Talk:Anti-Iranian sentiment/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

A question about statement in Ajam section

I was wondering if the comparison between the usage by the Arabs and that of Slavic words referring to Germans is in fact a direct quote:

"is applied especially to Persians" and means "to mumble, and speak indistinctly"[1] (similar to the Slavic use of words from the root nemoy ("mute") to refer to the Germans; see Names for Germany), which is the opposite of the meaning of speaking "chaste and correct Arabic language."

- Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

That is a common thing between human groups. The Greeks call the non-Greeks "Barbarians" that roots from impression of random hubbub produced by hearing a spoken language that one cannot understand.--Alborz Fallah (talk) 20:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Alborz. Actually, what I was asking is if the statement is a direct quote, or if someone was drawing a comparison for ease of understanding the concept. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Ajam is a pejorative word. Arabs called non-Arabs as Ajam, which meant more or less retard. It is comparable to nemets only in that extent that it means the linguistic Other, but unlike Ajam nemets had no pejorative undermeaning (I guess)--Babakexorramdin (talk) 17:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Article reverts

I performed some copyediting (with this accumulated edit), and it has been reverted out twice, which I am finding somewhat vexing. The new user stated that I was removing cites sources - twice.

This is what I removed:

Post 9/11 discrimination

Zohreh Assemi, an Iranian American Muslim owner of a nail salon in Locust Valley, New York, was robbed, beaten, and called a "terrorist" in September of 2007 in what authorities call a bias crime. Assemi was kicked, sliced with a boxcutter, and had her hand smashed with a hammer. The perpatrators, who forcibly removed $2,000 from the saloon and scrawled anti-Muslim slurs on the mirrors, also told Assemi to "get out of town" and that her kind were not "welcomed" in the area.

It was removed because the discriminatory action did not appear - by dint of the actual citations used - that the attacks were based upon the vicitom' Iranian ethnicity, but because they looked Middle-Eastern. This article is about Anti-Iranian sentiment, not anti-Muslim or anti-Mediterranean sentiment (where such a cited instance actually belongs). Again, the citations do not speak to the attackas being motivated by the victim's Persian heritage, so it doesn't belong here.

As well, I removed the redundant entry regarding Debra Cagan's admitted hatred of Iranians from the Anti-Iranian sentiments in the media section, as it first appears in the first paragraph of the subsection In the United States, and is in fact more appropriate there (Cagan is not a member if the media).

I also added 'citation needed' tags to statements in the section "Hollywood's Depiction of Persians (Iranians)":

Hollywood network productions such as 24,[62] John Doe, On Wings of Eagles (1986),[63] Escape From Iran: The Canadian Caper (1981),[64] and JAG almost regularly host Persian speaking villains in their storylines. In fact, on Friday, May 9, 1997, CBS aired an episode of JAG in which several Hamas terrorists take a Washington hospital under siege. According to the program, they spoke in fluent "Persian", not "Arabic" .

The parts in bold mark my additions. Statements like 'almost regularly', aside from being awful grammar, are considered weasel words, as they do not specify a source for their contentions. Additionally, there isn't a single citation for the statement that the terrorists were speaking Persian (in the television program, not the film, as it was reverted back to), and this is the sort of thing that would require some pretty reliable citation. While I am talking about this section, I would suggest that we pick a group. I get why Persians was listed in the section (the presence of the film 300), but it reads poorly. I think that sticking with 'Iranian' and note, whilst discussing the film, that Persians were the forerunners of what are now called Iranians.

Lastly, I copyedited the entry for Not Without My Daughter (as well as the bit right before it, noting it as a "recent" film - it's 17 years old, so it ain't recent at all). This is the text, and my entries are in bold:

Not Without My Daughter

(previous version)

The 1991 film Not Without My Daughter was widely criticized for its portrayal of Iranian society. The movie was filmed in Israel. The film is based on the story of Betty Mahmoody, an American woman who traveled to Tehran with her young daughter to visit her Iranian-born husband's family. In the film, Mahmoody's husband undergoes a transformation in Iran. He becomes increasingly angry and abusive and eventually decides that he will not return to the United States. Betty is told that she can leave, but the couple's daughter will have to stay in Tehran. Ultimately, after 18 months in Iran, Betty and her daughter escape to the United States.

(edited version)

The 1991 film Not Without My Daughter was criticized for its portrayal of Iranian society. Filmed in Israel, it was based on the Pulitzer-winning autobiography by Betty Mahmoody. In the book and film, an American woman (Mahmoody) who traveled to Tehran with her young daughter to visit her Iranian-born husband's family. Mahmoody's husband then undergoes a transformation in Iran, becoming increasingly domineering and abusive, eventually deciding that they will not return to the United States. Betty is told that she can leave, but their daughter must stay in Tehran. Ultimately, after 18 months in Iran, Betty and her daughter escape to the United States.

Obviously, I think my edit is better, as it properly attributes the source of the film as an adaptation from the book, which happens to be Pulitzer prize-winning - both notable, verifiable facts. As well, I found it odd that someone pointedly noted that the film was made in Israel (as if that had anything to do with the story of the film), as if it was somehow made more rabidly anti-Iranian because it was filmed on Jewish sol. I really don't want to think that was the intent, as anything further down that thought path is sheer ugliness.If someone has reliable citations that say the film was made more anti-Iranian because it was filmed in Israel, then add them. I don't think they exist. So, I altered the sentence to note that it was filmed in Israel. Period.

The rest of the plot edit was just for readability and text flow (as well as a few grammar fixes).

While I think that noting the anti-Iranian sentiment presented by "Not Without..." is important to include, I think that the focus should be more specifically focused on Mahmoody's autobiography, and not the film. She is quite likely anti-Iranian; the cast of the film likely isn't (again, if someone has citable references to counter that assertion, please add them).

So, there was my edit. It has been reverted twice, and I decided to bring the edit here, explain what was behind it, and get some input from you good folk before adding it back in. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

As three days have passed without comment, I will be altering the article to implement my discussion post, as per Consensus: "In essence, silence implies consent if there is adequate exposure to the community." I would ask that if anyone has any comment, that they take the time to engage me in discussion here regarding my edits before altering or reverting them. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome to correct the text typos and gramm. but please do not change the content without sound reasons.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 17:09, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

With respect, did you not read my post, immediately above yours? I think I provided sound reasons. However, you might very well want to consider practicing what you preach, since you pulled 'citation needed' tags without explanation. If someone tags it, itneed citation. No real misunderstanding concerning policy in that regards. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:45, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I simply reverted all your edits because there were too much/ I wont say that you are vandalizeer but you removed anything you did not like. I do not have problems with your tags but with your deletions.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 04:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I am glad that you didn't call me a vandal, because you be both incorrect and uncivil. Perhaps having less than 1500 edits over the past year, you are unaware of WP:BRD, which is part of our consensus guidelines. I have followed it, and suggest that you might find it easier on your revert history to do so as well. Also, please remember to assume good faith; calling a fellow editor making good faith edits to improve the article is very uncivil. Suggesting even by inference that their edits are vandalism is considered a personal attack, and makes the accused pretty unhappy with you.

Rather than just saying "they were too much", explain why they are too much (and maybe how they are too much, as well). Also, realize that I amnot a potted plant; I am editor just like yourself. I am not here to simply fix your typos and allow you the bulk of the work. If I see that certain comments are either wrong, or uncited, or awkward, I am going to fix it. As per your comment above, I did provide sound reasons for adding the content (again, following the BRD model of consensus). I might suggest that since I am not Iranian, use the perspective that I have to help you write an article which (judging from your edit history) is very important to you. We aren't writing this article as a gripe session; it is an article in the Wikipedia-en, and let's face it - the larger number of the readers aren't going to be Iranians. Presenting the neutral view (without pov) is only going to improve the readability of the article.

I've reverted your removal of my changes. Please do not remove them again without taking the time to discuss what you specifically dislike about the edit, and wait for my reply, pls. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Iranian anti-sentiment or Muslim anti-sentiment?

This seems to be a pretty important distinction to me. I guess if I were in, say Kyoto or Egypt and people were hostile to me on sight, I might assume that they were pissed at me because I was American (since I know I am American). However, the truth might very well be that they were hostile because I am Caucasian, or they think I am British or Russian or an Aussie. The point I am making is that what might seem in some instances (for example, the removed Washington DC beating reference) as anti-Iranian might actually be anti-Middle Eastern or anti-Muslim sentiment. The distinction is clear, as this article is specifically for antipathy directed towards Iranians only. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

There needs to be a source saying that it is anti-Iranian, otherwise it is a form of OR and should be excluded. If the supposed discrimination occurred without the perpetrator knowing that the victim was Muslim, then it is probable that it is anti-Iranian discrimination. Ultimately, one cannot look Muslim, but one can look Iranian--I think. From my understanding, there is substantial anti-immigrant discrimination in the Netherlands. The victims are discriminated against because they are immigrants. While the motive may be to harm immigrants (but not specifically Iranians), the result of the action harms Iranians. Perhaps it would help to look at [1]. Could this be classified as anti-Iranian discrimination? The motive for rejecting the students is (supposedly) national security. The result harms Iranians though. --Agha Nader (talk) 20:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey Agha Nader - long time, no yelling at each other see ( ;) ). That is an awfully good citation you have there. I think it is pretty specific to Iranians, but needs to point out that the sentiment is coming both the government and the education system. The net-movie Fitna (essentially an anti-Muslim propagandist piece by Geert Wilders) talks a little about the tension between ethnic Dutch in the Netherlands and the Muslims. Considering the hullaballoo about Iran developing nuclear power without sanction from anyone else in the world, I'm more surprised it didn't happen earlier.

