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 was no consensus. It is not possible to discern any consensus to do anything from this AFD, especially given the posting of the AFD on the noticeboard below. --Coredesat 00:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Iranianism[edit]

Anti-Iranianism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
That's the defined purpose of the "notice" "board": To inform editors of articles in need of attention, cleanup, sourcing, etc.--Zereshk 20:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If that were the real reason, it would have been listed there weeks ago. Jayjg (talk) 20:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it was, and many times. Take a look at the article's history. It has been listed before. Example, July 20th, 2006, it's been listed, and nopt by me.--Zereshk 20:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Despite what the real reason may or may not be (or have been), I don't think it is inappropriate to get comments from the individuals who contributed to this article and who may be more involved with and/or knowledgeabe about the topic. Black Falcon 20:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is certainly okay to post a message on the noticeboards. That's what they are for. They also prevent spamming. --Aminz 04:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is, first and foremost, Original Research. It compiles a list of harsh words or negative actions taken towards Persians, the nation of Persia before it became Iran, and the Iranian government and defines them as "anti-Iranianism." There is no question that racial prejudice against Persians or other Iranians exists, and it deserves an article. The problem is that this article lumps several different topics (anti-Persian sentiments in the ancient world, actions taken by governments against historical Persia, disputes between the US and Iran, anti-Persianism in the Arab world) and lumps them under the heading "anti-Iranianism." The term "anti-Iranianism" is a neologism. If you exclude wikipedia forks and websites referencing wikipedia there are only 365 google hits on the phrase "anti-Iranianism" of which only 150 are unique. [1] Anti-Persianism only gets about 200 ghits without wikipedia [2], and "anti-Persian sentiment" only about 40 [3]. Only six books in the Google books database contain the words "anti-Iranianism" [4] and only two scholarly articles use the term. [5]. By comparison, a well-established concept such as anti-semitism gets over 2 million google results. Anti-Japanese sentiment gets 55,000 google hits and 650 google book hits. [6]Furthermore, the article itself is highly POV. The section on the united states, for example, defines diplomatic actions such as denying visas as anti-Iranianism without any kind of sourcing to suggest that they are. (Not to mention the fact that the content is almost exactly duplicated at United States-Iran relations. It is also highly-POV to lump actions taken against a government together with racism towards an ethnic group (Persians), but this article makes absolutely no distinction between the two. I recently removed a photograph of a US Army poster with the words "IRAN... you're next" and a picture of Uncle Sam holding a wrench from the article. Although presented as an official US Army poster, the image was, of course, ripped off from a WW2 James Montgomery Flagg poster which originally referred to Japan. This kind of flagrant POV violation is rampant in this article. GabrielF 18:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Update: Some editors are actively trying to improve this article by implementing the suggestions made here. I've said that I will withdraw my AfD if these efforts bare fruit. If you are interested in helping see Talk:Anti-IranianismGabrielF 16:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Regarding "neologism", actually "Anti-Iranianism" in Persian language gives 17,000 hits for ایرانی ستیزی and 25,000 hits for ایران ستیزی. Not that google is a measure of what exists and what does not. The article now has a "usage" section, whioch improves on that drawback.--Zereshk 20:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Only the first of your three links works for me. Yes, there are books that use the phrase "anti-Iranian", but is it "anti-Iranian" in the sense described in this article? If the government of Azerbaijan is politically opposed to the government of Iran is that the same thing as racism against Persians? It is OR to link the two together without a scholarly work doing so. GabrielF 18:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To respond to your claim that the article is well-referenced: Yes, there are references that specific events happened. That's irrelevant. There are no references that justify lumping together separate topics (racism towards persians in antiquity, historical disputes between Persia and other countries, disputes between the government of Iran and other countries, anti-Persian sentiment in the Arab world) under the heading of anti-Iranianism. GabrielF 21:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To respond to your claim that we should keep this article because we have other articles on anti-ethnic terms: This is irrelevant, we are not debating the validity of Anti-Italianism. Some of the other anti-ethnic or anti-national articles may be deserving of deletion as well. GabrielF 21:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Violating WP:NOR - how so? Please explain (the article provides a great many sources).
  2. Non-notability - I don't think the comparison with anti-Semitism is appropriate as I'm sure its use exceeds all other forms of anti-"Group"ism (with the possibly exception of anti-Americanism).
