Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-Persianism by Arabs

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 22:00, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-Persianism by Arabs

There are a couple of thousand ethnicities in the world, and we can guess mostly every one of them has some animosities towards any two or three of its neighbours. So, let's have a bunch of 10,000 or so new articles of the format "Anti-X'ism by Y", listing all the world's complaints and injured prides, from unjust conquests a thousand years ago to unfair football fans and world-domination conspiracies today. I'll gladly make a start with "Anti-Württembergism by Badenese", taking the abovementioned essay as a model, as it is meticulously sourced, highly original and refreshingly frank in the way it spins all those disparate yarns into a coherent new synthesis of ethnic animosity. Not. -- Lukas (T.|@) 08:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

  • I'm concerned by the obvious anti-crapism of this AfD nominator...Delete! While the material in the article seems very well-sourced, it's irreparably POV. -- Scientizzle 08:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete "Anti-Persianism" gets 10 hits on Google. I'd agree that there has been animosity between Persians and Arabs in the past (under the Umayyads -- the Abbasids, who overthrew them, were allied with Persians) and recently (state-formation in Iraq, Iran-Iraq War, hostility between Sunni and Shi'a revived), but the article conflates past and present in a historically illegitimate way. It ignores twelve centuries of minimal or no friction between Arabs and Persians. IMHO, the section of older history is also grotesquely slanted and inaccurate. See the talk pages of Islamicization in post-conquest Iran for discussion of Umayyad language policies, etc. Material on oppression of Shi'a and Iraqis of Iranian background under Saddam is interesting (and depressing), but belongs in modern history of Iraq articles. Zora 08:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep If articles like Anti-Arabism and Anti-Semitism are okay then the topic is fair game as long as it is sourced. Term "Anti-Persianism" gets exactly 506 hits on Google and "Anti-Persian" gets 655. Maybe it could be renamed "Anti-Persian racism" which gets 453,000 hits on Google. Racism and bigotry cannot be denied or ignored, which is what it seems LukasPietsch wants to do. Khorshid 09:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
You need to put quotes around "Anti-Persianism" or you're going to be pulling up sites that don't actually contain the full term. Zora 10:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
The number of hints in English language does not count. The subject has been thoroughly covered in Persian and arabic sources. If Anti-arabism has more English hints, is just because there are 22 arab countries and one Persian country. --Sina Kardar21:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment - Excuse me for being maybe a bit paranoid, but are you a duplicate account by any chance? Account created just 8 hours before this nomination, less than 10 edits, none to this article - just how did you find this nomination within half an hour of its creation? Lukas (T.|@) 13:25, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete It is worthwhile looking at the reasons why this article was created [1] and also how widely the term "anti-Persianism" is used [2] - the only evidence for the use of this term is once in one article [3], but some of the material in this opinion piece has been copied and pasted into the "anti-Persianism" article, as I pointed out here [4]. Out of 12 hits on Google, three are related to this article, indicating that this is original research. The chief problem I have is that this article interprets many actions against Iran as anti-Persian racism, when in fact only 50% of the population of Iran is ethnically Persian and these actions have political motives rather than racial ones. Criticism or actions against the Iranian state by Arab governments appear to be deemed anti-Persianism in this article. I suspect that the reason why "anti-Iranian" and "anti-Persian" are conflated is precisely because there is little evidence to support this polemic. There is more evidence to support an article on "anti-Iranianism" [5], although it would have to be broader than just sentiments expressed in the Arab world. At present, the article seems like nationalist posturing.--الأهواز 10:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
I would just like to clarify my own position:
  • I disagree with deleting all anti-X-ism articles.
  • However, I am against the creation of articles based on an -ism that does not appear to exist outside Wikipedia
  • I am in favour of an article on anti-Iranian sentiment, as I believe that this prejudice does exist
  • However, I am against an article that focuses just on the prejudices of some Arabs and that there is a large amount of prejudice against Iranians elsewhere in the world
  • So, I propose that this article be renamed Anti-Iranian prejudice or Anti-Iranian sentiment, be widened to include the hatred or fear of Iranians wherever it occurs (not just Arabs) and the matters relating to POV and copyright violations in the article are cleared up. If this is agreed, then I would vote to keep the article.--الأهواز 22:52, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Zereshk has since renamed the article Anti-Persian sentiments, which is a positive development. I have made a proposal for a separate Anti-Iranian prejudice that would clear my remaining objections (along with the misgivings of other editors) and would establish the difference between racism against ethnic Persians (who form 50% of the Iranian population) and hatred of Iran as a nation: [6]. At the moment, I feel the article is confusing anti-national and racist sentiments which are not one and the same. If this proposal or something similar is accepted, then I will drop my support for deletion.--الأهواز 12:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Given the change in the name of the article to Anti-Persian sentiments (taking out the reference to Arabs), the creation of a separate article on Anti-Iranian sentiments (to cover anti-national sentiments as distinct from racist sentiments) and an agreement on the structure of content[7], I withdraw my delete vote.--الأهواز 23:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't like the idea of "Anti-Iranianism" because then there is more than just a single ethnic group. There is definitely racism against Persians so I think renaming the article is a good idea, but it should stay focused on anti-Persian ideas. Problem with "Anti-Iranianism" is also that "Iranian" in this way only means citizens of the country of Iran, and not any ethnic groups. There might be some hatred because of that, being citizen of Iran, but the hatred is more directed against Persians, and not so much against other groups. So the aim of the article is valid since widespread racism exists in the Arab world - and especially Saudi Arabia, UAE, Yemen, Bahrain - against Persians and anyone seen as being "Persian" or "Persian-like". Khorshid 11:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment... I am a little bothered by having Anti-Arabism and not this... not sure why (I don't know the subject well at all... just that there is mutual animosity that pops up from time to time)... It does get more google hits but... it is possible that the terminology is not as singular as with anti-Arabism... are there many different terms, maybe? I do think the article is not very good. It conflates anecdotal evidence into a tale.... I mean... quoting traditions like this does is quite dangerous... we need to be quoting secondary scholarship not trying to make our own (and if anti-Arabism suffers from the same problems they should be fixed as well). Are there any academic (relatively) non-partisan works on this? The only ones this seems to cite are related to Iran and not Persians in general... I don't vote delete because I don't know if there is scholarship on this... but, this article is dangerous because it masquerades as being fact when... well, it's just not. And sadly, I think non-neutral articles are looking more sophisticated and escaping scrutiny. gren グレン 11:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Khorshid Crazynas 12:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep peri norm. Valid topic. --K a s h Talk | email 13:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Uhhmmm, excuse me, keep per what? Lukas (T.|@) 13:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