I think the instance should be included, but linked to anti-Muslim sentiment, as well. Iranians were singled out bc of the national policy for seeking nuclear capability. Thoughts? - - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I answered these issues before in addition I should say that these arguments do not go well with respect to the Arabs and Turkey, because those are Moslem countries as well. --Babakexorramdin (talk) 09:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Ahhh, that would be true, were the Saudis or Turks trying to develop a nuclear program in defiance of the UN's wishes otherwise. The statement is good. The section it belongs in needs to be rewritten, though.- Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 09:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

sections with regard to Turkey and Arabs has not much to do with the nuclear issues. It is more about ethno-cultural intolerance that colors sometimes their geopolitical behavior--Babakexorramdin (talk) 10:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you think that Islamophobic discrimination against Iranians should be inserted into the article as examples of anti-Iranian sentiment? What about sexist discrimination against Iranians? I found it helpful to consider the case of Sikh Americans "Investigating Anti-Sikh Discrimination in a Post 9/11 World" [2]. Sikh Americans have been attacked because they resembled Muslims, the intended targets of the racism. However, I do not think that such attacks are anti-Sikh discrimination. Discrimination is separating into distinct parts or components, distinguishing etc. Indeed--dare I say it?-- it was a lack of anti-Sikh discrimination. The racist bastards were unable to distinguish Sikhs from Muslims. If they discriminating against the Sikhs they would distinguish them from Muslims, and, presumably, leave them alone. Likewise, if someone attacks a Muslim who happens to be Iranian, because the victim is Iranian, it is anti-Muslim discrimination. Furthermore, the attackers did not discriminate against the Iranian based on the victims nationality, rather his/her religion. I do think there are instances of true anti-Iranian discrimination in Europe. Why not find a better example? --Agha Nader (talk) 22:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

A pretty good example of anti-Iranian discrimination in the media would be the South Park episode, D-Yikes!, that specifically spoofs 300 to make fun of current-day Iranians. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

To Agha Nader: do you have any proofs that they were not aware of the victim's Iranian origin?

To Arcayne: I have not heard about it, tell me more--Babakexorramdin (talk) 00:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Click on the link and read the article, Babak. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh thank you. yes that animation movie is indeed an obvious case of Anti-Iranianism. I had seen that before. It is unbelivable how disrespctful that animation was.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 16:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Netherlands question (and answers)

I am not sure I understand what this sentence is saying:

"The requests of the Ministry of Education and Foreign Affairs to monitor Iranian students has led to a situation that Iranian students cannot educate in University of Twente in the city of Enschede and Eindhoven University of Technology in the city of Eindhoven."

Can someone explain to me what the message is there? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The ministery sent a letter to all Dutch universities and said that Iranian students should be watched out very carefully. There is a Dutch text of the letter in the source I mentioned.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 09:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Iranians were singled out. However the attitude towards Moslems in general is been deteriorated in the netherlands and it might have affected them, the policy was exclusion of only Iranians, not all moslems., Also non-Moslem and atheist Iranians were excluded by that policy.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 08:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

That may very well be true, but do we have a source that says labels it anti-Iranian discrimination? Governments take particular policies toward countries all the time, but those policies are not necessarily discrimination (at least not in the sense that this article discusses). As we resolve these questions we will improve the article and increase its effectiveness in educating readers about anti-Iranian sentiment, something we cannot accomplish by original research. --Agha Nader (talk) 14:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

that is evident. the measure was taken and only targetted Iranians. --Babakexorramdin (talk) 15:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

With respect, what is evident is not always spoken. As with all things in Wikipedia - if it is not reliably, verifiably cited, it is not included. Agha Nader is correct that a better citation is needed that specifically identifies Iranians (and not simply Muslims) as the targets for special attention.

The problem with this article - and why it has been nominated for deletion twice - is that some of the information confuses the line between anti-Iranian sentiment, and anti-Muslim sentiment. The distinction needs to be made clearer, and the matters made much more separate. For example, the current nomenclature dispute over the Persian Gulf (wherein a small yet notable group of peoples want the name of the body changed to Arabian Gulf) is a specifically anti-Iranian sentiment issue. A hate crime perpetuated against a Muslim shop owner who happens to be not only Muslim but Iranian is not necessarily one directed towards that person's Iranian background. If it is, the source needs to specifically say so. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

the source was already provided--Babakexorramdin (talk) 00:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

(previous comment withdrawn) Yep, the citation you added certainly seems to say just that. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Post 9/11 discrimination citation

An editor has re-added the section on post=9/11 discrimination detailing the beating of the New York nail salon owner, noting is their edit summary "this is a sourced, she ws targeted because he identity, Muslim and Iranian". This is only partially accurate. The person that was attacked was in fact a Muslim. I noted this in the article discussion section above ('Article reverts'), the fact that the woman was Iranian was incidental; she was attacked because she was Middle-Eastern. This is evidenced by the citation provided, wherein there is no indication that the attack was specifically precipitated by her Iranian ethnicity. In fact, the citation notably refers to the attack addressing her identity as a Muslim, as evidenced by the statement:

"...and scrawling anti-Muslim slurs on her mirrors, sources said."

Note that it doesn't say anti-Iranian (or anti-Persian or Farsis) slurs; it specifically notes that the slurs were anti-Muslim in content. Therefore, I am not sure how this incident belongs in this article (though an argument could certainly be made for inclusion in Islamaphobia or an article on anti-Muslim sentiment). Pending further citation that specifically identifies the motivation for the attack to be anti-Iranian in nature, I am again removing the section. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 07:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

she was attacked because of her identity which is Muslim and Iranian, and you're arguing semantics here to be honest. Anti-Muslim and anti-Iranian are are interchangeable in this case, it was a racist attack, and she was targeted because of her idenitiy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kurdo777 (talk • contribs) 08:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I find two problems with your reasoning, Kurdo. First, the statement: "Anti-Muslim and anti-Iranian are are interchangeable in this case" is incorrect, and I am guessing that if I asked an Indonesian Muslim or a Muslim from Chechnya or Saudi, they would tend to agree that anti-Iranian and anti-Muslim are not interchangeable in any case. You turning the two separate things into synonyms for one another is speculation. As well, the citation source is unambiguous: she was attacked because she was Muslim, not because she was Iranian. Her identity may include both facets, but the attackers were addressing the Muslim aspect. This is supported by the source that notes anti-Muslim slurs. If you feel that the attack was precipitated by her nationality as an Iranian, you will need to find a reliable citation that says that. Until then, we do not include statements not specifically taken from citation. I am removing the section again as per an OR interpretation, and I would encourage the editor (in this case, Kurdo) to take the time to discuss the matter to its conclusion before reconsidering adding it in. Yes, it is in fact cited. But is does not say what you seem to think it says. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 08:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I answered this in other talk page . Iranian stores has Persian text on it, or written Iranian/ Persian on it. There is sometimes Iranian flags. The culprits usually investigate the situation and know their victim before the attack. Moreover her Iranian background is a fact. Islamophobia and Anti-Iranianism may overlap in this case, but it is not a task of wikipedians to interpret. That case is a case of Anti-Iranianism, but it is also Ok to put it in the Islamophia article too. In any case it should not be deleted here.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 08:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

""With respect, we are using only the single citation, which does not state that the attack was based on her being Persian. Please feel free to introduce a reference that notes the attack arose because she was Iranian. Most Americans cannot tell the difference between state flags,much less the differences between the flags of Iran and Iraq. Never underestimate the stupidity of large groups of people. Until we have a reference, we cannot include this statement. If you feel I am in error, please feel free to consult an admin, or bring the matter to the discussion page at WP:OR. Until then, its presence in the article is in violation of our policies. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 09:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

it is true, but nevertheless the act can be still qualified as a case of anti-Iranianism. Only the fact that many Americans cannot distinguish between iran and Iraq and think all are terrorist is a case of anti-middle easternism which in this case is anti-Iraniasm in concerte. these things overlap and it is not wikipedians task to interprete. I too was diaallowed to give my ointerpretations in wikipedia many times ago. They call it Original research. It is only to cite sources and facts without interpretation otherwise it was ok for me to include your interpretations in the text.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 09:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

No, actually, I do not believe it can. In order for something to be called anti-Iranian sentiment, it has to have as its focus an antipathy towards something specifically Iranian. This is basic Marcus Aurelius:

Of each particular thing ask: what is it in itself? In this case, the nature of the thing is the attack. It is the first and principal thing.

