Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-Iranian sentiment (3rd nomination)

Anti-Iranian sentiment

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Anti-Persianism by Arabs
• Articles for deletion/Anti-Iranianism
• Articles for deletion/Anti-Iranian sentiment (3rd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Anti-Iranian sentiment (4th nomination)

Anti-Iranian sentiment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Much like similar "anti-X" articles [1][2][3][4][5], this article is fundamentally original research. To take a number of individual cases where someone said something was "anti-Iranian" does not justify presenting these together as a unified phenomenon. Without substantial RS scholarly works presenting "anti-Iranianism" as a unified phenomenon (such as antisemitism), we are simply creating this original narrative, and in doing so we commit OR. The Behnam 05:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NOR, WP:NPOV and precedent of the deletion of other "anti-x sentiment" articles. Most of them are just original reseatch, POV magnets. --Folantin 09:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep It is simuilar to Anti-Semitism, anti Iranianism is a WP:Notable subject that affects many Iranians in the diaspora on a persoanl level. Taprobanus 14:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep The article has many sources, is highly notable, and Wikipedia already has other anti-x articles, such as Anti-Semitism as mentioned above.Hajji Piruz 14:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  • For both of you, this really isn't similar to antisemitism because, unlike antisemitism, there is no substantial body of scholarly work presenting "anti-Iranian sentiment" as a unified phenomenon. This notion is created here on Wikipedia but does not exist as such in RS. Also, the number of sources used for individual facts is irrelevant, though it would be terrible to cite in support for this article considering the number of "references" that don't actually make a claim of "anti-Iranian sentiment." The Behnam 17:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep The article appears well sourced. I counted at least 60 references. Dfitzgerald 16:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  • It may "appear" that way based on a count of references. However the sources often do not ascribe "anti-Iranian sentiment" to the event; rather, an editor takes an event that he considers "anti-Iranian" and posts it into this article. That, of course, is classic OR. But I stress that this deletion is NOT about the individual facts in the article but rather about tying together even the sourced uses of "anti-Iranian" to portray a unified phenomenon. As there is no substantial body of scholarly work presenting such a narrative we cannot synthesize it ourselves on Wikipedia. Maybe we can recreate such an article when Iranians get their own Anti-Defamation League and it is taken seriously. But right now we are looking at original research. The Behnam 17:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
    • There are several Iranian versions of Anti-Defamation League. [6] AlexanderPar 18:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
      • To be like the Anti-Defamation League they have to be both widely noted and also have to be an anti-defamation league. I'm not sure which organization from that page you were specifying but looking through them turns up mostly non-notable lobbies. Perhaps the most direct one, with "anti discrimination" in the title, doesn't seem to exist anymore and is linked to through the web archive. This minor issue, however, is besides the point (being a "maybe" side as it was). The Behnam 19:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
        • NIAC - National Iranian American Council is a notable organization, and they deal with many issues such as discrimination. AlexanderPar 19:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
          • While I didn't want to continue this side discussion, I can't help but note that the NIAC is not at all equivalent to the ADL, in both purpose and notability. The Behnam 19:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  • It is even more remarkable that such an "at a glance" analysis of the article can be used to support a "strong" keep. The Behnam 17:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. OR doesn't fly if it's someone elses research. —Xezbeth 16:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Somehow this suggests that you have neither taken a close look at this article and its previous nominations nor read over the similar nominations I outlined above. Even the rare cases where the source indeed says that something was "anti-Iranian" (mostly in the 300 (film) section near the end), we cannot justify synthesizing these disparate uses into the original narrative as is done in this article. The Behnam 17:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

  Oh but I have read the article. Some bits may well need removing/cleaning up but that doesn't warrant killing the whole thing. —Xezbeth ^(DOSPAGWYA) 17:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

  • You don't appear to understand that the OR issue here is NOT about individual facts used in the article, despite the fact that those aren't exactly "quality." The Behnam 17:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Also, your uncivil "DOSPAGWYA" link doesn't even apply here because I provided explanation in addition to links to similar cases. It may better apply for no-substance claims that use such a shortcut, such as "OR doesn't fly it it's someone elses research," which doesn't actually put anything against the nomination's core argument. It would apply for me if I had given only the reason "This article violates WP:NOR." The Behnam 17:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable topic, there are many documented cases of Iranians who have become victims of discrimination, intolerance, and harassment because of their ethnic/national origins. This is one of the better articles in Category:Anti-national sentiment, the article may have problems, and we can always improve the content of article rather than delete it. AlexanderPar 18:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Several published scholarly works presenting "anti-Iranian sentiment" or "anti-Iranianism" as a notoble and unified phenomenon:

