Talk:Anti-Arab racism/Archive 1

message: regarding:
"I think these people [Arabs and Muslims] need to be forcibly converted to Christianity ... It's the only thing that can probably turn them into human beings." [05/12/03] --(Michael Savage on his radio show The Savage Nation)
Savage never said "Arabs and Muslims."  One's opionion should not be displayed as fact on wikipedia.  He was referring to terrorists that beheaded Nick Berg, and Paul Johnson.  In fact, Savage often states that Islam is a peaceful religion except for a very small, but very violent minority.
Jm51 00:39, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I still don't see your point.  So is he saying that terrorists need to be forcibly converted to Christianity?  That terrorist being a Christian will automatically make him non-violent?  It doesn't make it any less offensive.  The quote should stay.Yuber(talk) 00:13, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Offensive or not, the quote has nothing to do with the subject of this article, Anti-Arab.  The only way you can make a connection is if you stereotype and believe all Arabs are terrorists, and all terrorists are Arabs.  This quote would belong under a section called anti-terrorist, or perhaps even a list of (subjectively) offensive quotes, but not an anti-arab article. Jm51 05:49, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

text: What Savage said in the past or following this quote is irrelevant.  The section illustrates things people have said which can be construed as perpetuating negative Arab stereotypes.  It was a poor thing for him to say, and it is, as with the other quotes, not entirely in context, but the fact remains that he said it.  Further, I suspect that nobody is going to be swayed for or against Savage based on the inclusion of this quote.  Junjk 00:16, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, I think we need to set all stereotypes aside here.  Not all Arabs are terrorists, and not all terrorists are Arabs.  Once we free ourselves from that mentatility, we will realize the quote is completely unrelated and irrelevant to this article about Anti-Arabism.  It would belong in a list of (subjectively) poor things for people to say.  Furthermore, whether people will be swayed for or against Savage based on the inclusion of this quote is irrelevant.  The motive of removing the quote is not to protect savage's name, but to follow wikipedia's guidelines for factual, npov, relevant articles.   Jm51 05:49, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If we're removing quotes based on unclear context, I imagine a few others (most notably Yosef's) should go also.  That said, now that I think about it, shouldn't this quote be moved to Islamophobia anyway?  If it's talking about conversion to Christianity, it can't possibly be an anti-Arab quote contextually.  It seems to me that since Savage didn't specifically refer to Arabs we ought not to assume that he was making the factual error that there are no Arab Christians.  It seems that, whether he was talking about terrorists in particular or a group as a whole, the group he was talking about were most likely Muslims.  Junjk 06:30, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The context of Yosef's is clear.  Read the reference.  The quote was taken from a sermon calling for the annihilation of Arabs.  Savage's quote, however, was taken out of context from his talk radio show. Savage was condemning terrorists and terrorism, which he does every day (if you have ever listened to his show), not Arabs and Muslims.  Savage was only denouncing the extremist terrorist Muslims/Arabs, who are responsible for widespread pain, suffering and death, not the ordinary peaceful Muslims.  Again, if you listened to his show, this would be clear.  Jm51 18:05, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have indeed read the article, and it seems to me that in delicate situations such as these we ought to take the word of the speaker.  Surely, having read the BBC article yourself, you know that Yosef was, at least supposedly, referring to Arab terrorists.  Further, I have listened to Savage's show on multiple occasions.  I won't pretend to have any fondness for the man, but just as he rails constantly against terrorism, he has also been known to occasionally slip and refer to Muslims in a similar fashion, as have a great many conservative talk show hosts.  It seems to me that the most reasonable courses of action would be to move the quote to Islamophobia and/or provide a disclaimer, either for Savage's quote alone or for the entire quotation section, that often statements such as these are taken out of context or do not reflect the speaker's usual viewpoint.  Junjk 23:04, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, it should be moved to Islamophobia.  Savage's dehumanization of Muslims is disconcerting.  Regardless of whether he's referring to terrorists or not, he's still implying that only by converting to Christianity will they become human again.  I think we're all pretty sure that converting a mass-murderer to Christianity won't change their ways.Yuber(talk) 23:19, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't find a single quote where Savage dehumanizations Muslims.  I can find plenty of quotes where he dehumanizations terrorists.  And yes, he is saying that the only way to to make terrorists human again, would be a conversion to chrisitiantiy.  Again, there is no Anti-Arabism, or Islamophobia in that belief - only anti-terrorism/terrorism-ophobia/pro-chrisitian.  We need to move past stereotypes.  Just because a "great many of conservative talk show hosts" slip and are anti-arabic, does not mean Savage is the same.  Again, we need to move beyond stereotypes to see the issue at hand clearly and not have our political affilations sway our judgement.  Jm51 00:56, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV edit may 5, 2005 