  3. Violating WP:NPOV - Even if the article is kept, the section on the US should probably be removed in its entirety and replaced with a brief summary and a link to the United States-Iran relations article. Moreover, much of the article (excluding the US section) is about anti-Persianism. Perhaps the article would benefit from being renamed to anti-Persianism and edited to reflect this new title. -- Black Falcon 18:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • OR - The OR comes from taking many separate concepts (anti-Persian sentiments in the ancient world, actions taken against Persia by various governments, actions taken against Iran by various governments, anti-Persian sentiment in the Arab world) and lumping them together under a new concept that is not used by scholars. I agree that an article about racism against Persians is acceptable and I agree that an article on US-Iran relations is acceptable, but putting them all together under what is essentially a neologism is not acceptable. GabrielF 19:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, then, we are (essentially) in agreement (with the possible exception that I still think the article ought to be worked on and not deleted). I think the OR element would be removed if a distinction was drawn between anti-Persianism in reference to the Persian people, anti-Persianism in reference to the Persian government, anti-Iranianism in reference to the Iranian people, and anti-Iranianism in reference to the Iranian government. In order to fit with the Anti-Arabism, Anti-Turkism, etc. articles, the article should include only anti-Persianism and anti-Iranianism against the Persian and Iranian peoples, respectively. Although the two groups are not the same, I think the fact that many (including most Westerners) equate the two groups justifies their inclusion in one article at least for now (ideally, they would be separate articles about hostility to Persian ethnics and Iranian nationals). Black Falcon 19:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think I could support keeping parts of the article if it was called something like Racial prejudice against Persians and Iranians and only dealt with that topic. The problem is that the events and quotes in this article are generally cited, but I don't see a source that really defines the concept of anti-Iranianism or anti-Persianism and gives its history. In the case of prejudice against minorities in the west and even in the ancient world, there are many notable historical works that identify what the prejudice is, how it is defined, what its history is, etc. Those works can then be debated by other scholars. In this case we're doing that work ourselves and that is OR. If the article is rewritten so that it is based on scholarly work about anti-Persianism and not an original synthesis of historical events that identifies people as anti-Persian than the article is okay. Otherwise, I think we're outside the domain of an encyclopedia. Regardless, the political stuff (Bush Sr. not apologizing for shooting down a plane, the US denying visas, a legal dispute about Persian antiquities, etc. etc.) must be removed from this article. It is highly, highly POV. GabrielF 19:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, I posted in response to your unrevised comment. I do agree that most of the political section should be removed (in fact, I will take a look right after I submit this comment). I am not really familiar with the scholarly dialogue and can therefore suggest this: Delete the blatantly POV sections and cleanup the remainder of the article through a discussion on the talk page. If after some time these issues have not been resolved and constructive dialogue on the talk page has ceased, nominate the article for AfD once more. What do you think? Black Falcon 19:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This would be an acceptable solution for me. Particularly controversial cases could be discussed on the article's talk page. However, the cleanup needs to be done carefully. For example, Russian occupation of Persian territories is really not anti-Persianism. However, other cases should be kept (or at least discussed). For example, the photo with the poster stating "Deport all Iranians" or a statement like "Nuke Iran" are aimed at both the state and the people. I think such cases should be included (but again, this is a matter for the talk page). So, (assuming, of course, you and the remaining contributors to this AfD agree) how do we go about doing this? I don't know if it's proper Wikiquette to rename/hugely modify a page during an AfD (although if it survives completely unchanged, I will be bold and do it myself). Black Falcon 19:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, maybe the current title should be kept and a statement added at the beginning about what the article will and will not include. I'm not opposed to renaming if a good (and ideally 'shortish') title can be found. Black Falcon 19:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notability Even without the comparison to anti-semitism, you would expect that the topic of a wikipedia article would be, especially one as controversial as this, would generate some scholarly interest and discussion. However, I was shocked at how little I found about the concept of Anti-Iranianism. GabrielF 19:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • By the way, by cleanup I mean deleting at least 2/3 of the article. It is useless (and also POV) to classify every criticism of or military action against Persia or Iran as anti-Iranianism (not just in the US section). Black Falcon 19:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, every military action against Iran has not been listed. Youd be surprised at how many times Iran has been invaded. And this is not "criticism", nor is this, or this or this. Now if all these said "Fuck the Jews", we would be quick to list them as examples of existing "anti-semitism", wouldnt we now.--Zereshk 19:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I realize that every action has not been listed; I was trying to make a point. I do agree that anti-Iranianism and anti-Persianism exists (see my comments above, including the example on "Nuke Iran"), but think the article should address them in the context of hostility to the Iranian and Persian peoples, and not the Iranian and Persian governments. Also, whereas "Fuck the Jews" is anti-Semitic, "fuck Israel" is not (at least not necessarily). Likewise, "fuck Iranians" is anti-Iranian (people) whereas "fuck Iran" is not (at least not necessarily). I still favor keep and cleanup. Black Falcon 19:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree with your second point that any criticism of Jews would be included on wikipedia. We do have notability standards and I would be absolutely opposed to including a discussion of non-notable idiot attack websites on wikipedia. Notable anti-semitism should be discussed, but nukeiran.com has an alexa rank of about 3,000,000. Perhaps there's a larger point here. If the best examples of anti-Iranianism you can come up with are a couple of non-notable webpostings, should we really have a 90k article on the topic? GabrielF 20:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also note that while I do think the topic is encyclopedia-worthy (and should be kept), much of it currently reads like History of hostile interactions between Iran and other states. Anti-Iranianism against the Iranian state is also very real, but that should belong in the individual country relations articles (US-Iran, Iraq-Iran, Russia-Iran, etc.). I don't believe the content of the article is useless or bad (in fact, I think they are quite well-sourced and should be available on other pages on WP); just that it is inappropriate to put it all together and especially to put it under this title. Black Falcon 20:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CommentThis article was nominated to deletion please look at the former discussions too.[10]--Sa.vakilian 19:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With such strong referencing of the article, it's a bit difficult to call it "original research".--Zereshk 19:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Original research is often well-referenced; that's how just about every PhD thesis is written. However, while that's fine for PhD theses, it's forbidden in Wikipedia. Jayjg (talk) 19:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PHD theses actually count as sources according to WP rules.--Zereshk 20:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How is that relevant? The article is not a PhD thesis, and Wikipedia doesn't allow original research! Jayjg (talk) 20:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems you didnt follow the logic. Regardless, if it was "original research" it wouldnt be listed by Persian google on 42,000 hits.--Zereshk 20:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. The article makes reference to times before the Islamic Republic abundantly. Anti-Iranianism examples like this are not targeted at governments.--Zereshk 20:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Anti-Iranianism#US_refusal_to_grant_visas_to_Iranians_for_United_Nations_activities Iranians should be proud that mullah Mousa Qorbani didn't get a visa. He is the one in charge of Majles, not the speaker.