1. The Iranian community in the United States and the maintenance of Persian identity - by Y Modaressi: "For instance, the anti-Iranian feelings during the hostage crisis in America

practically and psychologi- cally placed the Iranian immigrants in a very dicult situation"

2. Neo-Tribalism in Iraq: Saddam Hussein's Tribal Policies - by A Baram: "The Iraqi regime made every effort to exploit this Arab identity and encourage anti- Iranian feelings"

3. Timeliness and Appropriateness in Personal Experience Narrating - by RA Georges: "Anti-Iranian sentiment, which had been widespread earlier when Americans were held captive in Tehran, resurfaced during the TWA hijacking episode"

4. The War on Terror, Feminist Orientalism and Orientalist Feminism - by R Bahramitash: "True accounts, such as the book and movie Not without My Daughter, helped to incite racist, anti-Muslim and anti-Iranian feelings across Europe and North America"

5. Cultural Trauma and Ethnic Identity Formation Among Iranian Immigrants in the United States - by M Mobasher: "On the other hand, the anti-Iranian atti- tudes of most Americans and the anti-Iranian media propaganda that began during the hostage crisis"

6. Identity Politics and Iranian Exiles - by H Naficy: "the fact of their own exile, and the periodic waves of anti-Iranian sentiments facing them in West"

7. Iran and the Middle East: Foreign Policy and Domestic Change - by F Halliday: "considerable sympathy in the Peninsula for the Taliban and for Osama bin Laden, all of which feeds into not only anti- American but also anti-Iranian feeling"

There are hundreds of such sources, both prints and manuscripts. - AlexanderPar 19:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

• • This same sort of thing showed up during the similar "anti-X" deletion debates and doesn't justify the existence of such articles. Yes, we know that "anti-Iranian sentiments" exist since some people do not like Iranians. But it is the presentation of a unified phenomenon that is original research as this narrative is not made by RS scholarly sources. The cases you present here are simply an example of how disparate uses of the term can be presented in faulty defense of the original narrative created by Wikipedians. The Behnam 19:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
    • You're acknowledging that "anti-Iranian sentiments" exists, that makes this a notable topic.AlexanderPar 19:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Haha, no not at all. lol, it is OR to take a bunch of disparate uses of "anti-Iranian" to present a unified topic. As the nominator from one of the similar nominations said, "Only thing that counts is reliable sources systematically discussing the existence of "Anti-Macedonian sentiments" as a consistent, unified pattern" - Now replace "Anti-Macedonian sentiments" with "Anti-Iranian sentiment." And like those other articles, this topic doesn't have sources discussing such a unified pattern. The Behnam 19:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep I think we discussed enough about this article before. Please read the former AfDs again.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 19:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  • That's quite irrelevant to the reason for the nomination. A previous "keep" AFD really isn't a reason for keeping now, but if it means anything the previous closed "no consensus" with the process muddled by ethnic-sensitive canvassing. The Behnam 19:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete: The page seems to be just a collection of OR and POV, aimed at fueling battles along ethnic and national lines. Just the first line, quoting Kaveh Farrokh, a prominent Turkophobe, clarifies the objective. Atabek 20:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

What about Anti-Turkism, an article which you were involved in heavily?Hajji Piruz 00:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Check the history of it [7], clearly I wasn't involved heavily in it, so WP:AGF, please. Thanks. Atabek 17:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, keep it, let the topic name defame itself by expected OR and POV. Atabek 19:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that keeping it crappy to "defame" it is the best thing for the encyclopedia. The Behnam 21:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• Strong keep. The claim that this article is original research because the sources "are not notable", is not an acceptable reason to delete the article, according to WP:JNN. This user has also just nominated Iranian women and List of Iranian wonmen for deletion in the past week. Curious, this trend of AFDs.--Zereshk 22:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  • You apparently don't understand the argument for deletion. As it seems quaint that I have to explain it in yet another way, please read through it again and come back if you have any questions. Thanks. The Behnam 22:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Calm down, The Behnam. I actually did read the argument. That's why I used your own words.--Zereshk 22:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