What is its nature? The attack is directed at someone of Middle-Eastern descent or origin. Their ethnicity is unknown or incidental.

The questions, abstracted from Mediations. I have used to to illustrate that the fact she was Iranian was incidental, or unimportant to the attack. By your reasoning, the entire attack could have been an anti-woman crime, for after all; the crime did in fact take place against a woman. The citation does not support that the attackers were aware of her ethnicity outside of being Muslim. Unless or until such a citation appears, we cannot include it. As I noted before, if you feel I am in error, please feel free to consult an admin, or bring the matter to the discussion page at WP:OR. This sort of misinterpretation has come up many times before. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 10:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

dear arcayne,that doesn't make it any less of racism, when an Iranian Muslim is attacked, that's both anti-Iranian and anti-Muslim, just like when a Jewish person is attacked for her religion, it's both anti-Semitic (race) and anti-Jewish (religion). for example, I am a Muslim Kurd from Iran, if I ran a kurdish business in cali, and RACISTS attacked and vandalized my store, I wouldn't just consider that to be anti-mulsim, such attack would also be anti-Kurd and anti-Iranian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kurdo777 (talk • contribs)

My deepest sympathies for having been the victim of a racist attack, and I am glad that you escaped serious injury. I hope that this post finds you healthy, God willing.

With respect to your example about your experience, I do not know if your store was vandalized because you were Muslim (in a country that's 90% Roman Catholic, I would imagine that a Muslim would rather stand out),or because you are a Kurd. Are Kurds visibly distinctive an different from other Middle-Eastern people? Before answering that, consider if the Columbians would know that visible difference.

In regards to your second example, you essentially prove my point for me. You stated the Jew was attacked because they were Jewish.They were not attacked because they were Jews from America, or from Israel or from Russia. In this example, we already know that the religion was the focus of the attack, not their nationality. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 10:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Arcayn why you always try to say oh thats not that bad? I am sorry if it hurts your American pride but these things have happened and no one is putting the responsibility on all Americans' shoulder.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 11:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Forgive me, but when have I ever said of racial violence: "that's not so bad"? Racial and religious violence is the vilest form of rationalized action there is, and is without any justification whatsoever. I wasn't speaking as an American, or even an American feeling defensive - I'm a wiki editor, and I've done nothing wrong. It might be easier if we instead focus on the content of the dispute. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 12:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

you allways try to relativate things like: oh it was because of nuclear energy, it is because of the middle eastern look. In all cases ther is always because of something. the culprits always justify or motivate their actions BECAUSE of something. the fact remains that they target their victims --Babakexorramdin (talk) 12:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

With respect, I don't think I am "relativate"-ing - or simplifying - anything here. Imagine a mob, which has a certain mentality. Without a doubt, it was this mentality that drove the attack on the nail salon. Mobs are not known for their keen insight or intelligence. I would imagine that the mob either did not know, or did not care where the woman was from. They saw someone from the Middle East, and they perpetrated their cowardly and vicious assault. I know that they didn't know her national heritage, because of the citation that we have for the story. It doesn't mention that the attackers referred to her Iranian background. It doesn't mention that they wrote Farsi (or is it Farsis?) slurs on the wall. They wrote anti-Muslim slurs. We have a citation that says the attack was an anti-Muslim one. If yu think they were attacking her because of her Persian roots, you need to find a citation that says that. We cannot write what the citation does not say. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The Source (American source any way) says: "The attack followed two weeks of phone calls in which Iranian-American Zohreh Assemi was called a "terrorist" and told to "get out of town," friends and family said. " This indicates that they knew who the woman was and were aware of her Iranian origin. Nowhere is mentioned that they did not know her Iranian origin.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 08:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC) Moreover regarding the profession of woman and seeing her picture, she is not a type it is unlikely that she was seen as a "Moslem who is a terrorist and does not belong in the USA"--Babakexorramdin (talk) 08:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, you need to re-read your post again, Babak - "This indicates". They may have known her number, but calling her a terrorist? How many Iranians are known to the West to be Iranian terrorists? I am a pretty well-read guy (at least, more well-read than your garden-variety mob slob), but I don't know of any. There is no indication that they knew her Iranian background. I encourage you to find a reliable source that says that the attack was because she was Iranian, because this source makes it pretty clea that the attack was based on her being a Muslim. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 08:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Arcayune please refrain from statemnets such as "more well-read than your garden-variety mob slob" and let keep this discussion civilized. I said it indicates, because I was fair, and open to other reasonings. The fact remains that we do not know if the committers knew her Iranian background or not, but the sources indicates fairly that they did. aNSWER TO YOUR FIRST QUESTION: YES iRANIANS ARE OFTEN VERBALLY ABUSED IN THE WEST FOR BEING TERRORISTS and much more for example when Arash esmaeili refused the match with the Israeli Judoka the Dutch programe network was comparing him to Nazis. I even have not included that in the text. There have not been much research about it, but asking some bunch of school kids of Iranian origins you could see that they indeed are called terrorists by other children. Not only by the Western children but also by Moslem ones, for example the Moroccans. I am fair enough not to include these things as cases of anti-Iraniasm for the lack of reliable written sources. Another thing is that the Iranian student controversy made it clear: there was no Moslem solidarity in the Netherlands. While the native Dutch greatly supported the petition, Turks were the only Moslem ethnic group in the Netehrlands who supported the petition, Moroccans, Surinamese, Somalis, Afghans, Arabs etc... deliberately did not support it despite multiple requests. So did the Anglo-Americans (despite multiple requests asking for support), the Support from the USA -with the notable exception of Noam Chomsky- came from the Iranian diaspora there as well as some Hispanics. Also this "indicates" the Anglo-American views on Iranians. My personal impression: in the USA an Iranian person gets harassed by police from the time he enters the airport. People at streets do not react harshly because of your darkish hairs. But if one knows that you are Iranian they begin bullshitting about terrorism etc... even American professors say harsh things which "indicates" their negative views on the Iranians. Ask many Iranian Americans and you will get similar response --Babakexorramdin (talk) 13:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for being "fair" and not including unsourced original research... I guess? Just because you could potentially add "cases of anti-Iraniasm [sic]" that "lack of reliable written sources" does not mean we should allow you to speculate about an attack and call it anti-Iranian discrimination. Although we do appreciate you not doing so. You summed it up when you said "The fact remains that we do not know if the committers [sic] knew her Iranian background or not." However, I diverge on you on the point that 'the article indicates the attackers knew she was Iranian.' Perhaps you could quote the part of the article that gave you that conclusion. Regards--Agha Nader (talk) 20:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I already did. And I appreciate if you refrain puting (sic). As I know your edit history I also advise you to take a look at anti-semitism articles and compare them with here.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 20:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Er, Babak, maybe this is a facet of English not being your primary language, but my comment

"I am a pretty well-read guy (at least, more well-read than your garden-variety mob slob)"

had nothing to do with you - it referred to the relative ability of someone participating in mob menality to take the tme to distinguish a target's country of origin. I would like to ask you to Assume Good Faith with your fellow editors here; we are not here to make you look like a jerk or a fool, and we want to work together within the framework of rules provided by Wikipedia to create and edit articles. You will find that the Golden Rule works very effectively here, for the most part. If you do not assume failings of your fellow editors, the likelihood is that they are not going to assume them of you.

Speaking of Agha Nader's use of 'sic' - which you seemed to take offense to the application of - is a method by which we call attention to spelling errors here. He is not calling you or your comments 'sick' or 'ill'. Again, I believe that this might be a function of your relative unfamiliarity with the admittedly complex English language. If you have a question as to meaning, do not assume. Ask,

Lastly, two different editors have told you that the citation does not match the criteria required for inclusion within this particular article. The citation addresses the attack as anti-Muslim,not anti-Iranian. You have been invited to seek a reliable citation that more specifically notes the attack was inspired by the victim's nationality, not ethnicity. If you find such, we can revisit the subject of including the example with the new citation. Until then, I think we have exhausted the conversational value of this particular statement. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Let me tell you that I assumed good faith. Still after several of these "personal wording incidents) I remained polite. Nedr Agha put )sic) after "cases of anti-Iranianism" meaning he sees them as fake.. And your comment meant that my info comes from gossip etc... anyway I brought citations from the same source which says that the Iranian is beaten up, and it says that they knew her because she was also harassed by telephone many times. Moreover the text does not say that they did not know her Iranian background. Maybe her moslem background was also a reason for being attcked. But it is always the sae: People are discriminated (and attacked) based on something. It happenes that certain ethnicities and nationalities have certain religion, look in a certain way, and many have their own economic niches. Many are associated with certain ideologies--Babakexorramdin (talk) 06:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

How can I show you something you don't want to see? You wrote "anti-Iraniasm" not "anti-Iranianism." I advise you take a look at those two words, at least for a minute before you respond with ridiculous statements such as "meaning he sees them as fake."--Agha Nader (talk) 16:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

are you going to react to the anti-semitism (or Anti-Arabism etc...) article or is Anti-Iranianism the only "anti"-article, which has your attention?--Babakexorramdin (talk) 16:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

With respect, you need to apologize to Agha Nader, Babak. He has been extremely polite to you, despite the fact that you have managed to misspell his name virtually every time you have used it (not to mention mine). If you are dealing with an impediment that interferes with your usage of a keyboard, then it can be forgiven, but if you are simply posting as fast as you can, and are making spelling errors because of that, then that is not an acceptable excuse. Take the time to use Spellcheck and make sure you are at least getting the names of the people who you are talking to correctly.