* Comment: Uhmrmmmphmhm. You are excused. The topic is valid, its the title that may need changing. --K a s h Talk | email 14:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Telex 14:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Which "norm" ??! --Sina Kardar22:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. term appears in only one article.--JChap 14:14, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
First of all the term exist in Persian language and articles and also the whole subject can be found easily in arabic articles. Second, you can find many hints by searching terms as "hate" and "persians" or "ajams" etc in English. The number of hints is at least comparable to the number for other anti-X-ism article (except for antisemitism which gives much more hints). --Sina Kardar22:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete. As most (if not all) of the information from the article is original research, inaccurate, and is extremely biased. It's nothing more than a political polemic, also the subject isn't notable enough to be worthy of an article, espescially of this size. --Inahet 15:23, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
You are the one who was involved in making Anti-arabism article !!! So you cann't vote for deletion of this article. --Sina Kardar22:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment. The reason why I got involved in editing the Iranian anti-Arabism section (a mere section, not a bloated article like this nominated one) was because anti-Arab Iranians were using that section to make racist statements against Arabs. [8] [9] I was new when I started to correct this section, and so I had little knowledge of what is considered acceptable, so I sought the advice of an admin and another user [10]. I was advised to find reliable sources otherwise the information I had added would be considered original research. So I removed the information I had added to comply with Wiki policies [11]. ZereshK, the sole writer of the Anti-Persianism by Arabs article, did not attempt to comply with Wikipedia policies (including NOR and NPOV), despite the fact he has been actively editing for a much longer time that I have. BTW, Zereshk writes politically charged, and what some might consider controversial articles for Iranian.com. I have nothing against him editing Wikipedia articles, but he should not enforce his own opinions at Wikipedia. And Sina, you can't tell me that I can't vote; where in Wikipedia guidelines do you base your claim? --Inahet 01:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I think the key issue here is whether or not this is a notable social phenominon. I think it is, the article may need to be mantained by a more diverse group of editors. I think and RfC would suit this article more than a AfD. HighInBC 15:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep --Terence Ong 16:12, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and Move to Anti-Persian sentiments by Arabs. Also perhaps the article could be expanded to include other people like Azeris and Balochis, so the title could also be Anti-Iran sentiments by Arabs. —Khoikhoi 17:31, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Why just anti-Iranian sentiments by Arabs? As one editor stated on the talk page said "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." [12] I don't understand why this is being protrayed as some kind of civilisational conflict between Persians and Arabs when Iran is an ethnically diverse country and there are many other disputes concerning Iranians and non-Arab countries.--الأهواز 17:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Both you and I know that today many Arabs have shown prejustice towards Iranians and vice versa. Just look at soccer games between Arab and Iranian teems. It's just like watching a game between India and Pakistan. The point it's a notable topic, and deserves to be mentioned. —Khoikhoi 17:54, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree with you that there are tensions and in some cases animosity and racism towards Iranians by Arabs, but my point is that the article conflates Iranian as a nationality and Persian as an ethnic group that comprises 50% of the Iranian nation. "Anti-Persianism" or "Anti-Persian" are terms that have been virtually invented by the article author, whereas Anti-Iranian sentiment is widely written about.[13] How can one realistically argue that anti-Iranian attitudes expressed by Arab football supporters during a soccer match is evidence of hatred against the Persian people rather than Iran as a country? My other point is that anti-Iranian attitudes are not only evident among Arabs but other ethnic groups and countries. Why are Arabs singled out and anti-Iranian sentiments among Americans not dealt with? I have no objection to an article on Anti-Iranian prejudice, which is something I originally suggested on the Anti-Arabism talk page, covering all aspects of the issue and not just Arab-versus-Persian.--الأهواز 18:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep This article contains notable and factual information that is not present in any other articles. The phrasing and title of the idea conveyed "anti-persianism by arabs" is irrelevant. All previous arguments presented against this article seem to either quibble about the title of the article or bemoan the "irreparable" state of the organization and tone. Unless it is original research, the premise of the article, not content, should dictate its fate. I find the cumbersome title and POV style to be irrelevant in the discussion. Adambiswanger1 17:50, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes, but the "premise" is exactly it. The premise of this article is that "Anti-Persianism" (or whatever you call it) is a unified phenomenon across the eras, providing a single interpretative framework for each and every real or perceived grievance Persians have against Arabs, from mistreatments during and after the Islamic conquest, to the behaviour of football fans today. And this idea, I believe, is indeed irreparably original research and tendentious, no matter how well the details are sourced. Lukas (T.|@) 18:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
      • I don't think that the difficulty of the task (studying the animosity towards persians across time and in different contexts) warrants the deletion of the article. What is needed is good, hard work on the part of a scholar. Anti-persianism is one consistent entity across time, only manifesting itself in different ways, thus flustering the inability of some to view abstractions and concepts.Adambiswanger1 18:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
        • Huh? Assume the existence of the phenomenon and then go looking for it? Even though there's no evidence from google that other people believe there is such an entity? Isn't that the definition of original research? Zora 19:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
        • "One consistent entity across time". Wow, that's a big claim indeed. References that such is a legitimate perspective in scholarship? Lukas (T.|@) 19:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete because this opens the door for a load of POVforks that are unencyclopedic IMHO. Also, I must agree with scientizzle. M1ss1ontomars2k4 (T | C | @) 17:58, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Notable subject, there is an article named Anti-Arabism and many of the people who like to get rid "Anti-Persianism" article, are major contributors on Anti-Arabism . This looks like a POV nomination. --ManiF 20:03, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
The person who started the Anti-Persianism article has contributed to the Anti-Arabism article. The editor who nominated this for AfD has not contributed to either article. But this is beside the point. The article should be judged on whether it is worthy of an encyclopaedia article.--الأهواز 20:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep.--Zereshk 20:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
A little reminder to Iranian editors and a couple of leading sentences could be just enough to ensure a vote against deletion:[14]
That's what we've been doing all along. But you still approve of the article's deletion. Revealing, Id say.--Zereshk 02:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - article is a well-referenced piece of work discribing the historical events after the Arab conquest of Persia. Absolutely no reason to delete it! Tajik 20:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Interesting that this article is nominated for deletion when there are the following similar articles:

I dont see any reason why this article should be different.--Nightryder84 21:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Note: I'd indeed be happy to see most of these go too - except a very few where the concept is a well-established object of research, such as Anti-Semitism and arguably also Anti-Americanism. Lukas (T.|@) 21:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
The hostility of arabs toward Persian has beed "well established" and costed us the lives of many people. It is not acceptable to refer to English sources (for a conflict between Arabs and Persian speakers) to define what is well-established or not. --Sina Kardar21:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to create an Anti-Scottishism by the Irish, relating to the hatred of the Scottish planter population in Ireland. Then I'd create an Anti-Parisianism by the Bretons on account of Celtic Breton resentment of Parisian attitudes towards the Breton language and regional identity. The possibilities for these articles are endless.--الأهواز 21:22, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Fortunatelty there is enough room for you to write about subjects that you have expertise in them. If you are intereted and qualified, please do not hesitate to contribute.--Sina Kardar22:00, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • But, google the anti-Kurd or anti-Turk one... you get 132 hits and 66 hits... these are not terms in wide currency... which makes the article original research. It's not that there can't be expertise but when you put it under a specific title it has implications... such as that we are citing scholarly sources... I mean, the name is very important... we don't want to call the Yankee-Mets rivalry "Anti-Yankeeism by Mets fans"... there is a rivalry that may notably be mentioned somewhere... but giving it a name that is not in common currency is original research and not something we are supposed to be doing. gren グレン 05:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as per User:Nightryder84.This page is a responce to Anti-Arabism article. Neutrality of wikipedia demands to keep this article. --Sina Kardar21:19, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep As per all of its supporters. Amir85 21:27, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep . The article is sourced and explains the phenomenon that has existed among Arabs for so many years. Sorry if it bothers some people but it is the reality. I as an Iranian acknowledge that anti Arab feelings have existed in Iran and among Persians and I ask the other side to do the same.Gol 21:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, I see no problem. According to my experience, on many issues about Iran, a very well organized network of wikipedians is heavily involved in intoducing bias and vandalising issues related to Iran. All of these guys are related to eachother and call eachother on voting. I have little doubt that these people are associated to political circles and receieve fund as they are working full time on wikipedia articles about Iran. Ofcourse there is no "official noticeboard" for them! --Sina Kardar22:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
People talk to each other on WP and there is no law against it. We were not told to come here and blindly obey and vote!! We were asked to get involved and since we have brains of our own we are capable of making up our own minds about the matter. I see nothing wrong with it. Gol 22:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, interestingly enough, Lukas also goes around calling on other editors to come here and participate as well: [16]--Zereshk 22:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Lukas, please see a similar AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Turkish Kurdistan. One user was accused of votestacking, but if you see Wikipedia:Vote Stacking, you will notice that it's only a proposed policy, and by no means offical. —Khoikhoi 23:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. This is a well-documented and highly informative article based on historical and real facts. It should be nominated for the featured articles. Deleting this information is censorship. That providing this sort of information could be done regarding many nations and peoples is no argument to commit this censorship. I would very much like to know the history of tensions between the Irish and the English. If somebody will write a well-documented article about it in this encyclopaedia it would be a shame to delete that.