message: Why are all the anti Arab quotes on this page from Jewish or Jewish related sources. Surely some should put be put in frok other people such as Robert Kilroy Silk or the far right French politicians.
:Find the quotes, cite your sources, and then include them.Yuber(talk) 23:38, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think anyone really takes LGF seriously outside internet bloggers/the internet community.Yuber(talk) 13:31, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quotes 

message: Let's start with the intro and try to make it more encyclopedic:
# Anti-Arab prejudice is hostility or violence... -- Prejudice is violence?
# ...and, in the USA, Arab Americans -- and in Turkey? and in France?  Why single out any particluar country in the very first line? 
# clichéd notions about Middle Eastern culture. -- I don't find this very compelling. The same may be said about Japanese/Vietnamese/Turkish/Iranian/Russian, etc. cultures. Besides, not all M.E culture is Arab. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 00:16, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the above. Some cleaning up would be a good idea. I wonder, too, whether the issue of anti-Muslim prejudice clouds the issue of anti-Arab prejudice, that is, is there specifically in the U.S. (just to take an example) a prejudice that extends to Arabs but not to Muslims in general? Would your average Arab-hater make a distinction between an Egyptian Muslim, an Iranian Muslim, and an Afghan Muslim, as only the Egyptian is likely to be Arab? Are people who are "Anti-Arab" therefore by definition anti-Arab Christian as well?  IronDuke 00:54, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good point. Often racial/ethnic/religious hate targets "the others" and often it originates with ignorance or incitement. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 01:44, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I just stumbled upon this article again and noticed that the intro still has not been changed. I took the liberty to rework it in good faith, please see if it works. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 02:52, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good job on your rework of the intro, but please don't reinstate the anon ip's vandalistic edits.  The quotes section should stay as there are quotes sections in many articles such as this one. Yuber(talk) 04:00, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't get far with my promised edits, and I had the intro in a word processor and have since placed it here and added some more sections. Although far from complete, feel free to cut and paste, edit, and add to this. I'll continue to add more when I can. Ramallite (talk) 04:57, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I like Ramallite's version, let's see what others say. As for the quotes, I'm going to revert their addition. For those who insist that the quotes belong: they need to illustrate some point. What is the point here: that Judaism is anti-Arab religion and Israel is anti-Arab state? Yawn. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 08:43, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro and on and on 

