Talk:Anti-Iranian sentiment/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

this edit

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anti-Iranian_sentiment&diff=278401198&oldid=278343930 this edit by Arcayne is a classic case of manipulation and misrepresentation of sources. He changes the place of a referrence, in order to suggest that the extra information, which is not and is his own pov, is also covered by the source. I think it is time that he gets another warning or gets banned because of his behavior.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 09:22, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I have removed that small bit of personal commentary, it's not supported by the source, and a violation of WP:OR. --Kurdo777 (talk) 15:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Not sure how that happened - as I can clearly see that it wasn't in the cited source, but I appreciate its removal. Thanks for catching it. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Saddam Hussein

Do you refer to him as Saddam or as Hussein?--Kojozone (talk) 06:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Typically, an encyclopedic figure is referred to by their surname, as their given name is seen as too familiar and less than neutral. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I thought so. It means we have to change all references from Saddam to Hussein.--Kojozone (talk) 14:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Done. I also trimmed the overlong caption forone of the images. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Scientific article!!

This article is a big joke, I hope some one will come to re-writing it and removing the Nonsense --Pranki (talk) 21:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you could let us know what parts of the article you feel are deficient or lacking? I think most Wikipedians are genuinely interested in writing good content. What "nonsense" are you referring to? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:14, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

the article is not neutral. It is obviously written by Iranian patriots with a grudge, and the agenda of whining about how badly everyone is treating them. I have no doubt this is a valid topic, but as the article stands is is just involuntary comedy. "anti-Iranian sentiment in 300", give me a break. A more accurate description would be "adolescent nationalist online hysteria over 300". The fact that discussion of 300 alone makes for like 10% of this article is rather telling. Furthermore, portraying criticism of Iran's regime of the religious right as "anti-Iranian" is rather comparable to the Israeli reflex of equating criticism of Israel's goverment with Antisemitism, and just about as sensible. --dab (𒁳) 08:45, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Iran Air Flight 655

The last few lines of the paragraph about the flight, which go 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" seems to suggest that the men were awarded for shooting down the flight, which, according to the source, was not the case. The men were awarded for other actions. Should this be changed? 216.169.178.74 (talk) 23:39, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

However no OR please.--Xashaiar (talk) 23:50, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks like my edit has been reverted. Is there a reason for this? 71.59.123.192 (talk) 16:06, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Could you provide a link to your previous edit? Your current IP address account contributions don't indicate the prior edit from your IP. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:04, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm the same person as 216.169.178.74, but typing from a different location. I previously edited the statement about the Iran Air Flight 655 to improve accuracy by clarifying that the sailors were not awarded for shooting down the flight, but it was reverted. 71.59.123.192 (talk) 21:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

(←dent) Oh, I see. Might I suggest you set up an account, so as to avoid future confusion? If you are unsure as to how to do so, please ask.

As to your question, the material from these three cumulative edits (1, 2, 3) was reverted because it was uncited. As some of the added text offered reasons as to actions, reliable citation is required. If it cannot be cited, it cannot be in Wikipedia. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:33, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, Okay. The information I added comes from the same source, IE http://www.history.com/content/militaryblunders/iran-air-shot-down, as the rest of the information in that paragraph. 71.59.123.192 (talk) 21:41, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Now it's my turn to say "ah, okay". :) If you wish to add it back in, I won't interrupt the process. You might want to take the preliminary step of seeking a source outside the United States for this information, like Reuters, BBC or Le Monde; this avoids the oft-repeated accusation of preferential treatment of home countries by the media. You don't have to do that, but its a thought. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:46, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

It's Joker-Time

I've removed the Joker image from the article, as its linking here doesn't seem to be supported by secondary sources naming it as anti-Iranian sentiment

The image:

Image:Joker as Iranian Ambassador.jpg

is accompanied with a transcript of the comic:

"the Joker, garbed in Arab headdress and robe, addresses the United Nations’ General Assembly as Iranian Ambassador:"I am proud to speak for the great Islamic Republic of Iran. That country’s current leaders and I have a lot in common. Insanity and a great love of FISH. But unfortunately we also share a MUTUAL PROBLEM. We get NO RESPECT. Everyone thinks of Iran as the home of the TERRORIST ZEALOT! They say even worse things about ME, would you believe? We’ve both suffered unkind ABUSE AND BELITTLEMENT! WELL, WE AREN’T GOING TO TAKE IT ANYMORE!! You’ll no longer be allowed to kick us around. In fact, you aren’t going to be able to kick ANYONE around ever again!"