--Mani1 21:59, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Is this an edit war, or a serious discussion?[17] The Anti-Persianism article was created in reaction to the Anti-Arabism article [18] and now it has come up for AfD, there is a retribution by some editors, prompted perhaps by [19]). Incidentally, you made a serious mistake with the template. Take a closer look.--الأهواز 22:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanx all.--Zereshk 22:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: User:LukasPietsch ommited my deletion nomination tag for the Anti-Arabism article after just a few seconds without giving me time to take the rest of steps technically needed for this nomination!
My response to his message to me was:
It seems you are more familiar with the technically correct deletion processes. As you have gone through this trouble for trying to delete the informative article Anti-Persianism by Arabs, you are naturally expected to do the same for all such articles, otherwise you have been acting biased and selective.--Mani1 22:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • In response to the allegations of votestacking, I would like to remind voters to read the article and read the arguments against it, most notably the concern that it is and inherently flawed idea, and "Anti-persianism" is too broad and vague to warrant an article. This is not necessarily my opinion, but I want to make sure we have informed voters. Adambiswanger1 22:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Anti-Persianism by Arabs is a very real and accurate notion, felt, discussed, studied and researched by millions of Iranians around the world. Thinking of it as "too broad and vague" shows total unfamiliarity of User:Adambiswanger1 with the region's culture and history.

--Mani1 22:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Mani1, I humbly submit the fact that I am acting as mediator in this exchange, and I was merely summarizing some of the previous contentions of other voters. If you had read the rest of the discussion, which was the point of my last message, you would realize that I voted to keep the article. Thank you, but please read all the information available to you before making a decision. Also, this statement: "[anti-Persianism by Arabs is] felt, discussed, studied and researched by millions of Iranians around the world" is a contentious point because many are saying there are no scholary sources to support this.Adambiswanger1 22:54, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


Some of many scholary sources in which many facets of the anti-Persianism by Arabs is discussed and explained:
  • http://www.iranica.com/
  • Conversion and Poll-Tax in Early Islam, D.C. Dennett, Cambridge 1950
  • The Encyclopaedia of Islam, second edition
  • Slaves on Horses, P. Crone, Cambridge 1980

An example from Princeton.edu:

  • Mawali (mostly Persians) were regarded as inferior to the Arabs and were required to pay additional taxes. Despite such discrimination, the mawali rapidly rose to prominence in Muslim society in administration, military, and scholarship.

