Zereshk 21:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Note: The "two above comments" at the time of Slrubenstein's post were the ones by Black Falcon and by The Behnam, not Zereshk's inserted reply. The Behnam 22:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the consensus is that it can stay with sources that document that someone notable entity or a reliable source considers it anti-Iranianism or anti-Iranian sentiment. I still maintain that killing Iranians is not anti-Iranianism. If I remember correctly, there are 20,000 - 25,000 murders in the US every year--very few of these murders are motivated by anti-Americanism or perpetrated by anti-American individuals. And finally, I hope no one is stupid enough or greedy/reckless enough to invade Iran--actually, I'm sure there are many politicians who fit this criterion, but in any case, I hope they don't succeed. Cheers, Black Falcon 22:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, "Anti-Iranianism" ≠ "Anti-Iranian sentiments". Youre referring to the latter. And the latter is a subset of the former.--Zereshk 02:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

And besides, it's already started: [31][32].--Zereshk 21:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Zereshk: your comment about me 'showing my true colors' contained a false dichotomy. Just because anti-Iranianism does not refer to 'anything that affects Iranians negatively' does not mean that it means 'anything that affects Iranians positively'. Just wanted to let you know. The Behnam 22:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

bishin baba. gerefti maro bekhoda. I hope you can still tell me with a straight face that "killing Iranians is not anti-Iranianism", once they start bombing Mirdamad Ave.--Zereshk 02:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

First I would also like to congratulate you all on your eloquence and your instrumental contributions despite your sometimes (to-me-natural) frustrations (Ok now you should know that I am a rookie and I am stepping up the soapbox, ehem!). I think to some extent Zereshk's comment addresses the root causes of today's Iranian/American jazz. We can differentiate between the government grand policies and the common people, nonetheless De Facto the line is gray, given the PR of both sides. And many feel and interpret the action/reaction attitude, which stimulates the "happy triggers" radicalism both in Iran and in the US. What I am trying to say is that history has a memory, over-rating it, is as dangerous as ignoring it. It is interesting to know that the popular Persian anthem "Ey Iran"[33], written by Hossein Gol-e-Golab, was inspired when he saw an American soldier beating an Iranian grocer[34] in Tehran, when Iran was under occupation. I am not sure about Behnam and Zereshk, but many people (from different backgrounds or mindsets) consider this piece somewhat a national anthem. I am having a rather “after-taste” now after I learned the story and every time that I hear it. Every time I hear it, it reminds me that the nation was insulted under occupation by the Americans. More technically, do I consider it anti-Persian or anti-Iranian? Probably not in my conscience but definitely yes in subconsciousness since I am sentimentally associated to Iran and the Persian people. All said, I wish these bad memories and hatred would be replaced by goodwill and benevolence.

Irrelevant though to the above, but as an aside, during WWII, using the local workforce, Americans were making millitary airplanes and tanks for Russia in Iran (I guess in Andimeshk) as a part of lend-lease (aid) treaty between the US and Russia. After the war ended, they dismantled the whole thing.

[edit] Wikipedia is NOT a discussion

Patchouli, please see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, and please read it carefully. I urge you to stop this incessant propagandistic behaviour. To other editors here, please do not respond to such provocations. We are here to build an encyclopedia, not to debate and argue pointlessly. There are discussion forums for that. Thank you, Khodavand 13:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lack of Citation

I have noticed that there are a lot of unsourced claims in the article. That should probably be addressed right away, as unsourced content can be removed without warning.Arcayne 16:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, I strongly suggest that those who have an interest in keeping a majority of this article intact need to find RS reference citations for many of the statements in the article. Many of the statements are clearly POV pushing and obviously biased. Those of you who know the subject well need to go through this article by Sunday and remove or correct the statements. After that time, uncited information will be removed without warning.Arcayne 02:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I've fact-tagged some, but some of the unsourced statements regard potentially inflammatory statements or views by living people. WP:BLP does apply to anything stated about a living person, not just their specific biography article, so we should remember to remove such information immediately. Some of the rest I've placed {{fact}} tags on. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 02:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Good idea of course, but Gamal Abdel Nasser is long dead. The Behnam 02:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

You're correct of course, don't know why I thought he was still around! Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 02:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