No you did not! The phrase "are not notable" is not found on this page as any argument of mine! How interesting - this is the second time you have misquoted me (the prior is here [8]), so I am not sure that is very smart of me to assume that this is just an accident. "Calm down" - Haha, are you saying this to insinuate that I was not calm, even though nothing about my response was not calm? Also quaint. Anyway, even if we assume that I in some way said a statement to that effect, must I now assume that you are quote mining (or rather, "misquote mining" :-) ) to try to build a strawman? I bring this up because the central argument for deletion is 'not the "notability of the sources" but rather the lack of reliable sources that present "anti-Iranian sentiment" as a unified phenomenon. BTW, your mention of the other AFDs constitutes an attempt to poison the well' to make people question the "faith" of my nomination, and apparently this has worked on Mandsford. This is unfortunate for the AFD, and of course it is disappointing that you again conduct yourself poorly with me (after the recent canvassing for Iranian women and nonconstructive thread on my talk page). The Behnam 02:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

You did in fact object using "notability" of sources as the main base of your argument. e.g.1 [9] followed by [10]. Im sorry, but you cant use notability as your reason. It doesnt matter if NIAC is not as big as ADL. Your argument is still flawed because WP:JNN doesnt allow it.--Zereshk 05:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

You seem to misunderstand again. That side conversation is not a critical part of the nomination and was not presented as such. It derived from a "maybe" about Iranians creating their own ADL. Lol, the NIAC isn't even used as a source anyway. I'm not sure what sort of work they've done with this concept, but that doesn't really matter here. Quite a misunderstanding on your part, Zereshk. I hope that you acknowledge this instead of clinging to the strawman... The Behnam 06:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Not really. You specifically state "Without substantial RS scholarly works" at the top of this page, i.e. NIAC is not as "scholarly" to you as ADL, for example. I dont buy your argument. Sorry.--Zereshk 06:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

It seems that you have decided to misconstrue my statement again with quote mining as the rest of the sentence is quite critical to the argument: "Without substantial RS scholarly works presenting "anti-Iranianism" as a unified phenomenon." To be honest I don't consider ADL or NIAC "scholarly" because they are simply not scholarly organizations (such as universities). They are advocacy groups. This all is aside from the point. The point is much like my full sentence - this isn't treated as a unified phenomenon by a substantial amount of academic work. Even if there were some small number of people who treated it as such it would still be WP:NEO and WP:FRINGE. On the other hand, antisemitism is a huge deal. There are classes about antisemitism alone, many scholarly and non-scholarly books about antisemitism, ... It is probably the most famous form of discrimination. But "Anti-Iranian sentiment" is only a unified phenomenon on Wikipedia, not with the world of reliable sources. The Behnam 06:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