--Mani1 23:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Mani, we've had these arguments at other articles. Those books do not prove what you think they prove. The early Arab conquerors did not consider themselves superior just to Persians -- they considered themselves superior to everyone. North Africans, Egyptians, Syrians, Sindhis ... if they weren't Arabs, they were second-class citizens to the later Rashidun and the Umayyads. They were dhimmis, they paid jizya, they had to wear distinctive garments ... none of this was directed at Persians qua Persians. The Arabs did NOT force their subjects to learn Arabic; in fact, they would have preferred it if they didn't learn Arabic. Arabic was the official language of government and religion, which is not the same thing as enforcing it as the language of everyday life. The Islamic conquest section of the Anti-Persianism article is a biased and historically inaccurate polemic, which says a lot more about the mindset of Iranian nationalism than it does about history. As someone who CARES about historical accuracy, I must protest your characterization of that section of the article. Zora 02:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
A language other than native language being used at school and work was considered by you and Ahwaz as native language being “Suppressed” (from what I remember in Khuzestan article.) Why double standard Zora? Gol 10:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Nightryder84. Bidabadi 23:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't think the purpose of Wikipedia is talking about racisim and I truly feel we should not have any anti pages in regards to races!--(Aytakin) | Talk 01:01, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment I'd like to point out that large parts of the article have been directly copied from work written by Nima Kasraie aka Zereshk, who started the Anti-Persianism by Arabs article. For instance, parts of [20] can be seen in the article. I am not sure about the rules on Wikipedia editors using their own work to write their own Wikipedia articles, although in this case it is obviously not a case of copyright violation. Also, parts of this article [21] have been directly lifted into the article, which is an example of copyright violation.--الأهواز 23:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

It is allowed, because it is a published source. It is also based on sources that are heavily referenced.--Zereshk 23:25, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Partial copyright violation can not justify deleting the whole article. Bidabadi 23:31, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
It's not a copyright violation because the parts have been referenced to the source. Furthermore, Ahwaz is simply trying to divert attention away from the fact that the article has 3 times as many sources as his anti-Arabism article does.--Zereshk 23:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to point out that the Anti-Arabism article is not mine and was not started by me. I contributed to one section of the article. Whether or not the Anti-Persianism by Arabs article stands up as a subject for an encyclopaedic article is unrelated to the existence of the Anti-Arabism article. It should be judged on its own.
If it is OK for a Wikipedia editor to start an article on Anti-Persianism - a term used only once in a serious article, according to Google - and copying articles he has published in the past, then that's something we should accept. I was not aware that opinion pieces on websites (no matter what sources they use) could be transformed by their authors into Wikipedia articles, but now I know better.--الأهواز 00:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment Note that all the other articles about "anti" this or that don't point fingers. "Anti-Semitism" is allowable; "Anti-Semitism by U.S. citizens" is an accusation. I'd be fine with an "Anti-Iranian sentiments" article.

Also, as others have pointed out, the proponents of this article can't decide whether it's about Iranians or Persians. Citizens of Iran are of many ethnicities, speak many languages, and follow various religions. Sometimes the term "Persian" seems to be used of all of them; sometimes it is used only for the 50% of Iranians who are "ethnically" Persian (which is itself a devil to define and a subject of controversy). Now just "WHO" is this supposed prejudice directed against? I have the impression that current political tensions can lead to animosity towards Iranians in general, whatever their background (animosity not necessarily Arab -- the Bushistas seem to be trying to whip up the same thing in the US). The same way that "Americans" can be hated in some countries whether they're black or white, of Slovak or Mexican stock.

This kind of thing rises and falls according to the political weather. During World War II the U.S. and Russia were allies, and the brave Russian soldier was the U.S.'s friend. Then the Cold War and the same Russian soldier was an evil fiend who wanted to invade and oppress the U.S. (Red Dawn). After the Iranian Revolution, Iranians became dangerous wild-eyed zealots. In another fifty years ... who knows? Perhaps they'll be the brave allies of the Euro-US Federation in the fight against Uzbeki imperialism. Framing current trands as evidence of a deep-laid plot going back millenia is ... absurd. It doesn't belong in an encyclopedia, UNLESS Zereshk and his friends can come up with cites showing that many Iranians believe it -- in which case it belongs in an article on Iranian politics, or the politics of the Iranian diaspora. Zora 00:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