Anti-Iranianism#Claims_of_threats_of_a_military_attack_on_Iran_by_the_US is the best thing for Iran. What is wrong with dropping bombs on mullahs?
Anti-Iranianism#Claims_of_plans_for_use_of_nuclear_weapons_against_Iran. Iran can have nuclear weapons, but the mullahs, NEVER. It will be the permanently of totalitarianism, veil fetishism for the mullahs and their prancing Islamic cohorts.
Anti-Iranianism#Iranian_fears_of_attack_by_the_US No one has any fear. Irania love it.
Split the latter part of the article and dub it the anti-mullah movement.

--Patchouli 20:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Perhaps you should consider actually reading the the nomination? To quote: "There is no question that racial prejudice against Persians exists, and it deserves an article. The problem is that this article lumps several different topics (anti-Persian sentiments in the ancient world, actions taken by governments against historical Persia, disputes between the US and Iran, anti-Persianism in the Arab world) and lumps them under the heading "anti-Iranianism." The term "anti-Iranianism" is a neologism." GabrielF 20:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please read this carefully: I am NOT Persian! I am a half-Kurd half Arab Iranian! Persians are less than half of Iran population and there are many other ethnic groups! My God! Khorshid 20:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that nobody is saying that there is no animosity towards Iranians in the world. This article is being nominated for deletion because some users believe that it violates wikipedia policy. Also, those other articles are separate issues. They may very well be worthy of deletion as well. GabrielF 20:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Khorshid, I do not think this was a bad-faith nomination or constitutes "bigoted attacks towards our ethnic and national background". It has been noted many times above that Iranians and Persians are distinct groups (including by the nominator--see the first thread I started). I do not perceive GabrielF's concern with the article to be that it is about a non-existent topic, but rather that it conflates hostility against the Persian/Iranian states with hostility against the Persian/Iranian peoples. I believe the article should be kept and anything addressing only anti-state sentiments removed (not discarded; possibly merged to individual Country-Iran relations pages). Anti-Iranianism, as it refers to the state, is a real phenomenon, but it can be convered in the articles for US-Iran, Iraq-Iran, Israel-Iran, Turkey-Iran, etc. relations. I don't know if a foreign relations of Iran template exists, but (if it doesn't) it would be useful in connecting these separate articles. Black Falcon 20:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'd like to mention that this article has gone thru name changes on previous Afds, some names of which have been proposed again here. I call this the "oscillatory effect". Going back and forth on something.--Zereshk 20:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"GabrielF" if you don't have any other thing to do, please take a look at this Animal rights and antisemitism(?!)

I will bookmark this AfD for future refrences; take care --Pejman47 20:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Your rationale is (a) a straw man fallacy - you are misrepresenting the nominator's reason's for AfD'ing, and (b) ad hominen. Comment on the actual arguments, NOT the people making them. GabrielF 20:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
:), excerpt of my vote: "It has lots of reference and personally I take it as another "reference" for the factuality of that)--Pejman47 21:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've addressed that argument above. Yes, the actual incidents in the article are referenced, what is not referenced is a reliable source that defines those incidents as anti-iranianism, or a source that defines anti-iranianism in the first place. Wikipedia cannot combine racist quotes about Persians with political statements by world leaders about Iran's actions under the heading of "anti-Iranianism" without a source that identifies that action as equivalent to racism against Iranians. GabrielF 21:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Anti-Iranian" is not the same thing as "Anti-Iranianism" -- the "-ism" suffix denotes some sort of definable phenomenon, practise or organised movement. Any citizen of any county in the world-- of which there are nearly 200-- could claim someone is "Anti-" them. That's why we get such silly articles as Anti-Australianism and Anti-Canadianism, although surprisingly, not "Anti-Mexicanism". In short, such articles are misuses of Wikipedia as soap-boxes for a particular viewpoint, not descriptions of actual encyclopedic topics. --LeflymanTalk 22:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that the "ism" is unnecessary and makes it sound like a theory or a broad-based movement, but this can be easily corrected by renaming the article (and, of course, major cleanup). Black Falcon 23:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are predecents in Anti-Japanese sentiment, Anti-German sentiment, Anti-Polish sentiment, Anti-French sentiment in the United States, Anti-Australian sentiment, Anti-Croatian sentiment. We should not throw out the baby with the bath water. A renaming of the article and a clean-up seems much more reasonable than a deletion. --70.51.232.106 22:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't base your keep vote on the existence of other articles. The issues with this article are not necessarily the same as those with other articles and just because another bad anti-ethnic article hasn't been AfD'd now doesn't mean it won't be in the future. GabrielF 22:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Many of the delete votes are based on WP:NEO. This user's "keep" vote addresses that concern by proposing to rename the article so that the "neologism" (Anti-Iranianism) isn't used. Black Falcon 22:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Users only contributions are to this AfD. GabrielF 22:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You can discount my vote if you so desire, but I feel it is legitimate. I don't use a formal account. Me and GabrielF have run into each other twice before, on "Palestine Peace Not Apartheid" where we were in agreement and then later on "Proposed_Israeli_Nuclear_First_Strike_on_Natanz_Facility" where we were not. --70.51.232.106 23:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This user is not a single purpose account and his vote should not be discounted. GabrielF 23:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I notice you had noted this for another user as well. I'm just curious, what's the point? Black Falcon 22:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