WP doesnt care whether or not you consider ADL or NIAC as scholarly or not. It's not your call. And your definition of "a unified phenomenon" is not a criteria on WP for deletion. In fact WP:IDONTKNOWIT states the opposite: "arguments that state that because a subject is unknown or not well known among English readers it should not have an article encourage a systemic bias on Wikipedia."--Zereshk 07:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Please read the post I already made below, also in reply to you, where I say "I do not recall mentioning anything about language differences so that it irrelevant." I have no idea why you repeated your irrelevant "point." And are you still going on about that ADL & NIAC stuff? They don't really matter to this nomination; again I have no idea why you continue to bring them up. Should I suppose you have nothing real in response to the actual nomination reason so perhaps you prefer distractions...? The Behnam 08:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• Strong keeep as per users above. Irk _{Come in for a drink!} 23:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as per above. The subject is notable, although it needs work. VartanM 00:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
• STRONG KEEP Nominator's listing of three articles for deletion and apparent personal interest makes me question good faith. What's the difference between this and "anti-Semitism"? Nor is this original research, or unsourced, or something that is unproven, as sources indicate. Anyone else besides me remember what it was like here in the U.S. in 1980? There was a ton of "anti-Iranian sentiment" back then, believe it. Mandsford 01:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Apparent personal interest? How can you let Zereshk lead you into assuming bad faith like this? Heck, I voted "weak keep" last time because I didn't realize the fundamental OR problem. Only after seeing those similar "anti-X" AFDs did I realize that to present the individual facts together without the sources themselves presenting this as a consistent phenomenon consitutes is WP:SYN. The Behnam 02:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keeep Of course anti-Iranian sentiment is real and needs to be documented and exposed, much like racism in general, anti-Semitism or anti-Americanism. SSZ 04:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete poorly sourced, while it may exist, there doesn't seem to be a real term to describe the big idea, nor are there any scholarly opinions discussed in the article, like there are for other prejudices. It also is POV, as it discusses it by arabs and by the United States only, while showing no attempts to show a worldwide opinion outside of these two groups. Seems to violate WP:NEO.--Sefringle^Talk 05:12, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletions. -- Sefringle^Talk 05:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletions. -- Sefringle^Talk 05:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: The user nominating this article for deletion is violating WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS by listing (links to) other similar AFDs at the very top of this page, as demonstrative of his reason. WP:WAX clearly states: "Sometimes arguments are made that other articles have been put forward for AfD and deleted, ...but even here caution should be used". Also note that a badly written article is not a reason for deletion. And furthermore WP:IDONTKNOWIT states that "arguments that state that because a subject is unknown or not well known among English readers it should not have an article encourage a systemic bias on Wikipedia." Whos fault is it if this user or other people have not heard of anti-Iranian sentiments? And the fact that this user has also in the past week or so nominated Iranian women and list of Iranian women for deletion is enough cause for me not to trust the claims of this user.--Zereshk 06:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Poisoning the well?--Sefringle^Talk 06:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• • Hence the fact that I didn't cite those as THE reason for deletion (such as "per x,y, and z deletion debates"). No, I linked them simply because it was pretty much the same situation with the same argument. So calling me on that is invalid. Also I do not recall mentioning anything about language differences so that it irrelevant. Calling me on that is also invalid. As for your repeat of the 'he nominated these others articles recently so he can't be trusted' comment, I must repeat that this is an attempt at poisoning the well and can thus be considered an attack. That's not cool, Zereshk. The Behnam 06:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, The Behnam. Your stated reason of "Without substantial RS scholarly works presenting "anti-Iranianism" as a unified phenomenon (such as antisemitism), we are simply creating this original narrative" is a very weak argument to me. Genetic fallacy just doesnt fly here. My wikipedia motto is always build and improve articles , not delete them.--Zereshk 06:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Well it's a good thing that I'm not committing the genetic fallacy here, isn't it Zereshk? The Behnam 06:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Personally I think people are using AFD as a substitution for cleanup. The topic of this article is clearly notable, I am pretty sure if some of you who are arguing about it (both sides) get off the computer and go to a good library and do a search, you will find not only WP:RS online sources but also academic books or even journal articles on this subject matter. Also I agree that a lot of unconnected information has been presented as all belonging to the modern sociological concept of anti iranianism (which is nothing but a form of racism) including ancient and medieval ethnic prejudices against the ethnic group of Persians has been equated with a modern concept called anti-iranianism. People can argue that Persians are nothing but one of the ethnic groups of modern day Iran (although dominant) so anti Persian doesn’t mean automatically mean anti _Iranian. Inspite of all this shortcomings this is still is a valid subject matter that can be fully restored to an encyclopedic status. Currently it reads like a high school nay primary school student’s homework on a form of racism and many of the sections fail WP:NPOV forcefully. On a personal note about AFD’s, I patrol the AFD’s sometime and when I clearly see something that deserves to be kept and improved, I vote to keep (mostly). Most AFD that end up being deleted deserve to be deleted. But the series of AFD’s on Iranian subject matters clearly are not trivial articles that needed to be deleted. As an advice anyone interested in collaboratively improving Wikipedia will never get their point across (even when it is correct) by mass AFDing articles that are not trivial subject matters. One word CLEANUP. Thanks Taprobanus 12:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

This article already had its "keep and improve" phase after the last AFD. It really didn't resolve the basic OR problems, and of course did not resolve the fundamental OR problem. The Behnam 21:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Why not be bold and do the right thing ? Taprobanus 21:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

That is what this nomination is about. The Behnam 06:03, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep useful info...--Alborz Fallah 07:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep There are too many silimar articles for arabs, turks, ..., I strongly opposse deleting it --Ali 11:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Taprobanus.Hetoum I 15:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep 63 footnotes does not make original research. Also, the article is/can be NPOV. The article addresses the November 1979 Iranian hostage crisis of the U.S. embassy, from which legitimate and illegitimate Anti-Iranian sentiment can flow. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 18:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Ah yes, the "count of references" method. The Behnam 21:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