As well, I explained - rather clearly, I think - how the term "sic" is used in English. If you aren't going to even read the posts, it makes attempting to come to a consensus rather difficult, and eventually excludes you from that process as 'unwilling to get it.' Discussion requires you to listen carefully to what others say and respond appropriately. Two editors - two very different editors, mind you - have told you that you need a citation that says the attack was specifically caused by the victims' Iranian background. Without that citation, we cannot include it in an article named Anti -Iranian sentiment. If you find such a citation, great. Until then, I think this conversation has become moot. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

with due respect, I think your manner of talk is very disrespectful, assuming that the öther"is dumb. I cannot remember that I have insulted Aghanader by misspelling his name. The misspellings come because I am dislectic plus some muscle/nerve desease prevents me from functioning well. Even that is a gift I got because of my Iranian background, as a child during Iran-Iraq war. You always dispute it so Its of no use to talk about it further. I only asked nderaha to look at anti-semitism article and be fair. You guys are trying so hard making anti-Iranianism a marginal phenomenon. You demand "precise" citations, while it is obvious that they knew her Iranian background. You even questioned the Iranian students issue in the Netherlands. It might be because you do not know Dutch. You were so arrogant to think you were right and someone else cannot, and very confident about it. Then you saw that I already had provided you with sources and the sources said that. I know that you want to let anti-Iranianism look less bad as it is. At least in the west. I had a consensus formule which could encompass your interpretations as well. But unfortunately you act in a very authoritarian manner. A las! But thanks for the animation. I think this should be included in the article. From now on I will monitor and mention even minor cases of anti-Iranism. --Babakexorramdin (talk) 22:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

As you will. You might want to discuss your concerns with an admin (which isn't the first time you have been offered that advice by this editor). They might be able to highlight the concerns better tan your fellow editors have. As for myself, I am sorry if you feel I have been disrespectful of you. It was not my intent. I was simply trying to impress upon you (repeatedly) the need to divorce yourself from what you think (which we cannot include) to what you can prove (which we can include via citable references). I am sorry that you seemed not to fathom the difference. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Image captions

There is quite a lot in each image, isn't there? Is it possible to actually use that information in the article, so that reference links and the like aren't needed overmuch in the image captions? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 07:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

And I've removed the 300 poster image of the malformed person, as the character portrayed is not Iranian (or even Persian, which predates the modern Iranian by thousands of years). - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I think according to the name of article , and due to reactions that the film caused in Iran , it should be not removed. There is no difference between Persia and Iran and they are equivalent.About the picture portraying an elite solider of Persian army(Javidan),I'm not insisting , but the movie at least indirectly said so ...--Alborz Fallah (talk) 06:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the reaction felt by Iranians in Iran is not the same thing as anti-Iranian sentiment. No one has cited in any way whatsoever that the intent of the image (or the film, for that matter) was intentionally designed to be a kick in the face to Iranians. Without that, the key factor of sentiment is missing, and is therefore not within the purview of this article. With respect, your argument that ancient Persia and modern-day Iran "are equivalent" is your opinion, which - while respected by myself - is also not allowed. Lastly, as the soldier is not specifically designated in either the graphic novel that the film is based upon or the film credits, (it is instead said in the GN and the film that they are soldiers of the Persian empire, and not necessarily Persian themselves) we cannot add the image - it isn't an Iranian being shown. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

As I said before, I'm not insisting to include the poster so much , because it's not a big deal at all and I'm not really sure exactly what does it shows, but anyway , I think the [ancient] Persia and Iran are equivalent (Please see Iran naming dispute).It can be considered as disputed that historical countries correlate with modern countries or not , but in common sense , when a movie is against a historical entity that is the infancy of a nation , it can be considered to include the descendant nation as well.--Alborz Fallah (talk) 19:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

And to add , no single person out of that "empire" had a "Normal" , "humanoid " look in the movie! Plus portraiting king Xerxes as black person to increase the alienation.--Alborz Fallah (talk) 19:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I have to admit that I disagree with you, Alborz. I am familiar with the Iran Naming dispute (a side note: have you ever noticed how many disputes involve Iran nowadays?); the article is extraordinarily unbalanced and full of logical fallacies. However, I disagree that ancient Persia shows the "infancy" of modern Iran. That would be like saying that America was the infant of the Plains Indians civilization or the Roundheads of 1600's England. However, that's a discussion best left to the nomenclature article's discussion page, not here. As it is, the words Iran or Iranian did not appear a single time in the film. Not dismissing that one eventually cam from the other, the argument made earlier remains the same - for it to fit the article, it must contain anti-Iranian sentiment. As it does not, it cannot be included.

As a last note, are you sure you were watching the same film I saw? Rodrigo Santoro, who portrayed Xerxes, was not black. Perhaps suggesting that such "increase(s) the alienation", I guess there would have to be the viewer's own feelings about black people to consider that "alienating" or "monstrous". I don't consider a person's ethnicity a descriptive of either. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Arcayne that it should be left out of the article until there is a reliable source labeling it as anti-Iranian sentiment. Furthermore, Persia under the Achaemenid Empire is not exactly 'equivalent' to modern day Iran. Although this is irrelevant to the present issue, I would submit that Persians in the Achaemenid Empire can be called Iranian: "The name Iran was used as early as the third century B.C. by a ruler who described his empire as Iranshahr and himself as 'king of kings of Iran.'"-- Daniel, Elton L. The History of Iran. p. 1.--Agha Nader (talk) 02:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

That's obvious that neither Rodrigo Santoro is black in real life ,nor Jim Carrey is green , but the problem is about their appearance in films as Xerxes and Grinch.(See also Xerxes in 300)."Viewer's own feelings about black peoples" seems to be unrelated here :I used the word "alienation" as a disclaimer to show there is nothing wrong in showing a movie personal as black or any other race , but to show him "different" .That difference may be in their different skin color , their monsterous appearance or depicting them as homosexuals.About the connection of the name "Persia" and "Iran" ; feel free to correct the article that seems to be unbalanced , but anyway , the Iranian government has officially announced that both "Persia" and "Iran" could be used interchangeably [3].--Alborz Fallah (talk) 16:22, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear Alborz Fallah, could you post the source that specifically says the film is anti-Iranian so we can review it?--Agha Nader (talk) 17:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear Agha Nader , as with the previous talks that we had about the "sources" and "reliability" and etc, I don't think I can (at least the type that fits your standard!) but anyway, that is a widespread belief among Iranians , as the president Ahmadinejad pointed to it in his speeches[4].Again I think neither in Wikipedia , nor in any other occasion , the real reality can't be achieved , but the article is going to give the reader the information around a topic - and not about the reality- . --Alborz Fallah (talk) 17:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

And to add about the usage of the word (Iran) , I know it was used in the form of Airyanem Vaejah from a very ancient time , perhaps at least 1000 BC , but the "Persia" was name that the outsiders used to name the nation.--Alborz Fallah (talk) 18:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

With respect, Alborz. We can only write that which has been cited. If someone did not say it via notable, reliable source, we cannot include it, any more than we could include the MEMRII statements in 300, wherein Iran vociferously blamed Israel and Zionism for the film. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• I know it's impossible to count any source as notable and reliable , but I meant around any controversy, there should be a revealing of both side's points of views.If we don't mention what's the idea of Iranian public and Ahmaninejad about the films , where are the ordinary people going to get their information? Again I think adding someone's idea doesn't means to accept it , but to inform others what did he said . Do you think a president's speech (regardless of of what president!), is not worth to mention?--Alborz Fallah (talk) 13:15, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure, we can mention it, but be aware that Ahmaninejad's remarks then come under scrutiny, as we need to maintain objective neutrality. His own remarks at Columbia University act as a bullseye for controversy and anti-Iranian sentiment. An I disagree that we cannot find sources that are notable or reliable. In the section below, I found two (while correctly framing hte inclusion of songs by someone else). - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Arcayne, you obviously are not educated about the name of the country. Persia was known as Iran for thousands of years as Iran within the empire. It was only known as Persia in other languages, such as English. Similar to how Germany is known as Deutschland by the Germans themselves. As Germany/Deutschland is interchangeable, so to is Persia/Iran. It's laughable that you're demanding additional sources in addition to what was already provided in the Iran naming dispute. Iran naming dispute) You might as well require documentation for using United States interchangeably with the United States of America. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.175.194.24 (talk) 09:17, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Song Removal

The listing of songs supposedly by the Beach Boys and the Offspring have been removed, as they were faulty research.