AFDs are not votes, but nevertheless non-contributors who post for the first time to offer their two-cents can obfuscate consensus. CONTRIBUTOR CORRECTED AlexeiSeptimus 23:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is not uncommon for editors to mark possible single purpose accounts on controversial AfDs. Many AfDs have been targeted by sockpuppets and meatpuppets in the past. GabrielF 23:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. However, do take this with caution. My first contribution (on a talk page, not an AfD) took place after I saw an article that I thought was factually inaccurate (List of terrorist organisations). New users are often drawn to the controversial articles and/or debates. Finally, this may simply an established user who hasn't logged in for whatever reason. Black Falcon 23:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Anti-Iranian sentiment" only gets 228 google hits of which 134 are unique. [11] How is that less of a neologism? GabrielF 22:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, a simple Google test is not a good reason for deletion (see Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Google test). Secondly, don't search for all three terms together--"anti-Iranian" minus wikipedia gets over 80,000 hits and "anti-Iranian" sentiment(s) minus wikipedia gets nearly 15,500. Thirdly, the phrase "anti-Iranian sentiment" is a simple phrase constructed from commonly-used words. Finally, though I do agree with your criticism of the article and the need to drastically change it, I would also like to note that it's going to be rather hard to improve if it's gone. Black Falcon 23:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NEO is a rule of thumb which notes a particularly high cooccurance of articles on recently coined (or completely original) phrases and original research. In this case, it is spot on. CONTRIBUTOR CORRECTED AlexeiSeptimus 23:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
True, thank you for noting this. Still, a few of users have based their delete votes on this point, even though it could be easily corrected by a page-move. Black Falcon 23:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the WP:OR violation is implied, but fine. AlexeiSeptimus 23:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To respond to your comment that "though I do agree with your criticism of the article and the need to drastically change it, I would also like to note that it's going to be rather hard to improve if it's gone." There's no reason to assume that just because an article is deleted through AfD the topic won't be covered by wikipedia. To give a recent example, after I nominated [[12]] I created a short article to deal with the topic at Violence against academics in post-invasion Iraq. I would advise waiting a couple of days before doing that in this case because this debate has really just begun. I would also advise basing a new article on works by professional historians rather than just copying the current original synthesis. GabrielF 23:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't you think it would be simpler working with this (well-referenced) article as a starting point? People know where it is, it has (if not before then now for sure) attracted a great deal of attention and potential contributors, etc. And yes, I do intend to wait at least until this AfD is closed before I seriously think about starting a new article (e.g., by researching the topic). Essentially, I do think that this current version of the article should go, but I don't think all of the content should be lost. Black Falcon 00:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here are the sections I propose to delete in their entirety:
  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 United States" – same as above
  4. "By the media" – single quote, probably applies to Iranian regime
  5. "Against Iranian scientists" - mostly political actions against Iran itself
What is left is the section on the ancient Greeks, (possibly, as I haven’t read the external article) the Turks, and the Arabs. These sections do, of course, need to be revised, but at least all of them directly address hostile sentiments held against Persian and Iranian peoples. The missing US section is significant, but it can be added from scratch (encompassing present anti-Iranianism and such sentiments during the hostage crisis). Comments? Black Falcon 00:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have nominated Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hibernophobe (a neologism for people who hate the Irish) for deletion. I may nominate other similar articles in the future. The point is that there are specific problems with this article - specifically that it isn't about racism but defines a new concept that encompasses everything negative anyone has done towards Iran whether racially motivated or not. (See Zereshk's definition of anti-Iranianism on the article's talk page). GabrielF 03:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Behnam jan, you should chekc out the thong I just added (before it is erased under some bani-esraeely pretext).--Zereshk 01:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yikes, that is an especially despicable example. Just like this nomination. The Behnam 01:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If nothing, at least it refutes your claim of "neologism" which is what this AfD is based on. I suppose that 6 million Iranians must die in gas chambers for people to find "Anti-Iranianism" as "encyclopedic". And never mind that the term gives over 40,000 hits on Persian google.--Zereshk 01:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - We are currently working on a compromise over at the talk page. Take a look and feel free to contribute to the discussion. The Behnam 03:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CommentThis article was nominated to deletion ,but please look at the former discussions about Anti-Persianism_by_Arabs too.[13]--sahaban 10:05, 01 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: "Being original research or not" has nothing to do with our personal opinion. If some thing have been researched before it is no longer an original research. This article is not about Iran-US relations and the conflicts between these two countries. There are other articles covering it. If US president insult Iranian president, we will not cover it here. If US wants to attack a nuclear site in Iran, we will not cover it here. But when it comes to "prejustice" and "insulting" and "treating all Iranians the same way" then this article is a place for that. Racism and politics are not separate from eachother. There were lots of politics around Holocaust, Armenian genocide, and anti-Iranianism by Arabs. It is meaningless to separate policical manifestaion of racism from racism. I have to emphasize that Iran-Setizi or whatever you want to call it, has more 1000 years of continuous history. Sangak 13:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nevertheless, the current article as a whole violates NOR and is thus unacceptable. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why does it violate NOR, when there are review articles on the subject in Persian? One can not say some thing is not OR because there is no proper review article on the subject in X-language. Racism exist every where (US, Iran, Arab countries, Europe etc). And it is not wise to look for a review article on recist view of let's say iranians in their language. Ofcourse no one write about his/her being racist! Sangak 13:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, you are wrong about the article not being muddled, not muddling international relations with racism. The article is muddled. It does include much material on foreign relations anti-Iranianism, which is not racism. For example, contrary to your initial comment, the first quote (which comes from an apparently authorless and unpublished paper which may or may not constitute a valid source) refers not to racism but to US foreign policy - precisely what you said the article is not about. The anti-Iranianism in Vali Nasr's article is about Iraqui foreign policy - again, international relations, not racism. The section on the Greeks and Romans makes irrelevant remarks (th eentire last paragraph) and has no citations. I am not going to go on - virtually the entire article is about international relations and not racism, despite your protestations, and it includes unsourced or primary material, or inappropriate source (Edward Teller?) The Nelson frye quote concerning Arabs is more a statement of Arab ignorance than racism; the use of a dictionary definition to establish racism is clearly a violation of NOR because it is using a primary source to make a synthetic statement. Anti-Iranianism in early Islam is again about international relations (competition between different states for political power) and not racism. Changing the names of places from one language to another is not racism. The quote from From The Remaining Signs of Past Centuries is also original resource because a quote is taken out of context, put into another context to make a point the quote itself does not make. The section, Ali vs. Umar ibn al-Khattab, also seems to rely on primary sources. And so on, and so on. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is not true. I never claimed that this article has a high quality. I only said racism will become important when it is put into practice by politicians. So political manifestaion of racism and racism need to be covered together. That's all what I said. We all know that people of any two country in Europe or Asia may make joke about each other. This is not important but when these ideas are put into practice and real life by politicians then it will become important. About Iranian-Arab relation which has been studied alot, I have to say that: There exists a racism and it was a driver for wars. Have you heard about Saddam last words about Persians? He wanted to clear the earth from Persians even in his last minutes of life! This is not politics or "international relation"! This is racist ideology. Sangak 13:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It might be helpful to offer an example here. In wikipedia, Iranian president Ahmadinejad is considered racist. One can easily use your arguments and say all his remarks are about politics and international relation. But this argument can not succeed as our experience shows. Ahmadinejad even clearly rejected allegation of racism in one of his speech. But he is considered a racist by the public. And it is acceptible in wikipedia. Sangak 14:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
how can you explain this: Three_Whom_God_Should_Not_Have_Created: "

In the 1940s, Talfah wrote the ten page pamphlet Three Whom God Should Not Have Created: Persians, Jews, and Flies. In 1981, following the start of the Iran-Iraq War, the Iraqi government publishing house Dar al-Hurriyya (House of Liberty) republished it, and the Iraqi Ministry of Education distributed it as part of a textbook for school-boys. The work describes Jews as a "mixture of dirt and the leftovers of diverse people". [14]"--Pejman47 14:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The article is being nominated for policy reasons: NOR, NPOV, neologism, etc. NOT because someone doesn't like the content.GabrielF 15:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This argument is not acceptable. English wikipedia is not for Americans or British people. "Worldview" must be satisfied. Anti-Xism will gain notability when it has impact in real life. For instance anti semitism is important because many have been killed due to that ideology. Many Anti Xisms are not notable as they are some minor ideas only in mind of people and in their privacy with no clear and significant manifestaion in public.Sangak 15:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Gzuckier best you can say based on your arguments is to rename it. Instead of saying to delete it because you do not like title? --- ALM 16:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Gzuckier - the neologism issue can be easily resolved by renaming the page to "anti-Iranian sentiment". The "ism" is what basically makes it a term rather than a descriptive phrase. This issue is being discussed on the article's and several user pages (and in this AfD) and will be addressed. Black Falcon 18:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aparantly there are some guys who oppose article's content and they aren't against its existance. They voted to save this article few mounths ago but now they wante to delete it. If they're disagree with its contents, why do they want to delete it? They can put POV or disputed tag on it.--Sa.vakilian 16:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment: I found that some of wikipedians voted to keep this article last time[15] and surprisingly have voted to delete it this time.Even they had proposed to changed the name and agreed with this new name last time. They are Elizmr :"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), Tewfik :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) and Armon : * Keep per Mani1 as Anti-Persian sentiments not "Anti-Persianism by Arabs". --Armon 17:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)--Sa.vakilian 03:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, I guess this article has gotten really, really bad, then. AlexeiSeptimus 03:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate Sa.va's comment, however title and content were different in that iteration. I am concerned about two things in this iteration of the article and title. First, the title does not represent the contents. Second, there is a high potential to mix up racisism against the Iranian people with criticism of the Iranian gov't policies. I think some of the stuff written about the US and certainly graphics in the current article mix these issues in a misleading