  How about the "count the number of comments by the nominator" method? Twenty-two at this point. Now if only there were 22 votes to delete... Mandsford 02:53, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Um, you object to me defending my position? Sorry for trying to reason with you people - perhaps you all are less interested in a real debate over my core nomination reason and more interested in mindless voting? I simply didn't feel like repeating my argument that a count of references doesn't say anything about original research, as many of these "references" are being used to forward original research; i.e. the ascription of "anti-Iranian" isn't actually in the source. Nor are there appropriate references support the unique narrative created on Wikipedia presenting these disparate events as part of a unified phenomenon (with this being the main argument for deletion, it is very interesting how nobody really addresses it with their "keep") Essentially a count completely fails to address original research, and I find it amazing that even another person could vote "keep" upon such a fallacious argument. The Behnam 05:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
    • The request that the article be deleted because all material in the article from the 63 references is a synthesis of published material serving to advance a position seems untenable. Further on my keep reasoning, a Google book search shows the topic is notable and scholarly and provides additional material that may be used to address any concerns with the article. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 20:17, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
      • I don't believe I or anyone else said "all material" but that isn't the point. While "anti-Iranian sentiment" exists and has surfaced here and there, there isn't any significant discussion in RS of anti-Iranian sentiment as a connected phenomenon. Right now disparate uses are tied together in this article to present a unified, connected phenomenon while the RS don't make this connection themselves. The scattered mentions found in the Google Book search are simply another confirmation that people sometimes don't like Iranians, not that there is a single unified phenomenon affording its own narrative. Notice that none of them actually concentrate upon the supposed phenomenon of "anti-Iranian sentiments" and present all of these events as connected. On the other hand, there are entire books and studies devoted to antisemitism alone (Google Books too [11]). Do you see what I am saying? The Behnam 20:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
        • Yes, I understand, but even if the source material is not concentrated, there appears to be enought reliable source material to develop a neutral and unbiased compilation of previously written, verifiable information. Once this AfD is over, there is nothing wrong with removing particular analysis in the article that has not been published by a reliable source in relation to the topic. Wikipedia NOR addresses this. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 20:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - It is merely part of a series of anti-X sentiment.Bakaman 21:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Jreferee. - Fedayee 03:51, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete This seems to be a random collection of unrelated incidents and blown-out-of-proportion, as well as fabricated events by persian nationalists trying desperately to legitimize their dogma through repetitious falsities. This article does not belong in a wikipedia, it a blog entry. MB
• Keep, Behnam I had seen those articles that you handpicked in the first paragraph of this AfD (before their deletion); although some of that "group" were voted kept you didn't mention them, e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-Romanian discrimination, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Serbophobia (fifth nomination).And still the ones that were deleted are completely different from this article and were almost totally unsourced, but I can see lots of footnotes in this discussed AfD article. I still believe that these kind of article if written in a NPOV fashion can be kept and must be kept. This of course applies to this article too. --Pejman47 18:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I also forgot "Anti-Hungarian sentiment" which resulted in "delete". While the individual facts themselves weren't really the OR question here, I can remove that basic OR now if necessary, though I fear that it will not resolve the underlying problem. The Behnam 19:05, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
• ZOMG STRONG KEEP!!!!!!! - Wikipedia should always have a subject on something, even if unencyclopedic and POV-pushing; as long as, well, it's sourceable. The movie 300? Didn't you guys see that? The fact that a few very zealous Iranians think this movie has a sinister anti-Persian agenda - well, that means it must be encyclopedic. Why would we want Wikipedia to be neutral and factual; then we could no longer include fringe opinions and present them as obvious fact. As long as a few fringe people think something, it needs inclusion - even if it's not written in a POV tone. I for one think we need an article on the Anti-Semitism shown by Jesus, as well as one talking about Harry S. Truman's communist agenda (no need to write that 98% of the academic world thinks it's nonsense). Finally, I have to agree with the preponderance of other WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, WP:PERNOM, and "count the reference" arguments above. The Evil Spartan 19:27, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