The first entry, "Bomb Iran" was not in fact by the Beach Boys, but was in fact a parody of their 1965 single, Babara Ann. This reference denotes the true origin of the parody. I am not saying it cannot be added back in, but it must be accurate to be included. I would point out that a case can be made that John McCain displayed significant anti-Iranian sentiment (note hi comments at the end of the cited reference). The Beach Boys had nothing to do with it.

As for the Offspring tune, Tehran, please take a look at the lyrics. The song seems more a condemnation of US policy in the Middle East than on Tehran itself. It is not citably anti-Iranian. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposed addition

I propose adding some more material on discrimination against Iranian Americans during the hostage crisis fallout. John Tehranian has written a pertinent paragraph on discrimination against Iranians. The paragraph is on page 29 of Compulsory Whiteness: Towards a Middle Eastern Legal Scholarship. If you follow this link [5] you should have no problem getting to it. There is also some discussion of portrayal of Iranians in films, though minimal. The proposed addition would mainly be on discrimination towards student. If there are no objections I will make the addition.--Agha Nader (talk) 00:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

That seems like a pretty good idea, as anti-Iranian sentiment seems to have spiked during that time. Are you thinking of expanding the section on the subject? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes. The largest part of the section is on the Iran-Iraq war. The lead defines anti-Iranian sentiments as "feelings of hostility, hatred, or prejudice towards Iran, its citizens, or Iranian peoples." I think we should focus on hatred and prejudice and less on hostility. A group that is hostile towards Iran, perhaps for political reasons, is not necessarily anti-Iranian. The same could be said about Israel and antisemitism. In both cases hostility could be motivated by anti-Iranian sentiments or antisemitism. A stronger article would give most weight to examples of prejudice, discrimination, and hatred. Therefore, the section on the United States could be improved by including information of discrimination against Iranian Americans.--Agha Nader (talk) 06:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Reference time

There is a lot of information that has been left uncited for over a month. All statements likely to be contested (for neutrality, verifiability or accuracy) needs to be cited or risks being removed without further notice. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

A user removed a lot of the cn tags that were added, stating that a "more references needed" tag would be sufficient.It is most certainly not sufficient, as there exists a great deal of information that is not cited, incorrect, and otherwise unusable. If users are concerned about the plethora of citation tags in the article, might I suggest that folk roll up their sleeves and add citations. The alternative to the citation needed tags is to simply remove all uncited information, which I would regret but would feel compelled to, as some of the info has been uncited for months. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

What you sare doing is disruptive and called exessive tagging, if you think a section is poorly sourced, just ad one "more citations need" tag to the section, and that's sufficent. you don't need to put 200 tags in the page. also, some of the information you're requesting refernce for is alerady refrenced. --Kurdo777 (talk) 02:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Kurdo, if you more carefully observe, you will see I tagged that information which was weak and needed citation to remian in the article. As some of the information needing sources is mixed in with information that is either cited or doesn't need citation, a general tag at the top of the section is too vague - especially in an article of this nature.

As well, I am fairly certain that I didn't place "200 tags" to the page; exaggeration isn't really going to serve the cause of civility here, so perhaps you could refrain from doing so.

Lastly, please give me the benefit of the doubt that I read the citations that were close to the sections needing citation. They did not include information pertaining to the info I tagged for citation. Perhaps, instead of complaining about the tags and edit-warring, you could do as Zereshk has studiously done, and added tags to the article. I notice your blanket revert happened to remove his contributions. Though you have since re-added them, it might have been avoided if you had simply posted your concerns here on the discussion page - or maybe just went out and found the required citations.

This is the second time you have been counseled about edit-warring. Let's not have a third conversation about this, as the repercussion would likely be unpleasant. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 07:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, Kurdo my chum - the article is locked. Care to iron out the problem? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Unprotected

As I stated in my edit summary, any reverts made without discussion will result in immediate re-protection. However, this is not a free ticket to edit war with hopes that your version (whatever it may be) will get protected. Any further reverts or partial reverts without a clear consensus, will result in the edit warriors getting blocked. Please use this talk page to come to an agreement, and once you have done so, you may implement a compromise version. Khoikhoi 04:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Reference Time, Part deux

Okay, here is the DIFF that delineates the problems in the article that served as the point of conflict, which triggered the dispute lock (a la the House that Jack Built):

1. "In January 2007 Saudi Arabian King Abdullah said that attempts to convert Muslim Sunnis to the Shi'a branch of Islam will not succeed, and that Sunnis would always make up the majority of the world Muslims."

There appears to be dissent as to the usage of one citation over another. As well the unexplained citation switch from the Seattle Times replacing the one from New Statesman, a synthesized statement was added to the article, supposedly attributed to the Seattle Times article: Although Abdullah did not mention Iran by name, his comments appeared aimed at easing Arab concerns over the Persian Shi'a nation's growing influence in the Middle East. The red flag that warns us that this is synthesized information is the word "appeared". The reference doesn't say what the editor adding it wants it to say. We don't incude such, as per WP:SYN and WP:SOAP.

1. "Despite getting much financial support from Iran Palestinians have been an unreliable ally. "

I am quite fortunate to have the resources of a university library and one of the largest public libraries in the US within walking distance from my office, so on lunch break, I toddled on over to check this source out. In point of fact (verifiable via the online link to Amazon here), the statement is not to be found in the book. The only "unreliable ally" has in fact been Washington DC. Because of this, the statement should be removed immediately, as it is clearly a POV statement. I won't een delve the motivations and leanings of an author whose name (Trita Parsi) is so obviously a pen name: Parsi = farsi = Persia = Iran.

1. "Iran Air Flight 655 (IR655) was a commercial flight operated by Iran Air that flew from Bandar Abbas, Iran to Dubai, UAE. On Sunday July 3, 1988, towards the end of the Iran Iraq War, the aircraft flying IR655 was shot down by the U.S. Navy guided missile cruiser USS Vincennes between Bandar Abbas and Dubai, killing all 290 civilians, among whom 66 children. The Vincennes was inside Iranian territorial waters at the time. The men of the Vincennes were all awarded combat-action ribbons. Lustig, the air-warfare co-ordinator, won the navy’s Commendation Medal for "heroic achievement," ... to "quickly and precisely complete the firing procedure""

The problem with this bit (aside from the grammar error "among whom 66 children") is that it creates an argument that the seamen were awarded for shooting down a civilian aircraft, and paints them as monsters. While some Iranians might feel this way, this is an encyclopedia, and one of our core policies is that of neutrality. That the incident happened is neutral. That the seamen (and notably Lustig) received commendations arising from the tragedy is neutral. Putting them together isn't. I propose the following neutral language:

"Iran Air Flight 655 (IR655) was a commercial flight operated by Iran Air that flew from Bandar Abbas, Iran to Dubai, UAE. On Sunday July 3, 1988, towards the end of the Iran Iraq War, the aircraft flying IR655 was shot down by the U.S. Navy guided missile cruiser USS Vincennes between Bandar Abbas and Dubai, killing all 290 civilians, including 66 children. The Vincennes, responding to attacks on its aircraft by Iranian gunboats, was inside Iranian territorial waters at the time and confused the passenger jet with an incoming fighter plane, a mistake compounded by the Iran Air flights uncharacteristic descent and failure to respond to multiple attempts at contact."

1. (The Joker image and captioning reiterating the info contained within the image). I have responded previously as to why the image tends to overpower the section, where a smaller image, perhaps that of the Joker in headdress, with a short captioning noting how the insanity of the fictional character is compared to that of the Ayatollah is better. As well, the text of the section could explain more of the background as to why the comparison was used.