The article's disclaimer nullifies your argument Zora. And in any case, the article will be expanded. Deleting information is simply unreasonable.--Zereshk 00:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Inserting a disclaimer saying that "Iranian" and "Persian" are considered equivalent won't make the Iranian minority problem go away, Zereshk. Many people do not consider those words equivalent; hence the endless arguments in the Iranian peoples article. Zora 02:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Iran and Persia ARE used interchangeably often enough and prejudice toward Iran can not be considered unrelated to Persian identity of Iran. When Saddam Hussain attacked Iran, it was all of Iran that was attacked but he did use the Persian vs Arab argument. More importantly, history of Iran is that of Persia since the country was called Persia in the outside world. When we talk about historical stuff we have to use PERSIAN since all Iranians were labeled as such. some people are trying to imply Iran has nothing to do wiht Persia and dislike of Iranians has nothing to do with Persians!! Gol 10:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


It wont make the minority problem go away (just like the Hawaii drive for independence will never go away). But it will firmly legitimize the article.--Zereshk 03:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • keep per Nightryder84 --Striver 01:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Aside from Wikipedia (and mirrors), I get zero hits on the term anti-Persianism [22]. The articles found have the word Persianism not anti-Persianism. I had no idea that creating new terms was allowed here at Wikipedia. Also the article is much larger than this discussion page, which is amazing for something that is not considered a "universal phenomenon." --Inahet 01:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
The writer of the article user:Zereshk has accused one user of "anti-Persian drivel" for saying that "Iran sponsored terrorism in Bahrain." [23] If this is his standard of determining what is "anti-Persianism", then can you imagine what other bogus claims are presented as facts in this oversized article consisting of original research?? --Inahet 02:01, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Anti-Persianism by Arabs has three times as many sources as your article Anti-Arabism. Either all such Anti-national-ethnic sentiment articles should go, or they all should stay, it's not up to you to pick and choose what type of racism is a "universal phenomenon" or what type is not, all types of racism are unacceptable and should be addressed. I find all these arguments about the existence of anti-Persian racism, insulting to thousands of Persians who faced racism at the hand of Arabs, being expelled from their homes in Iraq and treated like animals by the "the Hero of the Arab street" Saddam Hussein who believed "Three Whom God Should Not Have Created: Persians, Jews, and Flies".(in Saddam Hussein: The Politics of revenge, London: Bloomsbury, 2000, p.123) --ManiF 02:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Ok that's good stuff we're getting out of this debate. Now if someone could add this info and lose the POV we'd have what you call a "good article". ManiF you seem knowledgeable on the issue. Perhaps you could, in a reserved and neutral tone (and mindset), improve the article? I also think there needs to be some more introductory and basic statements in the beginning of the article for those of us unfamiliar with the issue. Adambiswanger1 02:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
The things Mani mentioned are from the article.--Zereshk 02:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  1. Anti-Arabism article is not my article.
  2. The quality of sources are much more important than the quantity.
  3. The term anti-Persianism is pretty much a Wikipedia original. The word truthiness is much more notable than anti-Persianism.
  4. I could write pages and pages on Persian anti-Arabism, which would include many examples of simple to complex anti-Arabism actions by Persians. The web is chockfull with that stuff. But I'm not here to turn Wikipedia into a soapbox or a battleground. I can't say the same thing for the writer and the defenders of the anti-Persianism article. --Inahet 03:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment This nomination page should be taken as a good example of what votestacking is. I guess I should invite people, who will vote without reviewing the article and the discussions on its proposed deletion but will do so as favor for me. How fair would that be? --Inahet 03:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
It is very insulting to claim that people have not read the article and are only voting to do someone a favor, especially given that you have no evidence. People have brain and can decide for themselves whether to vote for or against something.Gol 10:08, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
That does occur, whether you choose to deny it or not. And I know a couple of users who are likely to do what I described, based on their previous actions. And User:Lukas has provided some evidence for the votestacking that is occuring on this page. And don't tell me to stop pointing out shady behaviour, that is not your job.--Inahet 22:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Inahet, please stop making accusations about individuals and their motivations just because they don't agree with you. Discuss the topic, not the users, as per WP:AGF and WP:NPA. --ManiF 03:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Please, don't lecture me on personal attacks or anything of that matter, why don't you read the policies that you cite, I doubt that you did. Also, although my comment wasn't directed to anyone, I find it interesting that you got on the defense. Does it hit close to home? [24]. --Inahet 05:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
I will cite the policies for you, because you are violating them as we speak. Your accusatory comment was directed at "writer and the defenders of the anti-Persianism article" and that constitutes a personal attack. Also, don't bring up old issues, and disputes trying to "score a point", because there is a lot of such quotes and links on the same page, that can be used here to make a point about Ahwaz, Zora and etc, if we go down that road. Again, discuss the topic, not the users, as per WP:AGF and WP:NPA. --ManiF 06:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Why don't you read those policies and implement them in your own participation at Wikipedia rather than lecturing others to do so! My statements are not personal attacks so stop labeling them as such. Do I have to report you? Because you certainly don't want us to go down that road. --Inahet 06:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Go ahead. I am not in violation any rules at the moment, you are. The last sentence of this edit of yours is a clear personal attack against the "writer and the defenders of the anti-Persianism article". Just stop it. --ManiF 06:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Zora, please stop removing my comments from this page: [25]. Thanks.--Zereshk 03:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