way. Elizmr 18:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article may only include racist views against Iranians as a whole (Iranian government is indeed a part of Iranian society). However any actions that is exclusively against Iranian government's policies will not be considered racism and need to be moved to other suitable articles. This is not a big deal. Sangak 18:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OR is not the case here as explained above and in Users' talk pages several times. Yes the article is a mess and needs to be wikified like thousands of other articles, but this can not be done by deleting it! We don't delete messy articles. Instead we tag them for revision until it reaches wikipedia quality standards. Sangak 20:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article should be kept for several important reasons. I will start off by addressing the arguments already made on this page (i.e. by user GabrielF). The section on the U.S. must be improved, but it should definitely remain. This is because a great deal of Anti-Iranianism exist in the United States. It is common knowledge that this was the case in the late 70's and early 80's because of the Hostage Crisis. In fact, the United States has been involved in Anti-Iranianism is many other cases. The article covers this a bit superficially and with a bit of POV, but this can be improved. I disagree with GabrielF that countries that are against the Iranian government aren't necessarily against Iranians. This is a distinction without a difference. Although there are many dissidents who oppose the government of Iran, we cannot say that the Islamic Republic is not a representation of most Iranians. Imagine a country being Anti-Israel without being Anti-Semitic. I must further disagree with GabrielF when he says "The problem is that this article lumps several different topics (anti-Persian sentiments in the ancient world, actions taken by governments against historical Persia, disputes between the US and Iran, anti-Persianism in the Arab world) and lumps them under the heading 'anti-Iranianism.'" An understanding of the divide between East and West is necessary to understand why Anti-Iranianism in the ancient world is directly related to Anti-Iranianism in the modern world. Greek and Roman literature has contribited to Anti-Iranian sentiment in the modern West. This is discussed in the book Persian Fire. Also, the reason that anti-Persian sentiments in the ancient world, actions taken by governments against historical Persia, disputes between the US and Iran, anti-Persianism in the Arab world are "lumped" into Anti-Iranianism is that they are all forms of it. Take the article on antisemitism for example, it discusses antisemitism in the ancient world and in the modern world. It "lumps" antisemitism by Arabs and by Americans under the title anti-semitism. This is the case with this article. Even though anti-semitism by Arabs and Americans are very different and for different reasons, they are still antisemitism and should be included in that article. As the sections on Anti-Iranianism by different countries grows, they will have their own articles. GabrielF concedes that Anti-Iranianism exist: "There is no question that racial prejudice against Persians or other Iranians exists, and it deserves an article." This article must be improved, not deleted. It is true that there are many problems with this article, but they should be addressed in its talk page. Furthermore, the article has greatly improved since the posting of this AfD, and many points have been addressed (i.e. referencing sources). GabrielF says that there are too few returns for the google search of Anti-Iranianism. But he does not elaborate why it is too few. I believe it is quite sufficient and only proves the point that this article should remain (i.e. scholarly books use the word Anti-Iranianism). The point has already been addressed that there are article on anti-ethnic and anti-national terms. This is significant because it shows precedent, a major theme in Wikipedia. In conclusion, there is no doubt that there should be an article on Anti-Iranianism, and this article is not only salvageable but quite sufficient as a starting point. Agha Nader 22:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader[reply]


Comment: I reviewed the article again and now I have the idea of Strongly and Strongly and ... Keep and this article should be protected from any other deletion proposals .

I should say this article not only has so many reliable citations but its notation with the name of Anti-Iranianism that is criticised not to have enough sources is unaccepted too. because the words about Iran have mostly been Translated from Persian and the translation has been different and I think the current translation is the best and says the meaning better as "Xisms" is translated extremely different . and I apreciate User:Zereshk's added section (usage) that shows the accuracy of the article better. According to its use and this article's renaming mustn't occur becuase the titles discussed in do not qualify that name. For this claim you should be more familiar to Persian literature and Iran history to understand how different the Mongols where to Iran rather than the others. Not only their behaviour to Iran and their destruction is suggestive of this fact but continual centeral Asian People attack to Iran is another evidence for their Anti-Iranian policies(If can be said policy). As the mongols' army where mostly Centeral Asian people.
And totaly to User:Black Falcon :you've discussed sth doesn't relate this discussion and I can show you evidence for some of your claims I know about and believe to be deleted. For example "By US": US act and support in Mordad 28th rebelion in Iran in 1332(Solar Hijri Calender).You can't say US was just Anti-Mosaddegh . "Against Iranian scientists": deporting and temperorily imprisoning Irananian scholors goning to Sharif university of technology annual conference in US in 2006.

I assert that Anti-Iranianism isn't just a sentiment and isn't however you see the above evidence about the acts of US and Centeral Asian tribes include Mongols. The other similar items can be said about Arabs or some other tribes such as Peter The Great's statement about reaching to Persian gulf needed invading Iran so they needed to be anti-Iran. And nowadays Persian gulf renaming can be considered as another Anti-Persianism(=Anti-Iranianism) acts. --Soroush83 23:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic Republic on M. Mossadeq[edit]

Is there a mullahcracy in Iran because Mohammad Mossadeq was supposedly removed from power by the CIA? I looked at the preamble of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Iran. According to it the "anticolonialist movement centered on the nationalization of the oil industry" in 1950s was "failure" because it wasn't Islamic[16]. I assure you that Mohammad Mossadeq would be totally against Islamic totalitarianism.