Thoughts? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• [1] The statement is directly from Seattle Times, here is another source if needed [6] [2] The source is reliable, Trita Parsi is a real person, and an academic and Iran expert who who makes regular appearances on CNN and other news networks[7], there are millions in India and West Asia who have the family name Parsi/Farsi/Irani etc. [3] Saying "Iran capitalized on the shoot down" is a synthesized statement and blaming Iran for the incident is OR and POV, and certainly not what the source says. [4] The inclusion of Joker image is already under discussion in another section of the talk page. --Kurdo777 (talk) 17:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Regarding #1, I would recommend that you replace the citation with the one you have mentioned above, as it is far closer to a real statement than what was attributed to the Seattle pager. Regarding #2, I am not saying the source is unreliable, I am saying that it doesn't say what was cited - I checked. Regarding #3, if the Iranian government made money by selling the stamps showing a US ship shooting down a plane, could you explain how it is synthesis to note such? Regarding #4, yes, the Joker image is being discussed, but it was removed while it was being discussed. Such is normal practice, which is why your revert is still in place for the time being. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• My 2 cents.
  Argument number one is based on the exact text of the source , word by word .If Arcayne thinks the Seattle Times writer has WP:SYN bias,that is not important in addressing the source ! I know that the Wikipedians may not Synthesize materials , but if a writer of a source synthesize the data , it's not the Wikipedian's duty to judge about his mistake! At most , putting a tag of {{Verify credibility}} will suffice.
  Number two , if the sentence is not from the book , it may be edited according to that source : I think in page 17 of that book, there is something written about the unreliability of Palestinian alliance . IF YOU HAVE ACCESS TO THE BOOK , CAN YOU FIND IT ? Anyway ,the doubt about the unreliability of Trita Parsi , based on his/her country of origin is invalid.
  Number 3 : If we are going to use the source [8],then the paragraph would be like that :

  "Iran Air Flight 655 (IR655) was a commercial flight operated by Iran Air that flew from Bandar Abbas, Iran to Dubai, UAE. On Sunday July 3, 1988, towards the end of the Iran Iraq War, the aircraft flying IR655 was shot down by the U.S. Navy guided missile cruiser USS Vincennes between Bandar Abbas and Dubai, killing all 290 civilians, among whom 66 children.The warship was actually inside of Iran's territorial waters to defend its helicopter, which had been deployed--under orders from fleet headquarters--on a reconnaissance mission, to check out the group of gunboats hovering further north.In the end, nothing in the way of punishment happened to Rogers and his crew. Rogers became a military instructor, and then retired in 1991. The crew of the Vincennes received combat-action ribbons. The air warfare coordinator on board, Lt. Cmdr. Scott Lustig, received a commendation medal for his ability to "quickly and precisely complete the firing procedure"--the same firing procedure that shot down Flight 655."

  Number 4 :The caption of the Joker image can be omitted to avoid "overpowering the section" , but about the changing of the text and explaining the backgrounds of the comparison between Iranians and Joker , I need more explanation --Alborz Fallah (talk) 20:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Arcayne, the POV statement "Iran later capitalized on the incident" is original research, with no citation to any source. Issuing stamps to honor the memory of victims of such incidents/attacks in common practice through-out the world. --Kurdo777 (talk) 21:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I would welcome you to indicate the precedent of issuing a stamp showing an airplane explosion. There isn't. If the Iranian government profited in any way from the sale of that stamp, then they are - by definition - capitalizing (capitalizing = profiting) on the incident. OR requires interpretation. Objective fact does not. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

A nifty source

Not sure if Iran-specific info can be bulled from this source, but O thought I would put it here for perusal. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

And this [9] (Section C. Comics and Counter-Hegemonic Subversion)?--Alborz Fallah (talk) 17:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Israel

"An Iranian attack on Israel will lead to a harsh response by Israel that will cause the destruction of the Iranian nation." Israeli Infrastructure Minister Benjamin Ben-Eliezer (Haaretz).
Considering the fact that he is not talking about an Atomic attack , but "An Iranian attack" at all , I think it can be mentioned in the article.--Alborz Fallah (talk) 11:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

It might be beneficial to note that this was prompted by the testing (and faked imagery) of missiles capable of reaching Israel, coupled with the government's long-standing commitment to the "annihilation of Israel", and that the "Zionist regime should be wiped off the map." (1, 2, 3). In order to provide neutral, encyclopedic content, it might be very helpful to understand why some of this antipathy exists. Presenting Iranians and the Iranian government as totally innocent victims in this article is POV and inaccurate. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

There is controversy [10]about the translation of the sentence "Zionist regime should be wiped off the map" from Persian to English , and because I'm Persian language myself I think the sentence "اسرائیل باید از صفحه روزگار محو شود ", rather means "Israel have to disappear throw time " ,but anyway , that is a different controversy , and I think if the Ahmadinejad has said that,or not ,the above sentence of Israeli minister is an Anti-Iranian sentiment.--Alborz Fallah (talk) 17:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say it wasn't, Alborz. I was saying that in order to provide balance, we need to explain from whence that comment/sentiment developed. Regarding the comment by the Iranian president (or the repeated religious zealotry spouting about the "Zionist regime"), I think its pretty clear that they mean the country of Israel ill will (no controversy there whatsoever), so a lack of friendliness from Israel is to be expected. If we are going to note the comment from Israel, we are going to note why it came about. That is what neutral and encyclopedic content means. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Barbie vs. Bratz and the anti-Iranian sentiment?

Juror No. 8,in the Barbie v Bratz trial, in which the toy giant Mattel has win victory over its rival MGA Entertainment, was removed for making an ethnic slur about Isaac Larian, the chief of MGA, who was born in Iran.The juror characterized Iranians as "stubborn, rude", and as "thieves" who have "stolen other persons' ideas.".[11], [12].--Alborz Fallah (talk) 10:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

how is this notable in the larger scale? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Is it a sign of public opinion about Iranians ? I think Iranian's public opinion about the Americans is far more positive than Americans about Iranians : I have graphic information about this , but don't know if it can be used in this article ? (76% of Iranians favorable about Americans , vs 29% of Americans favorable about Iranian people )--Alborz Fallah (talk) 18:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Again, I think that Iran having taken US hostages less than 30 years ago might have something to do with that antipathy, mate. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Are we going to dig about the causes or do we are going to show the information - without interpretation- ? --Alborz Fallah (talk) 18:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

We are going to present the roots of the anti-sentiment, not just the sentiment by itself, as that is more encyclopedic, via citation. You pointed out a seeming confusion as to why the Americans might feel less love for the Iranians than the converse. I told you. If you are going to get upset at an honest answer, perhaps asking less questions might be the way to go for you. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:23, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Then there should be a mention of USA role in 1953 Iranian coup d'état, before the hostage crisis . --Alborz Fallah (talk) 09:39, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, explain why. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

If the encyclopedic nature of Wikipedia makes it necessary to find out when radical Iranian students invaded a diplomatic place , what was the reason that the Iranian nation did not reject it at all, American meddling in the coup d'état may be a reason that should be included in the article . --Alborz Fallah (talk) 13:01, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry, I don't understand. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:02, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I mean if we are going to present the roots of the anti-sentiment, not just the sentiment by itself, as that is more encyclopedic,the conflict did not began in 1979 by hostage crisis : it was the participation of USA in 1953 Iranian coup d'état that turned on the cascade .--Alborz Fallah (talk) 18:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

No, I meant, I don't understand how it "turned on the cascade" of anti-Iranian sentiment. For example, the reason why antipathy exists recently has, as its roots, the hostage crisis, the (possibly) misunderstood nuclear program, and the less-than-charming statements from its current president regarding social and international policy. Perhaps blaming the actions of Iran's current prickliness on something that happened over 55 years ago is stretching the ability of reason. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "SHAHEEN" :
  • {{cite web |title=The Comic Book Arab|publisher=AMEU|work=The Link|url=http://www.ameu.org/page.asp?iid=142&aid=186&pg=1 |accessdate=May 25 |accessyear=2008 |date=November - December, 1991 |author=Shaheen, Jack}}
  • <!-- page 1, line 15 from the bottom of the page -->

DumZiBoT (talk) 01:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Text not supported by citation

Recently, I was re-evaluating the article's citations and discovered that the citation doesn't regarding Palestine being an "unreliable ally" isn't actually in the source listed. The Google online version of the book fairly confirms that this particular statement doesn't appear in the text. As the statement makes a fairly extraordinary statement, the citation required must be equal to the task. It is not. Therefore, it cannot remain. As this content i mirrored across a number of other sites (as evidenced by this simple Google search), it is ever more important that unverified material not be allowed to remain active in the article, being lent an air of authenticity by a book that does not say what the statement connected to it infers it says. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:59, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I do not know about the book., I have not referred to it and I have not read it. I have no time to read it either. But it does not amtter because other sources are there and they are sufficent. You can go google to find out what the Hamas leader said. That is easy. No need to delete it. Sorry to say it, but reveiweing your edits it only seems that your main aim is to challenge Iranians, mainly in identity issues. That is not very productive--Babakexorramdin (talk) 13:38, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I provided a link to its online version. If you are unable to find the time to check even that out, I am unsure how you plan to effectively defend the source. See my comments below, in your special section. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:19, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

the deleted section

Arcayne can you tell us why the sources here are not reliable?