message: I have just made some minor-ish changes to the first graf, removed some POV there, and removed the POV later in the article. I think it's fair to say at this point that a number of people have commented on the POV of this article, or lack thereof. As I review the comments (and please, if I mischaracterize anyone's position, let me know), I see comments for deletion of Israeli anti-Palestinian or anti-Arab quotes, comments for keeping them, and comments for keeping them but adding more balance to them. Here's how it looks to me:
Delete the quotes: IronDuke, jonasaurus, Humus Sapiens, Ramallite
The quotes page is unbalanced, balance it: Charles P., Unbehagen
Keep it just like it is: Yuber
So, as I make it, there are six people who think the article is biased and one who doesn't. Of the six, two think that the quotes could stay but need to be supplemented by more quotes. In any case, I think what's clear is that there is a consensus that the article cannot remain the way Yuber would like it to remain. To that end, I have made the changes you see. 
To add a few more thoughts, I just looked at the antisemitism article for the first time, and I think it's a wonderful template for this article. There are no quotes there from Arabs demanding the deaths of Jews, nor need there be. The article is balanced, well-written, and scholarly in tone. This article, in some of its iterations, is shrill and unconvincing. But if people are really, really keen on quotes, I won't object as long as it's balanced. But honestly, can't somebody find more quotes from professionals telling us how much anti-Arabism is out there, and why? That kind of quote would be a lot better than quoting anti-Arab rants. IronDuke 16:23, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's because all the quotes from Arabs are in article of its own entitled "Arabs and anti-Semitism". I request that you cease from deleting the anti-Arab incidents because you feel that it is imbalanced, instead, make it more balance by quoting non-Jewish anti-Arab personalities.
--69.85.162.99 21:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why did you also remove the anti-Arab incidents section?  By the way, I'd be happy to balance the quotes section or integrate it in some other section. Yuber(talk) 16:24, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  More than 75% of Arab Americans are in fact Christian, while terrorism is an international phenomenon. This sentence doesn't make sense to me in this context. What is it telling us? That people who are anti-arab and anti-Muslim aren't very bright? And what does international have to do with anything? The vast majority of Muslims are not terrorists, and victims of terrorist attacks worldwide count many Arabs and Muslims. The vast majority of every ethnicity aren't terrorists. The sentence is pleading with the reader not to hate Arabs. I agree entirely with this sentiment, but not with an emotional appeal in a WP article. And what difference does it make if Arabs or Muslims are victims of terrorism? That people are therefore silly for conflating Arab and terrorist? They may well be, but again, this article should not be about making an argument against ant-Arab prejudice, merely explaining what it is and where it came from. IronDuke 16:43, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What about your deletion of the incidents section? Yuber(talk) 16:44, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  The incidents section is not encyclopedic. There are many  incidents of anti-Arab bias. What makes those three so special? And the incidents themselves are POV in the same way in which the quotes were. Let's not single out a particular group for condemnation. IronDuke 15:54, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I'm starting to find some quotes that should balance the section out so I've reinstated it for now but with the sectnpov template. Yuber(talk) 22:40, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Let's not put the quotes back at all until balance has been achieved. Adding one quote from Fallaci isn't balance. But Yuber, since you seem to be very interested in making this article better, can you not locate a quote from a reputable scholar saying why it is that anti-Arabism exists, when it began, etc., a quote that does not blame the Jews for all persecution of Arabs? That would make the article better. Quotes meant to paint Jews as anti-Arab and no one else is, at best, borderline antisemitic. IronDuke 18:26, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Your removal of the incidents section is highly incivil.  The incidents are sourced, and yes the JDL has been the main source of anti-Arabism in the US, at least the anti-Arabism that has resulted in death.  As for the quotes, there is a NPOV template on the whole section which shows your dispute.  Yuber(talk) 21:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry if I seemed less than civil, I certainly didn't mean to be. As I discussed at some length above, you, Yuber, are the only person who thinks the quotes should stay as they are. That they are sourced and "true" does not mean they are npov. Adding a tag doesn't mean that it's okay to have an article that's not as good as it could be, or has offensive or inappropriate material. IronDuke 22:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you trying to remove the incidents section discreetly or something?  I've reinstated the incidents section as no-one but you seems to have a problem with it. Yuber(talk) 22:38, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consensus 