  LOL. This is probably worthy of Raul's Brick 'O Common Sense. The only catch is, I'm not sure how many people actually got it. Duja► 09:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. I don't see how it's any different that any other anti-racial group article.--Vitalmove 21:09, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per the very strong arguments by the nom. It is basicaly OR to pull together a series of isolated incidents etc and present them as a unified front. This article basically amounts to "Nobody likes us, Everybody hates us, Think I'll go eat worms" [12]. Viridae^Talk 00:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment The reason why this article keeps coming up for nomination is due to its style, which is a cross-over between an undergraduate essay and a blog entry, rather than an encyclopaedia entry. I don't doubt that there are occasions in which some have sought to create anti-Iranian sentiments. But this article appears to make this a unified phenomenon, as if anti-Iranian attitudes in the US and in Saddam Hussein's government, anti-Shi'i attitudes and attitudes towards Persians in early Islam are part of a single phenomenon, when they are not. This is original research. The article also makes various assumptions and claims, representing them as facts, eg "Within Saudi Arabia, for example, anti-Iranian rhetoric is openly gathering strength ...", "Although Abdullah did not mention Iran by name, his comments appeared ...", etc. Some anecdotes are blown out of proportion, eg the hiring of a teacher in Baghdad, which is not a particularly notable example of xenophobia.

I am reluctant to vote for deletion as there is a need for this information (even if it is merged with other articles), but am mindful that previous AfDs have come to the same conclusion - that the article's principle problem is OR and POV - and little is done about it. Those working on this article do not appear to have understood the conclusions reached on previous AfDs.

I have some suggestions for the editors of this article. It may be useful to restructure the article to cover themes (political, social, cultural, religious manifestations of anti-Iranian prejudice/discrimination/persecution) rather than by listing sentiment by origin. For instance, religious causes of anti-Iranian sentiments may be related to Zoroastrianism (conquest of Persia), the Shia theocracy, and general Islamophobia (eg anti-Muslim attitudes in the US). A section on anti-Iranian sentiments related to culture could be related to prejudice against Persians. Political manifestations could be related to Iran's relations with other countries, eg the US, Iraq, Saudi Arabia. It is also important to state the difference between the expression of a prejudice and persecution. There may be some anti-Iranian prejudice among some Americans, but Iranians are not persecuted in the US. These changes could overcome the problem the article has with synthesising a range of disparate manifestations into a single concept of "anti-Iranianism".--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 13:03, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Of course racism and discrimination exists by the US Government's own admission: U.S. Sues Merrill Lynch Over Treatment of Iranian SSZ 14:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Prejudice is not the same as persecution.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 15:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand your comments here. We are talking about "anti-Iranian sentiment". The case I refer to above is about ACTIVE discrimination and termination of contract by Merrill Lynch of an Iranian Muslim employee based, solely on the fact that he was of Iranian origin. SSZ 15:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Please read my entire comment. I said that it is important to distinguish between varying degrees and types of anti-Iranian sentiment in order to make the article clearer.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 16:03, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, the article should distinguish between 1. Persecution by the US Government, if any, 2. Persecution by other organization (religious, corporate, special interests groups, etc.), 3. Propaganda and diffamation in the media, 4. Active discrimination (as practiced by Merrill Lynch above), 5. Passive discrimination, (ie, housing, lending, etc) 6. Prejudice, 7. Racism and harrassement in general based on name, race or religion at the work place, 8. Racism and harrassement in general based on name, race or religion in public places (bus, restaurant, shopping centers, cinema, etc). SSZ 17:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think these are adequate categories, but ultimately this would be a matter for the article's talk page if it is not deleted.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 09:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Strong keep: The proposal is based on OR which is non-sense. User:The Behnam wrote: "this really isn't similar to antisemitism because, unlike antisemitism, there is no substantial body of scholarly work presenting "anti-Iranian sentiment" as a unified phenomenon.". This is simply wrong. Dear User: The Behnam, Why do you assume scholarly works are only done in English language and by Americans like you? A simple google search for Antisemitism in Persian will end in nearly 200 hints! For Anti-Iranian sentiment, a simple search will lead to half a milion hints, more than 100 times more than Antisemitism. Obviously Anti-semitism is a notable article in Persian wikipedia and its deletion is not justified. The same is true for Anti-Iranianism in English wikipedia. Sangak ^Talk 18:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