Despite getting much financial support from Iran Palestinians have been an unreliable ally.(source: Treacherous Alliance: The Secret Dealings of Israel, Iran, and the United States by Trita Parsi, p17) Yasser Arafat actively supported Saddam in his war against Iranians (source: Yasir Arafat: A Political Biography by Barry Rubin, Judith Colp Rubin, p85) Interesting is that even for Hamas Pan-Arabism and anti-Iranian Sentiment got the upper-hand when Saddam was executed. Hamas condemned the verdict. [13] Hamas is known to be ideologically close to Tehran but this did not prevent the Islamist Party from expressing its opinion on the issue. (source: The Iraq War: Hidden Agendas and Babylonian Intrigue : the Regional Impact by Raphael Israeli, p45). In its statement soon after the verdict was announced, Hamas recalled the help Saddam provided to the Palestinians in their hour of need: "We, as the Palestinian people, support whoever supports our people and President Saddam was one of those." --Babakexorramdin (talk) 23:49, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

As was noted before (both here and on your talk page), the phrase supposedly quoted from Parsi's book does not actually appear in the book. I know I said that, just a day or so ago...oh yes, there it is, in the section immediately preceding this one. Because this source was used inappropriately - and note that I am not suggesting that such is being done by you - I have to question the verifiability of the other sources as well. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary citation. The well of good faith for the added citations was poisoned by just one misquoted/misused source. We don't shade the quote to say what we might want it to mean. We state it as it appears. Because one doesn't, we need to take a closer look at the others. The source from Ynet.news seems okay, but again, I haven't yet checked the reliability of the news source. Feel free to head to the library, check out these books and verify them. If someone else wants to do this, feel free. Or, put a request in to the Reference desk to verify the sources. I would abide by their findings.

Either way, until we can prove that all of these sources are accurate, they are suspect, and suspect material doesn;t get to stay int he article. Wikipedia's rules, not mine. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:17, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

for the last time to Arcayne

Arcayne. You delete all comments which you do not like. By this you disrespect the others. I do not think that this is a good beahvior. Your behavior is truely annoying. By the way I have not reverted your biased and funny edits any more. Because as I know you have an agenda, but it is fine to me that you wrote Kaveh farrokh is not an Iranian. It is more fun that someone from the republic of Azerbaijan wrote something against the Panturkists. Thanks and let this comment stay here and DO NOT change the subject.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 22:35, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Dennis O'Neill

Regarding this revert, we need a citation where he said (speaking on anti-Iranian sympathies presented in comics):

"These sagas (comic books) are more than just entertainments, at least to many readers; they are the post-industrial equivalent of folk tales and as such, they have gone pretty deeply into a lot of psyches"

If we cannot cite that he said that, and that he said that in relation to anti-Iranian sentiment (thus avoiding problems with OR and synthesis by connecting different concepts), we cannot keep the statement in the article. If the statement fulfills that criteria, we need to cite it before re-adding that info. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, originally I made some changes in the structure of the sentence to avoid copy right problems , and the source is the same source of Jack G. Shaheen [14] and [15], but yet the original citation is from Denny O'Neill as it appears in (www.lulu.com/content/114869).[The name of the site ''lulu'' provokes the spam filters of wikipedia and thus I couldn't add the source online]--Alborz Fallah (talk) 07:25, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I can see what you mean, Alborz. I think that if we cite it to Shaheen (who is explicitly citing O'Neill), we are on solid ground. Citing Shaheen is better than citing Lulu anyway, as per RS. Do you want to add the citation and rework the sentence, or do you want that I should give it a whirl? I will hold off and give you the opportunity. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:51, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't exactly know to cite it to O'Neill or Shaheen : O'Neill is the primary source , and more reliable , but I can't directly write his address , Shaheen is more available but secondary to O'Neill... Which one is the best?--Alborz Fallah (talk) 22:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you prefer Shaheen . --Alborz Fallah (talk) 22:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I do, because we can see it immediately, and the source in question is identifying it as coming from O'Neill. I think that if it turns out to have been paraphrased, someone will come to the rescue and more closely link it. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:11, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Removed section

I've removed the following section as uncited:

Attack on History of Iran

The rather long history of Iran and its significant impact on world culture, as can be seen in remarks by modern non-Iranian scholars like Hegel and Frye, is a source of pride fro Iranians throughout history. However it has been a target of attacks as well. To mentions some we see the description of Cyrus cylinder as "a masterpiece of propaganda" Encyclopaedia Britannica. The same holds for Greek sources like Cyroceopedia and Hitosry book of Herodotus which praised the Persian history and its figures. More recently a "main news" of BBC has been in direction of "ecientific evidence of Persian use of chemical weapons in ancient time". This is seen in connection with violence, particularly “gruesome” tactics against the beloved, civilised, freedom loving Romans who just killed their enemies by boring them to death, apparently."

None of the citations contained therein term the material anti-Iranian, and we are not allowed to make that connection ourselves - that's called synthesis. If this info can be cited by reliable, verifiable sources as being anti-Iranian (which is to say, beyond our personal assessment), we can include the section. Without it, we cannot. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

oh, i see. you mean one needs a citation to a reliable source to call a red apple, a red apple?--Xashaiar (talk) 21:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

And yes, you keep edit-warring it back in. Please use this section to argue for inclusion. As noted before, the citations do not say what you think they say. You might want to check it again. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:41, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

what are you talking about? The section on france, is not sourced? do you mean the reference to nature is barely sourced?--Xashaiar (talk) 16:46, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec) For example, in the removed (and grammatically incorrect) subhead, "In International Scientific Community", the citation links to a pay for view article and the bit that is there doesn't allude to what is stated in the article.

In the "In France" subhead, none of the statements are cited. At all.

In the "Attack on History of Iran" subhead, the citations include those to other encyclopedias. We don't do that. We cite their sources, just like we do. As well, the last citation in response to the skewed angle on the reportage of news about Iran is okay, but it is phrased the wrong way, and interprets the source in a way that provides undue weight to aminority opinion. I am not saying the cite is bad, just the interpretation of it. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:06, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

is this pay for view article (per article you mean?)? No it is not. Even in that case, as long as it is Wikipedia:Verifiable, the addition is fine.--Xashaiar (talk) 17:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that is one of the problems, and since only the existence of the article is verifiable, but not the content, it isn't good enough. You should feel free to seek out an alternate source, which would alleviate the problem. If you disagree with this, please feel free to seek out assistance from the verifiability noticeboard. Let me know where you open a discussion there, and I will monitor the discussion. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

yes yes as I though. Your problem with the sources are "their interpretation". Thanks for having admitted that. because you yourself interpret things differently then no one is allowed to edit in a way which contradicts yourinterpreatation. I would be happy if you applied your formula also to other articles like anti-Arab sentiment etc... Alla and all 1- you are baised 2- Do not know much about the things you are editing 3- your edits are disruptive--Babakexorramdin (talk) 12:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Stop trying to pick a fight that I will win, Bax. It isn't my interpretation. Read WP:EXT and WP:CITE; these aren't my ideas, but I am going to follow them, and ensure that articles follow them. If you feel that I am misinterpreting this, do as I suggested and seek out the opinions of the noticeboards. Get their input. Figure out that neither this nor any other article is a suitable soapbox for pov editing. For example, you are missing the entire point of the post aboive. You cannot see the content, so there is nothing to interpret. Please pay attention. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Many people (at least three up to now) here are against your edit. So why are you continuing this?--Xashaiar (talk) 20:35, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Take a moment, Xashaiar, and re-read my earlier posts. I am not going to repeat myself. I have explained rather clearly what my problems are with the inclusion of the information. It isn't balanced, and most of it is either uncited or poorly cited. One it is, I have no problem with it being included. I have also suggested you seek input from the RS noticeboard. If you choose not to do that, then you have only yourself to blame for the lack of inclusion. If you perhaps unaware as to how to fix these problems, simply say so, and I will help you. -Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

you are the one who needs help. If nature magazine is not RS, then you should seek assistance from RS noticeboard. We do believe that nature is a reliable source. The article cited is available from any reasonable library, or book shop: therefore a verifiable citation. You may help by correcting English, grammar, wording... Otherwise I do see your edit disruptive.--Xashaiar (talk) 21:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

See below. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:07, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Removed section (arbitrary break 1)

Okay, let's try this yet again, and I will explain the problem with the section that was removed. I will hold your hand and walk you through ev ery single part of it. Ready? Here we go:

Attack on History of Iran

The rather long history of Iran and its significant impact on world culture, as can be seen in remarks by modern non-Iranian scholars like Hegel and Frye, is a source of pride fro Iranians throughout history. However it has been a target of attacks as well. To mentions some we see the description of Cyrus cylinder as "a masterpiece of propaganda" Encyclopaedia Britannica.The same holds for Greek sources like Cyroceopedia and Hitosry book of Herodotus which praised the Persian history and its figures

Actually, I researched this claim in Britannica. It doesn't exist. What does exist, though, is that the Cyrus Cynlinder was considered such by no less a personage than Herodotus himself, and the highly-skewed accounting provided by the Nabonidus Chronicle, as quoted from the Cambridge History of Iran¹, and reinforced by modern historians. Suggesting anything else without equally reliable proof is to provide undue weight to a minority opinion. The last sentence in the above is both misspelled and utterly uncited.

More recently a "main news" of BBC has been in direction of "ecientific evidence of Persian use of chemical weapons in ancient time".