A certain part of this page regarding Alexander the Great which lacked a lot of citation was edited repeatedly and the editor stated it was due to extreme POV (Point Of View??). After reviewing it I edited changing 2 key things (and reverted some of it to the original because the new content seemed based on that editors thoughts and lacked citation) It was written that the ENTIRE Persian Empire was conquered and it is very likely certain cities remained independant so I removed the word "entire". Secondly in a source I had read before it was stated that Alexander's conquest was during the time which Darius the Great was poisoned. This was reverted back and my edit was passed off as "nonesense" by Behnam, care to explain why? You seem to be removing everything I write, I want an explanation as to why it is not correct. I did not sign up in order to "troll" or write nonsense so if any of the information I write is incorrect I want to know why. Cyrus777

Sorry, but some of the claims were highly questionable. For example, the one about Darius the Great being poisoned, this causing chaos, and Alexander taking advantage of this chaos. First of all, what is the reliable source for the fatal poisoning? More importantly, what is your source for the notion that a 'chaos' set in such that Alexander was able to conquer the empire? Are you aware that there is more than 150 years between Darius the Great's death and Alexander's conquest? The claim is dubious. Also, the claims about 'common Iran-folk' not being in the army are questionable. The tone of your passage was sort of apologetic/refutational, which is not appropriate for WP. Really, that section needs to be cut down; the historical information is not about Anti-Iranianism. I'll get to that trimming soon. Anyway, the 'trolling' issue was the highly uncivil rant against Arcayne that you posted on that other page. Since you seem pretty new you may want to see WP:CIVIL. Basically, just stick to constructive criticism. Cheers. The Behnam 10:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I would be lying if I said I remember the sources as I do not that is why I didn't state them. I will look into this and see if I can find any creditable sources when I get the time. Secondly the other claims were not my writing, it was previously written and edited. The editor's edit seemed to be based on point of view (at first glance) as it lacked citation so I reverted much of what was written. I should have more carefully read what was being reverted because as you say it may be incorrect. As for the rant against Arcayne, it is questionable if that was trolling, I think it was rather apt. Removing things as he did is just disrespectful. As you were able to tell, I am new to this (I don't even know how to state what type of edit I have done in those tags), that is why I am reading the page which explains the basics of editing. Hopefully next time I will have solid proof of what I write. You seem to know a fair amount about these topics, to prevent any possible mistakes in things I edit in the future, how would I be able to contact you (or other wikipedia users)? Through the individual's talk page? Or is there another way. Cyrus777 10:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I've posted the contact help on your talk page. If you ever find the sources bring them here so that we can also take a look at them. I'm completely serious when I say that I never have seen the 'chaos' claim, so it is best that we all take a look at whatever the source was for the idea. Thanks for your honesty and good conduct on this matter. The Behnam 11:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A picture tells a thousand words

"The image shows how the western world thinks of Persian Empire as the evil because of what is told by Greek historians"

I'll ignore the odd use of the definite article. Does the picture show what it allegedly shows? What do you mean by the "Western world"? Would that be the single mother in a British council estate who has never heard of the Persian Empire? Or is it the art collector with a myriad of scenes from across the globe? It's a bit rich to have a whine article on how others supposedly ascribe negative characteristics to your own group and at the same time make such sweeping generalisations. I do hope I'm not being anti-Iranian by saying that.

194.46.183.72 04:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please someone include this in the article

In 2007 the Arab director of "New York South Asian Film Festival" admitted that a conscious decision was made not to invite any Iranian filmmakers. Ahmed Issawi said: "That’s a territory I no longer want to tread". "It’s over. Given the whole thing with Iran—I refuse to approach it.", Issawi added.^[58]

Thanks. Sangak ^Talk 16:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Nothing about has been considered anti-Iranian or any of its synonyms (such as "racist against Iranians", etc). It will not be included. The Behnam 19:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

That is anti-Iranian. --alidoostzadeh 03:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Says who? You? The Behnam 03:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

How is it not anti Iranian The Behnam? The guy admitted to purposely not inviting Iranian film makers for political reasons.Azerbaijani 17:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

A reliable source hasn't cited it as an example of anti-Iranian sentiment. Please see WP:NOR. Anyway, if I were to play devil's advocate this guy seems to be avoiding Iran because of the current issues, not necessarily because he dislikes Iranians personally. The Behnam 17:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)