There might have been an edit conflict. I certainly did not remove anything on purpose. I was completely unaware that there was a problem until you mentioned it. Zora 04:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • strong keep I beleive this article should maintain with its new title:Anti-Persian sentiments--Sa.vakilian 04:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • KEEP There is no way to deny what realy happens. Qoqnous 06:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I have read the article and this discussion, and am familiar with other ethnic articles on Wikipedia. This article is typical in content to already listed "Anti-Foo" articles. Though I personally question the entire series, there is no reason to single out this one for deletion. The article is well-sourced, reasonably NPOV (like many articles there is room for improvement), sticks to its subject, and modestly calls the subject a "phenomenon" rather than movement or ideology. The new title is better. NOR should be a concern, but I don't see many conclusions or editorials in the text, rather it seems mostly to summarize the sources, as it should. The problems with this article can be solved through the normal editing process. -Will Beback 07:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Votestacking Alert 2 - Again, as on earlier occasions, the Persian Wikipedia is also used for even more votestacking ([26]). Apparently even more blatant than the one on the "noticeboard" here, and again branding named users on enwiki as the opponents. I'd be grateful if somebody could translate what is again said about me and others behind our backs there. Lukas (T.|@) 07:51, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
They are mostly arguing among themselves about the extent and nature of anti-Persian and anti-Iranian sentiment in the Arab world and elsewhere. Someone there has posted a very interesting link showcasing anti-Iranian sentiment in the popular culture. --ManiF 08:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


Delete - I am familiar with the ethnic issues of the Meddle East region and can confidently say this is a constructed hate page which has no real base. Through out the Arab world there are millions of Shiat Arabs who see Iranians as their “brothers” and defenders of their faith. Please note that the supposed names in the fist line of the articles (عجم ستیزی) also (ایرانی ستیزی) are both in Farsi/Persian words and not Arabic, in effect the writer(s) of the article could not come up with any Arabic word or name for this so cold phenomenon.

The search in Google for ایرانی ستیزی and عجم ستیزی brings 18 and 1 cases respectively in the whole web! The only entry for the latter is in Farsi/Persian Wikipedia !

This seems to be just a payback to the establish Anti-Arabism article and more specifically to the section under the Anti-Arabism in Iran’’’. While Anti-Arabism in Iran in Iran is kept live by Persian ultra nationalist in attempt to arouse some nationalistic feelings of the masses by way of hatred against the neighboring Arabs and Turks, there is no evidence of any notable anti Iranian or anti Persian sentiments in Arabic literature, media or government propaganda. Mehrdad 08:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me but that is extremely biased. You are basically saying Iranians are capable of being racist especially against Arabs, but no such hostility exist on the other side!!!! Is this what you call a neutral attitude?Gol 10:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
I said "by Persian ultra nationalist" not Iranian. Mehrdad 15:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
And there are no Arab ultra nationalist or chauvinist? Basically you are saying within the nation of Iran there are some racists by among Arabs there aren’t any.Gol 16:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
There is no evidence of anti-Persian sentiment in Arabic literature, media or government propaganda? Then "Three Whom God Should Not Have Created: Persians, Jews, and Flies" which was part of a textbook for school-boys in the Arab world, must be a complement to the Persians. --ManiF 08:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
"textbook for school-boys in the Arab world" is this your refrence? Arab world has a unified text book for school-boys!!! This is another myth created by Fars/Persian ultra nationalists, and another proof of what I wrote.
Mehrdad, you claim to have studied the whole corpus of Arabic literature, media and government propaganda? If you really did so you might have overlooked big chunks of it such as Arab hateful forgery of the name of Persian Gulf, or Arab hateful historical rubbery by calling most of the Persian scientists, Arabs, or spreading as much as lies possible by Arab media regarding Iranian province of Khuzestan or anti-Persian racist material which was a part of the school curriculum in Iraq for decades or ....