message: I think it is best that we merge the anti-Arab article with the article on 
Islamophobia because the two are tied together. If not, then I think we should 
complete this article. 
On the subject of Anti-Arab in Iran, It seems that hatred against Arabs seem to be very strong in Iranian secularists and nationalists that oppose the "Islamic" regime in Iran, and these haters usually live in Western countries. I have no clue as to whether or not anti-Arabim exists in Iran and to what extent.  The only information I have come up thus far is that Arabs in Iran in the past have suffered discrimination:
"The Iranian Arabs' major grievances were discrimination in jobs, under-representation in government posts, and the poverty of the Arab community." -- Collier's Year Book 1979 article:
I don't know if that is the present situation, and if this would be considered "anti-Arabism". 
Also, I like to note that MOST Arabs are totally oblivious to the fact thatsome Iranians have an intense hatred for them and that these Iranians are holding a grudge over an event that occurred over more than 1300 years ago. The event I'm referring to is the Arab conquest of the already deteriorating Sassanid empire.  Author Richard Foltz in his article "Internationalization of Islam" states "Even today, many Iranians perceive the Arab 
destruction of the Sassanid empire as the single greatest tragedy in Iran’s long 
history." 
Also, some Iranians feel that Iran had been Arabized by the "barbaric Arabs" and that Iranians should purge themselves of the "Arab subculture".  See http://www.iranian.ws/iran_news/publish/article_11026.shtml
All this information should be included in the section anti-Arab and Iranians. Furthermore, there has been denounciation of this type of hatred by Iranians even among secularist and nationalists, saying that their beef is with the Islamic regime and theocracy and not with Arabs or the majority of Arabs. Here is denounciation by an Iranian Muslim on the forum of the aforementioned web site: http://www.iranian.ws/iran_forum/viewtopic.php?t=19 see second post.
Thank God that there is no anti-Persianism among Arabs (as far as I know) phew!
That is all for now.
--69.85.172.146 04:34, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anti-Arabism article is incomplete!

message: I think that we should add a list of media and political figures from all over the world that are notorious for espousing hatred towards Arabs like Ann Coulter, Don Imus, Debbie Schussel, Daniel Pipes, etc.  Also we should include quotes of any anti-Arab statements they have made.
:I think that's not a super-terrific idea. It's an invitation to POV warring, which this page already suffers from. I also think the whole list concept is pretty lame in general. IronDuke 23:11, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding a list of Anti-Arab personalities 

message: I added a new section, and quoted AAI's poll findings. Should we paraphrase the writing instead using directly quotation? 
Also, I added a link to a October 2001 report on hate crimes against Arabs (and Muslims).--Inahet 17:00, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added more information to the section on anti-Arabism in the U.S.  It needs more information and refinement. Also, I added a reference to the AAI report that I mentioned above. 
Another thing, should I mention that Steven Emerson contributed to (perhaps even ignited) anti-Arab and anti-Muslim backlash to the Oklahoma City bombing by blaming the attack on Muslims on national TV a day after the event occurred? He also said Muslims were responsible for the the TWA flight 800 tragedy. --Inahet 23:19, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added to the Anti-Arabism in Iran section and it also need more information and refinement. --Inahet 20:33, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added Anti-Arabism in the U.S. 

message: I notice that User:SouthernComfort has changed the poll section with a separate heading for France. There is also a poll under the Anti-Arabism in America section. Should that be moved to the poll section or should we have a new section entitled Anti-Arabism in France? (there should be a lot to say on this, given recent developments there).--Ahwaz 06:22, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think creating a new section on anti-Arabism in France is a good idea. We can place the American poll under the polls section until the French section is created. --Inahet 06:36, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Polls 

message: : Okay, so I reviewed the policy and according to WP:RS... "Rare exceptions may be when a well-known professional person or acknowledged expert in a relevant field has set up a personal website using his or her real name." This certainly seems to be the case here. From the the front page of the "The American Gulag" website:
::Name:Ray Hanania 
::Location:United States 
:"I first started in journalism in 1976 and I have worked for many Chicago newspapers and regional magazines, mainly focused on politics. I covered Chicago's City Hall from 1976 through 1992, and wrote a great backgrounder piece on that experience for the Chicago Reader, which is archived on my web page under Journalism. I am also a successful stand-up comedian performing a very unique Palestinian-Arab-Jewish comedy act,".
: Sounds like both a well-known professional and an expert in a relevant field (journalism). Deuterium
Actually, he is neither. A murky journalist specializing in Chicago local politics and comics is no authority to talk about anti-Arabism, even if he is of Arab descent himself. Pecher Talk 14:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The American Gulag Blog 