PS: User:The Behnam's double standard in taging Iranian articles for deletion has made me concerned recently. The user selectively and frequently tagged Iranian and only Iranian articles for deletion while he/she contributes to similar articles of other countries. The examples are the article on women in Iran. And in his new effort, he came to conclusion that among Category:Anti-national sentiment, the Iranian article is OR!! That's a bit strange. Sangak ^Talk 18:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I happen to do mainly Iran-related editing so I address Iran-related stuff first. If it makes you feel any better, I have also been looking at anti-Hinduism to see if it follows the same OR pattern of tying a bunch of isolated incidents into a phenomenon. The Behnam 02:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you realize that the burden is on the you, the person who wants to keep the article, to prove that this article is NOT an original narrative created by stringing together disparate uses of "anti-Iranian sentiment" and presenting them as a unified phenomenon? After all of these days of deletion debate I still haven't encountered an actual response to my central reason for nomination. Most responses just insist that "anti-Iranian sentiments" exist, which I never contested anyway. However, the mere existence of dislike for Iranians does not mean that there is a single phenomenon of "anti-Iranianism" that can be presented as one narrative, yet Wikipedia creates this unique narrative. This synthesis violates WP:NOR. The Behnam 02:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, you have not answered my original point. In responce to your reply to my "PS": your comment is contradictory. On one hand you claim that "I happen to do mainly Iran-related editing so I address Iran-related stuff first." On the other hand, you claim that the burden is on people like me!!! Sorry, I don't buy such arguments. Obviously you have the right to spend your time and to put effort in deleting Iran-related articles. That is not against any wiki-policy. Sangak ^Talk 11:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The Behnam has every right to put articles up for deletion and you should assume good faith. Even if the article is not deleted, his comments should be taken seriously by the editors of this article in order to improve it and make it look more like an encyclopaedic entry.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 09:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice! I know very well many of those who voted for deletion of this article in the past and in this current debate. We will meet you again in future deletion proposal too. I suggest you to put Anti-Arabism for deletion if you care about wikipedia quality. Sangak ^Talk 11:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

For your information, I have not yet cast a vote on this article. I did not vote in the previous AfD, but voted to delete the version of this article when it was entitled "anti-Persianism by Arabs", because it was an obvious POV fork and was filled with original research. I later withdrew my vote for deletion following a move towards compromise in the article's content, including a change in the article's title. So, I don't understand why you are ordering me to put Anti-Arabism up for deletion in order to remain consistent or that you are suggesting it should be deleted in retaliation. Many editors are tired of the ethnic-based tit-for-tat attitude that affects all Middle East articles. Judge this article on its merits and demerits, not on ethnic associations.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 13:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

tit-for-tat attitude?! I have never put any arab-related article for deletion (nor any other Iranian wikipedians). My point is quite relevant. My question is that if some users are tired of Anti X-ism articles why they do not take any action in deleting them all together??!! This is the third time Anti-Iranism article is proposed for deletion while neither Anti-Arabism nor Anti-Turkism, anti-Americanism have been suggested for deletion even once. This is double standard. Sangak ^Talk 18:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Grandmaster 06:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, apparently the "norm" only applies to this article and not Anti-Turkism. Sangak ^Talk 11:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete and/or apply the Daniel Brandt solution—merge to relevant articles where the other side of the story can be heard. As it stands, the article is a hopeless essay mixing apples and oranges from throughout the history, effectively stripping the underlying causes of the conflicts and presenting only the end result—supposed anti-Iranian sentiment—as a given fact. This is a clear violation of WP:SYN: the article cherry-picks the facts from sources which describe the anti-Iranian acts, and reaches an implicit conclusion that the anti-Iranian sentiment is a historic constant. It is unclear how WP:NPOV can be even reached with this concept. Apart from excellent arguments by Ahwaz above, let me briefly go through the article's contents:
  • by Pan-Turkists: we have a couple of quotes by Farrokh and Harandi (the latter clearly not-unbiased) who mentioned the term, then a bunch of uncited POVs
  • by Arabs:a section on ethnic slur "Ajam" (well, I suppose that every culture X which clashes with culture Y has an ethnic slur for Y)
  • In early & later Islam: this is better referenced, but I suppose a POV-fork from Islamization in Iran and Islamic conquest of Persia; it's unclear how much the supposed sentiment is related with Zoroastrianism and how much with Shi'a–Sunni schism.
  • Now we have a leap of a couple of hundred years, vaguely addressing pan-Arabic nationalists, and focusing on certain Satia Al-Husri.
  • Another leap focused on Iran-Iraq war and Saddam Husein. Well, I suppose that if countries X and Y are at war there's plenty of hate generated, isn't it?
  • Now we have a cultural leap to the US, where—I'm sure everyone would agree—the anti-Iranian sentiment has entirely different root causes, which I'll spare explaining here. Later, it focuses on Hollywood movies with historical topics. We have United States-Iran relations article, don't we?
• In sum, all of the Arabian stuff can—and should—find home at the Iran-Arab relations, written in summary style. It's not in a good shape, and looks more like Foreign relations of Iran than a good overview. But it could be a place to start. All the U.S stuff should go to United States-Iran relations. This is a POV-fork of several articles (no matter which one came first); it's an essay in violation of WP:SYN. Just like most other Anti-X articles. Duja► 09:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that parts of this article could be merged with existing articles and that in its present state it is poorly written. I just wonder whether the article can be rescued. Previous AfDs that have called for NPOV and a serious clean-up have not led to significant progress, which suggests the article can only ever be disparate collection of events brought together under the umbrella of "sentiments". The problem is that there is a sense of "ownership" of this article, which makes it difficult if not impossible to edit and improve in any meaningful way. Those defending the article need to come up with better arguments to The Behnam's comments instead of casting aspersions. This AfD should not be about winning votes but winning arguments.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 10:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment This article must be expanded to include not only hostilities toward Iranians and Iranian culture, but also any hostility toward Iranian regime. Please see the following: "Anti-Americanism, often Anti-American sentiment, is opposition or hostility toward the government, culture or people of the United States." In countless number of Iranian government documents, US has been accused of Anti-Iranism. Sangak ^Talk 11:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