If Mossadeq=Iran, then anti-Mossadeq=anti-Iran. Therefore, Islamic Republic = Anti-Iran.--Patchouli 23:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


To Patchouli: I never said Mosaddeq=Iran. I told that rebellion with US support was anti-Iran not Anti-Mosaddegh. I added it to answer the possible claim that it was Anti-Mosaddeq as sth of them is said to be anti-Iran regime. However I believe there are a lot of anti-regime sentiments and acts by them.--Soroush83 09:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article indicates otherwise. As a result, I conclude it was concocted by the Ministry of Intelligence (Iran) in Qom. It is politically-motivated and propagates falsehood.--Patchouli 23:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what the gist of your comment is, but this article is about Anti-Iranianism in general, rather than anti-Islamic Republicanism. If there's anything that leads you to believe otherwise, you should discuss that on the talk page of the article. From what I can see of the article, most if it deals with attacks against the Iranian civilization and peoples, rather than the government. Khodavand 00:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I hardly think such a "conclusion" is warranted, especially given WP's principle of assuming good faith. Black Falcon 01:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think he was making a joke :) GabrielF 03:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It think you're missing the point of this AfD. According to the writer of the article, Zereshk,: "Anti-Iranianism refers to any act act that causes the vast mass suffering of any entity affiliated with Iran." (quote is on the article talk page). That's the problem - this ISN'T an article about racism towards Iranians, its an article about everything anybody ever did that hurt Iran, whether those actions were caused by racial or ethnic prejudice is irrelevant as far as the article is concerned. Quite frankly, this article is a disservice to people who want to combat racism against Iranians because it devalues real racism by effectively calling everything anybody ever did that hurt Iran racist, even if the motivation was purely political or economic. When somebody says that everything anybody ever did that hurt them was racist, than people who might otherwise be sympathetic to combatting racism are going to be less likely to listen when real prejudice occurs. GabrielF 03:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm sorry that you feel sad and depressed about how Wikipedia functions; however please understand that Wikipedia is not a soapbox or publisher of original thought. The Neutral Point of View policy has nothing to do with demanding some sort of "balancing of perspective" to Wikipedia-- it's about making sure that articles themselves are non-biased. However, the reason an article such as this has no place here is because it is Original Research -- conflating bits and pieces of history and news accounts into a proposition that there exists some sort of researched topic of "Anti-Iranianism". The very fact that the article itself can't point to a definition from a reliable source demonstrates that this is a neologism created to present a particular POV, not an academic or historical term. Every place, group, tribe, religion, cult, organization, political party, business entity, product, movement (did I leave out any categories?) has someone who is "Anti-" them. Just because there are people out there who may not like you, doesn't mean a bizarro-world "Anti-Wikipedia" article is required to set them straight. --LeflymanTalk 03:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. A documentary film – "The film shows how the Iranian-American community has had to overcome being scapegoats for anti-U.S. sentiments and activities in Iran since the Hostage Crisis in 1979."
  2. Online magazine article - I am unsure about the source's reliability (it could be very reliable or completely unreliable). "The media machinery disguising genuine goals of the U.S. pressure upon Iran is shamelessly manipulating the public sentiments inspiring anti-Iranian sentiments in both America and elsewhere."
  3. NYT article – "As a high school student Ms. Ardalan -- who dropped her first name, Iran, after anti-Iranian sentiments blossomed in America in the wake of the hostage-takings in 1979".
  4. Article about Iranians in the US – "At least since the "Iranian Hostage Crisis" in 1980 Iranian immigrants have been subjected to discrimination and prejudice in the U.S. Although anti-Iranian sentiments have subsided over time, they flare up every time the Iranian regime engages in an allegedly anti-American activity."