message: How many "citation here" tags can you even add to an article? One after every sentence? phrase? --Inahet 05:14, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some articles have over half a dozen references in a single paragraph. Are there any specific "citation here" tags you object to? Andjam 06:46, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article looks more like a collection of notes 

message: Does the paragraph on the response by the ADL seem a bit long? Andjam 06:35, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it does. Pecher Talk 19:50, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Response by ADL 

message: Has anyone thought of adding something about the P&O dispute?--Ahwaz 12:16, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anti-Arabism in America 

message: I would like to remind that WP:RS is still applicable to this article, so any factual information must be sources to reliable sources. Pecher Talk 12:21, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Tell me, what is there to source in the paragraph on Othello? There is no doubt that Othello was a "Moor" (read the play!) and that Laurence Olivier, Orson Welles and Ben Kingsley portrayed Othello as an Arab. If you want to see their performances on screen, you can. I referenced an article on how Arabs have interpreted Othello. What else needs referencing?--Ahwaz 12:51, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First, Othello is not in "history", but in "fiction"; the failure to distiguish between the two is, incidentally, the hallmark of this article. Secpndly, Othello has n connection to anti-Arabism, escept for an unsourced statement that some people see Othello as "a man driven to despair by the racial prejudices of European society". Pecher Talk 14:54, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I have retitled the section "in literature", if that makes you happy. Isn't the fact that Othello's Arab identity and the exploration of Shakespeare's theme worthy of comment?--Ahwaz 17:29, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: However, the problem of lack of sourcing persists. Pecher Talk 19:46, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Pick out exactly what you want sourced and I will find sources for it.--Ahwaz 19:48, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "There is some debate about whether Shakespeare's depiction of Othello was racist or sympathetic, with some interpreting the character as a jealous and violent lover and others a man driven to despair by the racial prejudices of European society." Pecher Talk 19:52, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Incidentally, the discussion on whether Shakespeare's Shylock was anti-semitic has no citations. Will you put a tag there?--Ahwaz 12:55, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources

message: What needs to be cleaned up in this article? AucamanTalk 19:35, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup?

message: Although I have been adding to this section I thoink maybe it should be removed.
The reason bieng that there are a whole lot more anti-Arab incidents than those mentioned. Therefore we have two alternatives:
* Move the incidents mentioned to Israel and United States 
* MOve all anti-arab incidents from their respective locations into this section
Personally I favor the first option.Bless sins 18:35, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: However, you rather deceptively POVd the sections while moving them, knowing the move would make this hard to discern.  Please don't do this again, thanks. Jayjg (talk) 14:58, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for accusing me of something I didn't do.Bless sins 22:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course you did; remember this edit? Jayjg (talk) 22:42, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Examples of Anti-Arab incidents" 

message: Bless sins, you keep inserting this claim: "Leftists often have a difficult time in getting the local officials to remove such graffiti".  You must learn to use sources accurately; the source you use does not make this claim, nor does it make some of the other claims I have corrected here and elsewhere.  Again, you must accurately represent what sources say. Jayjg (talk) 14:56, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I quote (from the Haaretz) "That kind of graffiti pops up often in the streets of Jerusalem. Leftists have found that the slurs remain on the walls a long time so to hasten the city's action against them, they've found a chilling, but effective way to get them removed - they paint a swastika beside it. "Bless sins 22:40, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly; they don't appear to have a difficult time getting them removed at all. Jayjg (talk) 22:41, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Leftists often have a difficult time in getting the local officials to remove such graffiti." 

message: Here's an article about Arab militants who exploded several bombs and killed tens of Iranians, I added it and you remove it ... why? your action is a vanadlism not nothing else ...Maxee 18:10, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  anti-Persianism among Arabs. 