--Mani1 09:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


Comment: Users not only should look for the term anti-Persianism on the web but also for its more widly used synonymous anti-Persian. If some of the users do not find the term anti-Presianism such a current term we can change the title to "anti-Persian sentiments among Arabs" or similar ones. But this is no reason why the whole article and its well-referenced informations should be deleted. --Mani1 09:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

The title has already been changed to Anti-Persian sentiments, and there are 34 published sources listed that discuss the subject. --ManiF 09:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
I have no such a claim, but I have good contacts and surces to probe what is happening around me. Mehrdad 15:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Mehrdad, You say "you have good contacts and surces to probe" that "there is no evidence of anti-Persian sentiment in Arabic literature, media or government propaganda". Can you show us some of that sources and contacts?

--Mani1 18:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Mehrdad should change his name, since Mehrdad (Given by the Sun) is a Persian name. He is an Azeri nationalist and seems to hate Persians. A person like that, with such hatred in his dark heart, does not deserve such a noble name. Khorshid 10:46, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Khorshid, I have no hathred for Persians/Fars people at all. In fact I am partly Fars and I have Kermani ansestors, as well as Hamedani as well as Tabrizi so I am Iranian with any definition as well as being Azeri. I belive this ultra nationalistic idealogy of small group of people so called "Roshan Fekran e Fars" (Fars Luminaries) who do not respect the basic rights of other other people in Iran, including the Turks, Kurds, Arabs, Turkmens and Baluch. Mehrdad 15:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


Geez, how many times do I have to ask everyone here to discuss the topic, not the users. Please stop it. --ManiF 10:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
It is clear by his edits that he is pan-Azeri nationalist who has a hatred of Persians. I am not saying anything wrong. His comments are themselves racist. Khorshid 10:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Regardless, you have to assume good faith. Please read WP:AGF and WP:NPA which are official policies. --ManiF 10:59, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Racism should always be condemned. I dont support it and will always strike down what is obviously racist language. It has no place here. Khorshid 11:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as a non-Persian Iranian, I have to say that unforunately both Anti-arabism and Anti-Persianism do really exist and have already had many political implications and induced wars. Therefore I think there is no question about the existence of these phenomena. There is no question about the important consequences of them either. Ajam-Arab story is a long one. And the word ajam mainly means Persians and Persian speakers (who are the prototype of Iranians; like it or not). --Zeelkey11:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep.--Sajad 12:18, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep same reasoning as User:Will Beback. --Mitso Bel15:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep but take out the phrase "by Arabs" to increase parallelism with the Anti-Semitism, Anti-Arabism, etc articles. Elizmr 20:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's strong POV: its only source is the encyclopaedia Irania. If this article used more than that source (coming from Iran) and tried to remain neutral with respect to Arabs, my vote would have been very different, but... (and I'm no arab nor from any semitic country) --Neigel von Teighen 22:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: What this encyclopedia REALLY needs is a good article on Shu'ubiya, which is an important topic in the history of Islamic societies (and has some relation to Arab-Persian conficts). AnonMoos 23:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep That article is purely based on facts and verifiable sources.. If someone thinks it is POV then should bring other sources, supporting his/her POV. A lot of people who have voted for Delete, don't know NPOV policy. Behaafarid 23:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Since the article was nominated for deletion, the article's title has been changed to Anti-Persian sentiments - taking out the pointed reference to Arabs - and an agreement on the talk page to splitting some of the content away from the Anti-Persian sentiments article to form the basis of a new article dealing with anti-national prejudice against Iran as a whole.[27] There's also an agreement that a lot more work needs to be done to broaden the article's scope. Some changes and additions have been made to improve the clarity of the concepts the article is addressing. I know some people have misgivings about the whole concept of anti-national articles, but apart from this objection, is there any point in continuing this AfD? Perhaps those who have voted for delete might like to look again at the article and offer their comments. The only problems I have now are regarding POV, not the actual existence of the renamed article.--الأهواز 23:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
That seems reasonable. I'm willing to withdraw my DELETE vote. I am also quite enthusiastic about AnonMoos's suggestion for an article on the Shu'ubiya. I hadn't heard of that, it seems important, and I want to learn more. Zora 23:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Nightryder84 & Mani1, however move to NPOV title. The current title does not even reflect the early periods of Greek conflict described in the article. TewfikTalk 06:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Mani1 as Anti-Persian sentiments not "Anti-Persianism by Arabs". --Armon 17:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/r/t/Wikipedia%7EArticles_for_deletion_Anti-Persianism_by_Arabs_2e4c.html"