The cited article² does indeed state that investigation suggests that the Persians gassed the Romans. It makes no evaluative assessment of their actions, except to note that the "Sasanian Persians were as knowledgeable in siege warfare as the Romans", and that's a quote from Dr. Simon James, at the U of Leicester, England. He's pretty notable, andnothing ab out his commentary appears to display anything but admiration for the Persian siege tactics.

This is seen in connection with violence, particularly “gruesome” tactics against the beloved, civilised, freedom loving Romans who just killed their enemies by boring them to death, apparently."

Now this, this is useful, if for no other reason that to illustrate a difference of opinion between a professional historian who is a recognized expert in the field, and a PhD student and another with a few lesser degrees from other fields. It is also illustrative of how this bloodless difference of opinion is bloated into something it quite simply isn't. At least, not to any reasonable person. This information is not an example of anti-Iranian sentiment, but rather that of an interpretation of historical data. Information if this difference of opinion belongs in the article about the Sassanid Army's tactics, not in this article. This is what drives my specific request for you to seek input from third parties - 3O, Mediation, etc. - to mediate as to whether this is actually anti-Iranian sentiment. Since Persia/Sassanid Empire ≠ Iran, I do not feel the inclusion is appropriate. If you wish to seek mediation, I will indeed participate. In the absence of such, I will resist the addition of highly inappropriate and academically minor data.
I hope that the above explains my point of view clearly and concisely. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:04, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

you say "Persia/Sassanid Empire ≠ Iran".

• This is non-sense. Consequences: a) Never ever talk about Iran. Do you mean sassanids were Latin american? b) This statement is itself an anti-Iranian sentiment. c) If you really believed in what you said, then you should have removed the first section "by arabs" who called Persian (= Iranian, yes EQUALITY according to Iran#Etymology) "Ajam", as they did so long long time ago, for example during Buyid Persia (which according to your agenda ≠ Iran). This means you are inconsistent and so not worth listening to.
• Can you sum up 2+3? (of course not, but since you are pretending:) If so, this should be possible for you to sum up "Ancient Persians 'gassed Romans" and "Iran nuclear/missile defense program is a threat to the world (usually in news, if you know what "news" means, as your comment takes news as something not appropriate (no academic book refering to) for Wikipedia) and the result is "preparing the world public opinion for attack on Iran". This obvious conclusion is not OR according to WP:NOR that: 1. We do not mention this last conclusion explicitly. 2. We have made obvious calculation.
• According to WP:CONS since some other editors agree with me and are against your edit, the article is fine and you must accept what we say at least for the time being.
• you say "I do not feel the inclusion is appropriate". An Encyclopaedia does not care about feelings.
• My comments showing that you fail to be consistent (for example objective), to be able to find an article for verifiability, is enough to put a question smily-mark when hearing you talking about "academic..data".

So it is time for you to go and do something useful, for example add Persianate to all your favourite stuff. OK?--Xashaiar (talk) 23:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Xashaiar, you are on very thin ice. Stop from making uncivil comments, as they are in violation of WP:CIV.--Agha Nader (talk) 00:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Iran hasn't been called Persia for almost 100 years. Maybe it is called Persia by some people, but not a statistically significant number (again, that undue weight issue). Therefore, for the purpose of this discussion (and this article), Iran is not to be used synonymously with Persia; arguing that point is a waste of both of our times.

Additionally, consensus is not a suicide pact; it doesn't override our policies and guidelines. For the above reasons, the information cannot be included. Now, if you wish to present cogent arguments as to why it should, please do so. Toss another personal attack into the argument, and you are going to encounter a significantly larger problem than just seeking a consensus. Please focus on the discussion, and not the editors offering the discussions. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Arcayne , don't make blind reverts, removing sourced material. What I had restored were unrelated to your discussion/dispute with User:Xashaiar. Also, you don't own this page to use a non-existing "consensus" as a pretext to blindly revert the sourced edits of others. So watch for WP:OWN. --Kurdo777 (talk) 04:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Respectfully, every time I am accused of making a blind revert, I know for a fact that I am dealing with someone who neither understands the term or what I said. Please take more than just the moment you apparently have, and read the cogent statements as to why they were removed, Kurdo. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

you better learn not to make personal attacks and respects other editors, who in contrast to you, know about this subject.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 09:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I do respect other editors, Bax. I would urge you to, before talking about the splinter in my eye, remove the log from your own. And quite honestly, I am not seeing the greater expertise on this subject from you, aside from a likely bad prior set of experiences with discrimination. The wiki works on neutrally interpreted, reliably-sourced references, and not personal experiences. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

listen Arcayne, it is your last time that you call me Bax, ok? I am Kamran and I do not appreciate being called Bax or something stupid like that. I repeat again. You have very limitted knowledge of the Iranian society, history and politics. We asked you politely do not push your uninformed POV. Your editing behavior is very annoying--Babakexorramdin (talk) 00:51, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

• Pardon for interruption , but out of the discussion , I think Persia and Iran are synonymous.--Alborz Fallah (talk) 18:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Er, your official account name is Babakexorramdin,is it not? Your usertalk redirects to there, no matter whether you use Kamran or some other name. As its a bit of a mouthful to say, I shortened it to something manageable. Clearly, you know that I am talking to you when I call you Babak or Bax, just like I know when people use 'Arc' are using short form to talk. You were advised that, when you were redirecting your name, to follow a proper process for doing so (1, 2) but you chose to ignore the admin trying to help you. You have only yourself to blame for the confusion which you have wrought. I don't consider Bax to be a "stupid" name; if you do so, then that is largely your problem; no one else is considering it offensive.

And allow me to repeat myself as well: I do not need to be an expert on All Things Iranian; Wikipedia doesn't require that, and in fact actively dissuades experts from tossing their hats in, as editors cannot be cited within articles. Wikpedia articles need citation to be be considered authoritative. The only expertise that we as editors offer to the wiki is by being able to reference these external citations accurately and appropriately. That means I do not have to be an expert on things Iranian, and neither do you. That also means that we don't get to misinterpret sources to match what we want them to say. Note that I am not stating that you aren't trying to be honest with the sources you are offering. However, I am saying that you are not being polite, and that will get you blocked faster that most people can actually say 'Babakexorramdin'.

I urge you to complete the process to complete your account name change. Without doing so, your account might be blocked for refusing to do so. Additionally, I would counsel you to find better, more civil ways to interact with people you disagree with; the community and your blood pressure will thank you for it. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:34, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

wait a minute. You can not call people other than their official user-name. This can be considered PA. Would it be fine if we call you Acne? This is also according to you what we "shortened it to something manageable".--Xashaiar (talk) 02:57, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you think Arcayne is such a terribly hard to write, then do what you need; I tend to think my username is pretty easy to write and say two syllables versus the six of Babakexorramdin. Additionally, I have the virtue of only using one username; Babak apparently has two. I think you are on the wrong side of this discussion, Xashaiar. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:12, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

There is no side here, is the clear? I am here to tell you 1. your comments 2. your edits, 3. your arguments are not acceptable.--Xashaiar (talk) 06:24, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot that English is not your first language; when I refer to side, i mean that you are arguing the wrong component of this discussion. The last time I checked, this article is about anti-Iranian sentiment, not 'Reasons-why-Arcayne-is-so-very-very-mean'. My comments addressed another user attacking me. My edits are fairly impeccable, so I am not really sure what you are referring to. Lastly, you might need to explain what it is about my arguments that you find unacceptable. Maybe doing so in either of our usertalk discussion pages might be more acceptable than here. Thanks. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:32, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I forgot that English is not even your second language. I also forgot that you need to learn about non-existent-0-order-logic. No component was defined and therefore no side was taken. Is that clear? Did you get the point of putting the link? Now look at your English "The last time I checked, this article is.." Improper even in its Scottish form. I answered you because I think Babakexorramdin is very polite and worried that you go home without (l)earning anything. Therefore you have to be grateful. And about your arguments: YOU ARE NOT CONSISTENT.--Xashaiar (talk) 07:24, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Again, if you wish to continue those parts of the discussion which do not focus on the actual subject of the article, please do so on either my or your usertalk page. Considering that your above post seems riddled with farily unfriendly language, I am thinking that polite discussion isn't going to be akin to teaching an old dog new tricks; you actually think Babak's replies have been pristine in their civility. I would ask you to look at those responses and ask yourself if you would not be offended by their content. However, as English isn't your primary language, I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. I am going to say once again that this article discussion is not going to degenerate into a bitch-fest for you or anyone else. Focus on the article subject matter, and that alone. Consider this your warning in that capacity, and take your personal discussion to a usertalk page. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:03, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Respectfully, to the international community and the UN (which Iranians seem to cling to in regards to the Persian Gulf naming dispute), the current name is Iran. An equivalent comparison would be French people demanding that France be called Gaul. They are not the same thing for the purposes of the Wiki or this article. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:44, 24 March 2009 (UTC)