message: paragraph 4 talks of an Amnesty claim about "Gozinesh" discrimination without mentioning the fact that a similar plight is experienced by other minorities of Iran, women of Iran, students of Iran, and even Persians of Iran. The majority of the political prisoners of Evin prison are in fact Persian. And notice the word "Gozinesh" on the placard held by the student protester (protesting student gozinesh laws): 
I'd like to know which area of Iran is experiencing a booming economy where Khuzestan is not. Iran is kept alive only because of its subsidized economy. Look at the picture on this page. Where do you think it is? Smack in the middle of Tehran.--Zereshk 23:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think the Amnesty report is suggesting that the gozinesh criteria is used only against Arabs, just that they have been denied employment as a result.--88.110.200.222 00:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well the article is.--Zereshk 04:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: deceptive writing 2

message: Furthermore, the Amnesty link, like always is false in claiming that: "schools are reportedly not allowed to teach through the medium of Arabic". I have already proven the fallacy of this statement before. Not only is modern Arabic mandatory for all Iranians, teaching via the Arabic medium is in fact allowed thru "gheyr e entefa'i" schools, as guaranteed by Article 15 of Iran's constitution. 
Being an Arab is encouraged by Ahmadinejad's govt. Being a Persian is what is frowned upon. Up until a few years ago, non-Arabic names like "Zhila" were not even allowed for naming newborns by the govt. But they always encourage Arabic names like salih, meqdad, ehsan, meitham, ...
The article makes no mention of any of this.--Zereshk 23:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue of education isn't even covered in this section on anti-Arabism in Iran. So I don't understand how you can use this as an objection to the article.--88.110.200.222 00:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The quote is about the educational aspect. It's quite obvious.--Zereshk 04:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please pick out the quotation in the article concerning education.--88.111.86.206 10:12, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's given above. I'm posting it again: "schools are reportedly not allowed to teach through the medium of Arabic".--Zereshk 17:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not in the article, though. So what is the problem here?--88.110.92.95 17:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article that mentions this as a fact is directly given as a source, link #15.--Zereshk 19:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But if it doesn't actually mention it in the text here, then I don't understand the substance of your dispute. Do you want the education issue included in the anti-Arabism article and then refuted?--88.110.92.95 21:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We can do that of course, because there is no education issue. And if we dont, I'll just add a note about the source not being verifiable.--Zereshk 04:49, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I object to that. Amnesty International is a respectable and independent source and you cannot say it is unverifiable.--88.109.23.31 09:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ive already proven that it is. But then again, you shouldnt be objecting because I dont plan to erase it anyway. Im just planing to make note of things.--Zereshk 18:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you explain to me how industrial projects have anything to do with racism?--88.109.98.100 22:43, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm. Dont know. Now let's get back to the subject.--Zereshk 00:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: the amnesty claim....again

message: Someone told me that I was being accused of editing from an anonIP. I don't do that. I'm such a Wikiholic that I'm constantly logged in. Please don't accuse me of underhandedness. Zora 23:39, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right. And I'm Marvin Gaye.--Zereshk 04:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

text: What difference does it make? In my view, Ahwaz is the specialized version of Zora.--Zereshk 20:24, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Ha ha! Is this a guess the IP game? You are probably Zereshk. Why not get on with your rewrite?--88.109.23.31 18:34, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you prove that I am that anon user? I think not. HA HA HA! It's easy: Just put up a request for an IP check, and we will see! :) --Zereshk 20:22, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why don't you put up an IP check on my IP?--88.109.98.100 22:41, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Ahwaz doesnt know Farsi or Arabic.--Zereshk 00:46, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know Farsi but I know Arabic. I have translated Arabic elsewhere on Wikipedia as others can testify. It is your intention to portray me as both a fraud and a supporter of terrorism, but this is not supported by any evidence. If you have personal problems with me, take it to my talk page and don't bring it into editing articles.--Ahwaz 00:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh really? Cool. Then we can converse in Arabic :)--Zereshk 02:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zora is visiting this talk page for the first time 