What constitutes hostility to the Iranian regime? Would you classify criticism of the Iranian regime as anti-Iranian?--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 12:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Read my comments again and you will get your answer. Sangak ^Talk 18:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I've read them again and it is not clear to me. I'll ask you again, does criticism of the Iranian regime constitute "anti-Iranianism"? And what is the delineation between hostility and legitimate criticism? You are suggesting the article be broadened to include opposition to Iran's government, but you have failed to state clearly what you mean. Is Akbar Ganji anti-Iranian, is Shirin Ebadi anti-Iranian, is Ayatollah Borujerdi anti-Iranian, is Reza Pahlavi anti-Iranian?--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 18:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The answer is simple. 1. As per anti-americanism article. (as I mentioned above) 2. The distinction between criticism and hostility is not a problem specific to the government. It is relevant to all other issues mentioned in Anti X-ism articles. 3. This is again another double standard in wikipedia. I can remember how many Americans were against including US hostility toward Iranian government in this article. Very same wikipedians simply ignore the very first statement in Anti-Americanism article. 4. Your examples (Ebadi, Ganji etc) are not a major challenge to my argument. This is trivial for any nation. 5. I personally do not consider most of US attitudes toward Iranian regime as anti-Iranianism. But that is what Iranian regime claims. Iranian regime's viewpoint is notable and need to be covered in wikipedia in a balanced way. Sangak ^Talk 19:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

PS: The title of the article is POV. The correct term is Anti-Iranism which is the accurate translation of the word in Persian. The term is also used in English media. This is in-line with other Anti-X isms: Anti-Arabism, Anti-Turkism, Anti-Americanism. Sangak ^Talk 11:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I can find only 80 hits on Google for "anti-Iranism"[13], while "anti-Iranianism" scores over 1,000 hits[14].--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 19:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and rename to Anti-Iranism anti-Iran sentiment has been growing, in part, thanks to continued effort of US VP Dick Cheney and the ongoing war in Iraq. I can only envision this article growing and wish that the energy spent on trying to delete this article was instead put to improving it. Benjiboi 19:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep -Just because an article needs to be developed and made more accurate is really no reason to delete it. Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 20:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep This is a very common phenomenon in the Arab press. I watch Arab TVs, and there is a lot of anti-semetic and anti-Iranian commentry on air these days, collectivly calling Iranians dragatory names like "majous" (fire-worshiepr), "safawi, "false mulsim" and other dragatory names in Arabic. (for an example, see this English transcript: http://www.memritv.org/Transcript.asp?P1=1347)AhvaziKaka 20:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)