  • I think this may have promise. See, for instance, an article by Fawaz A. Gerges in The Journal of Palestine Studies titled "Islam and Muslims in the Mind of America: Influences on the Making of U. S. Policy" [17] (unfortunately it's not free-access). Still, there is a section on the effect the 1979 hostage crisis had on American feelings toward Muslims in general (inclusive of course of Iranians). A quote: in a 1981 poll of Americans, "50 percent of the respondents described 'all' or 'most' Muslims as 'warlike and bloodthirsty'". I think scholarly work of this type can go a long way toward improving the quality of the article, once consensus has been reached, of course. Black Falcon 04:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That article would go a long way to improving the articles Islamophobia and Orientalism. Find me a scholarly work that deals with anti-Iranianism. (That's not a rhetorical question, by the way.) AlexeiSeptimus 05:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 05:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I agree with most of what you say above except the last part. I don't think "salvaging this article based on its present content is ... impossible" -- it simply requires a great amount of content to be deleted--there has been quite a bit of progress in this respect over the past two days. Also, in response to the reasons for deletion: (1) "unencyclopedic, unscientific, and unprofessional" -- I think you are being a bit too harsh; in any case, this can be corrected by editing/improving the article based on consensus reached on the talk page. (2) The article could (I believe should) be renamed (or moved) to "anti-Iranian sentiments"--this would no longer be a neologism. Overall, I think this AfD has been positive for the article as it has been improved quite a bit (although it still needs a lot of work) and, more importantly, the major contributors have begun discussing on the talk page and on various user pages to establish consensus as to the future direction of the article and to address criticisms raised in the AfD. The thing is: it will require time to improve an article of this size--time which the 5-day limit of the AfD simply does not allow. -- Black Falcon 05:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I looked back over the very long article, and the only information that I think exists that would be relevant for an "anti-Iranian Sentiments" article is the section dealing with toponymic changes to eradicate Persian names. But that information should be condensed dramatically--I think its length is unwarranted. And more space should be devoted to a coherent explanation of why this activity constitutes ant-Iranian sentiment, rather than to listing empirical evidence of a phenomenon which has many potential causes. Quite frankly, I don't see a use to the rest of the very long list of examples for which relevance is not explained. --Treemother199 05:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What about the sections noting "in the Greek of this period 'barbarian' is often used expressly to mean Persian" or "Be watchful of Iranian Muslims and never treat them as equals of Arabs"? I do agree that much of the content should be removed as unrelated to "anti-Iranian sentiment", but large parts of the Greek and Arab sections (and small parts of other sections except the Mongols, colonial powers, and the US--I think these three sections should go altogether) should be kept (and possibly the pan-Turkist section as well--I have not read the cited article, so I cannot comment). I do hope that the contributors take to heart the call to devote more space to providing "a coherent explanation of why this activity constitutes ant-Iranian sentiment" based in reliable sources, of course. I think efforts so far to improve the article are promising and that it should be kept so that these efforts can continue. If, after a real effort to improve based on consensus achieved at the talk page, the article still falls short of Wikipedia standards, I will re-nominate it for deletion myself. -- Black Falcon 06:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable??!!Sangak 09:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
!!What's your definition for notablitity.--Soroush83 09:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


So? They are deleting the parts that motivated the Afd, and there has definitely been discussion. It is an act of improvement so that the article does not have to be buried; in essence, we are trying to save the article. The Behnam 02:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional information
  • There was also some canvassing by an IP user (see edit history). However, as far as I can tell, the canvassing by the IP user seems to be more or less acceptable as
  1. There was limited posting (only 4 users).
  2. The text of the message is neutral (only an invitation to participate) (see the text of the message).
  3. The canvassing seems non-partisan. The persons contacted are all interested in Iranian subjects, but there was nothing on their userpages that might constitute being "on the record with a specific opinion (such as via a userbox or other user categorization)".
Furthermore, all 4 canvassed users had already posted to the AfD beforehand. See: (all times UTC)
  • User:Kaveh voted at 16:13 on 1 February, and was canvassed at 01:20 on 2 February.
  • User:Sa.vakilian voted at 19:12 on 31 January, and was canvassed at 01:19 on 2 February.
  • User:Agha Nader voted at 22:02 on 1 February, and was canvassed at 01:19 on 2 February.
  • User:Soroush83 voted at 22:26 on 31 January 2007, and was canvassed at 01:18 on 2 February.
  • User:HighInBC posted on this page that he was canvassed by e-mail (see diff). I honestly can think of no reason for this as the user neither expresses any particular political or philosophical orientation on his userpage nor seems to be (based on edit history) involved in Iranian-related topics.
  • User:Agha Nader thanks User:Mardavich (see diff) for notifying him about the AfD. Note, however, that User:Agha Nader contributes to Iran-related topics and so the notification (whether by e-mail or some other way) may well have been solicited. I don't think there is enough evidence to claim that any inappropriate action took place if we assume good faith (not that I'm claiming that User:The Behnam is asserting the occurrence of such action). Black Falcon 06:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I sent the e-mail to Hessam. Canvassing is overtly soliciting the opinions of other Wikipedians on their talk pages, I did no such thing. I sent the e-mail to Hessam because he's an admin who knows all wiki rules and is also familiar with the subject. That's neither canvassing nor spamming. --Sa.vakilian 08:46, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was neutral but I'm not sure anyone with any point of view was invited. Even just inviting Iranian users is not neurtal. The last sentence was: "Forward this email to anyone who can vote". Hessam 14:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So Sa.Vakilian sent emails. What about Mardavich? That issue is still not explained. The Behnam 18:12, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Canvassing is overtly soliciting the opinions of other Wikipedians on their talk pages, which is not the case with this particular AfD. Asking for input from one or two Wikipedians who are involved in similar topics and familiar with the subject matter in a neutral tone, without telling them how to vote, is not prohibited. This is a pointless discussion anyway, as this is not a ballot, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus, and a ((not a ballot)) has alerady been added to the top of the page. --Mardavich 18:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. a great number of changes have been made to the article in an attempt to address the concerns raised in the AfD (especially WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:V) -- most of the contentious sections have already been removed or modified;
  2. there is an ongoing effort to reach a consensus on the talk page and the user pages of various contributors to the AfD and the article; and
  3. given the size of this article, the time limit of 5 days will not be enough for editors to reach consensus and implement all the necessary changes to improve this article.
Thank you, Black Falcon 04:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do we need to remind everyone of the definition of "Speedy Keep"? WP:SK AlexeiSeptimus 18:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.
More