message: The following Anons, have all been confirmed to be sockpuppets of User:Ahwaz, just as I had suspected:
*User:88.109.23.31  
*User:88.110.92.95  
*User:88.111.86.206  
*User:88.110.200.222
Thanx all.--Zereshk 02:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have been editing using anonymous IPs for the past month. I have not violated Wikipedia policies, either here or elsewhere. If you have a complaint, then take it up with an admin instead of making accusations.--Ahwaz 11:24, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The accusations are now confirmed to be true. I in fact received the confirmation that the Anons above were you with the help of WP Admins. But like I said, it really doesnt matter to me who you are. In the future, if you do plan to use anon IP addresses, just let people know it is you, instead of acting like it's somebody else thats backing "Ahwaz" up.--Zereshk 11:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there any evidence that I broke Wikipedia rules? No, none at all. I was editing using an anon IP because some editors go crazy whenever they see the spelling "Ahwaz". It was an attempt to stop racist abuse, baseless accusations and stalking so I could get on with editing other articles, many completely unrelated to Iran or the Middle East. This is regarded as a legitimate use of sockpuppets. But if you think otherwise, then take the issue to an admin.--Ahwaz 11:43, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If that were truly your concern, you simply would have used another username, like everyone else does.--Zereshk 12:24, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I could still be accused of sockpuppetry if I did use another username. In fact, I fear this would be even more controversial. I thought it better to edit anonymously. I hope that we can put past disagreements behind us and use our different, contrasting POVs to produce high quality NPOV articles. Previous arguments have wasted too much time and energy. Frankly, I think it is a shame that SouthernComfort is no longer involved as I managed to come to agreement with him on several matters of editorial dispute, but I wanted to stay out of the whole Aucaman business.--Ahwaz 13:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sockpuppets of [[User:Ahwaz]] have been confirmed

message: Zereshk: I think you need to source this claim: 
:Which one? There are several sentences there.--Zereshk 12:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You have sourced the sentence now, although I think there are better sources to back this sentence up, since overall poverty levels in Iran have declined in recent years. I think it would be better to have a study on poverty in Iran rather than a news article. I will search for one.--Ahwaz 12:24, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: The Image of Arabs in Modern Persian Literature by Joya Blondel Saad looks like a well-researched and comprehensive source that we can use to expand the section on anti-Arabism in Iran. A synopsis is available here  and excerpts can be found here . --Inahet 19:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Image of Arabs in Modern Persian Literature  

message: Please join the discussion. --Zoz (t) 18:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  CfD 

message: How would people feel about moving this page to "Anti-Arab racism" and keeping "Anti-Arabism" as a redirect to "Anti-Arab racism"?  
The reason I'm suggesting this is because the page Islamophobia has become bogged down with arguments about the term "Islamophobia" rather than the meaning and extent of Islamophobia and a secondary page Anti-Muslim sentiment has had to be created as a storehouse for things which don't qualify the rigid definition of Islamophobia that some are insisting upon.  
Also, anti-Arab racism is more commonly used than anti-Arabism according to Google - (76,000 vs 16,000).
So far this page hasn't become bogged down with arguments about the term anti-Arabism, but it may be in the future. Deuterium 02:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think this would be right. Since when are the Arabs a race? Google test is not reliable. Also, check out the quality of links there. ←Humus sapiens ну? 05:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Arabs may not be a race, but they are an ethnic group, and the phrase "anti-Arab racism" is widely used by mainstream sources. Perhaps "Anti-Arab discrimination" would be a better phrase. Deuterium 05:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that Anti-Arab discrimination is the best title for this article, so I'm for moving the article there. --Inahet 17:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page move to Anti-Arab racism 

message: This section is problematic because it contains original research, and none of the material is referenced. So, I support the removal of this section in its entirety, anyone else? --Inahet 20:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Incidentally, the point form list near the start of the article looks a bit poor. Andjam 10:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree. It looked bizarre indeed. -- Szvest 12:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anti-Arabism from Middle Eastern and North African Christians 

message: There is a footnote with no in-text reference right after the bit about Jack Shaheen in the "Western Media" section. I looked back in this article's history and couldn't find the missing text. I've left the footnote there for now. ChefGonzo 01:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Levesque, John footnote