I think that connecting this as anti-Iranian sentiment might seem a clear choice but we cannot add it without a secondary source noting it as such. Until we can, we cannot include it in the article. Thoughts? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• What about this one(mentioned in the body of the text) : The Comic Book Arab? Although the article is mainly about the images of Arabs in the American comic books , but the direct using of the name Iran , and the fact that the ordinary American don't know the difference between Iranian and Arabs , makes the source mentionable . --Alborz Fallah (talk) 18:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

(Just a side note... I've turned the image call into an in-line link since it's a non-free image. I've also left a note on the image page that its use here is being discussed and to hold any deletion until that is resolved. - J Greb (talk) 23:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC))

• From the above mentioned source:

  Thus, Arabs are equated with terrorists who are equated with Iranians who are equated with Batman’s insane arch-nemesis, the Joker. (It is clear that the writers of Batman do not know the difference between a Persian and an Arab. Batman speaks Farsi in Beirut!) The Joker’s insanity is their insanity; his destructiveness is their destructiveness. Batman’s archenemy finds his home with Arabs/Iranians, America’s enemies. This is the most prevalent of the themes involving Arabs in comic books, that is—Arabs [Them] vs. the West [Us].

  --Alborz Fallah (talk) 18:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that the Comic Book Arab would appear to be a far better reference than the Joker one (which, again, isn't wrong to include, it just needs to be cited as to its meaning). I do take some exception to your speculation that "the ordinary American don't know the difference between Iranian and Arabs". It is both ugly and inaccurate. That some Americans don't is true. By that token, it is also true that some folk from the Middle East cannot distinguish different Asian or Caucasoid groups, or the national origins of certain peoples. Perhaps reverse-discrimination would be a particularly bad way for this article to defend itself, as it is both unencyclopedic and a violation of NPOV. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 07:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

There is no distinction between the source Comic Book Arab and it's visual representation Joker one ( as you name it ). Please don't Label it Synthesis OR , because the exact address and the text of the comic book that is mentioned in the Comic Book Arab is obviously referring to the image that is shown in the Image:Joker as Iranian Ambassador.jpg.
For the comment about lack of capability of distinguishing Arabs and Iranians among ordinary Americans, I don't see any ugliness or inaccuracy in that , same as the reality that most of the Iranians don't know anything about the idea that count oriental peoples out of other Asian peoples as different: none of them is a bad comment , but that is relevant ! because as you previously mentioned yourself , a great portion of Anti-Iranian sentiment stems in counting Iranians as Arabs, and that's sure important in this particular Wiki-page.As to note again the fact that I have never saw an Iranian in the western movies without the appearances of the Arabs! Thank you --Alborz Fallah (talk) 10:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, but we don't necessarily need all the panels, with captions that express the same dialogue presented in the image. In fact, I would submit that instead of the image, we use text to note the dialogue, perhaps in super-quotes, as it is the text that is the valuable part of the sentiment (as well as text explaining what might have caused the usage of Iran as a MacGuffin). That might look a lot more professional, and allow us to keep the focus on the sentiment rather than dilute it with images of the Joker (a fictional character not typically associated to Iran).

I would also point out that you yourself have distanced the Iranians from the peoples of the MidEast with your comments above. It doesn't really help your argument that " a great portion of Anti-Iranian sentiment stems in counting Iranians as Arabs" - which seems a rather personal and inflammatory speculation, to my reckoning. I am sure there are a lot of Europeans and Asians (and not just North Americans) who consider Iranians as (if not more) flippin' insane than any Arabic group. I mean, its one thing to talk about anti-Iranism, but Iran doesn't help matters by stoking the fires of this sentiment. As I think both sides bear a lot of culpability in this issue, it might be very helpful to sidestep the nonsense of 'y'all-look-alike-to-me' -style arguments, and stick to the facts. If we don't, the article loses a lot of the neutral positioning required for an encyclopedia, and becomes ripe for deletion.

Btw, I am glad you are taking the time to discuss this, Alborz. I wish more people did. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you think that's more professional to mention it in super-quotes and not to write it in the image caption , then so be it! Please change it as it might . And again , you are right about some politicians that stoke the fire. --Alborz Fallah (talk) 17:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

look, if you find a secondary sources discussing Batman's "Anti-Iranian" tendency, we can still discuss WP:DUE but at least you will have a reference. Just posting comic pages and claiming they are relevant to a discussion of "Anti-Iranian sentiment" is simple WP:OR. As long as you aren't even trying to base this on secondary sources, there is no debate. --dab (𒁳) 16:20, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH

I have no doubt that "anti-Iranian sentiment is a valid artile topic, but where are the scholarly sources discussing the topic? The entire article appears to have been cobbled together using google. Is there no monograph on anti-Iranian sentiment, either in classical Islamic culture or in 20th century America?

I find reference to "The Great Anti-Iranian Conspiracy", but that would fall under "political propaganda under the Pahlavi monarchy". Here is a reference on Nasser being anti-Iranian. But perhaps that would better fit in a discussion of Arab-Iranian relations? In fact, I believe it turns out this article is itself a primary publication of Iranian propaganda, of the "more victimized than thou" kind. I may be wrong, but it would be due to whoever wants to preserve this article to base it on secondary references. --dab (𒁳) 16:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Dab why whenever you want to criticise/improve/make a point on an Iranian related article you use expressions like "Iranian propaganda" (or in other places "Iranian nationalists" actions,...)? There are several problems with your approach. A: It is not always that Iranian propaganda is behind all "badly written but otherwise relevant" articles. B: your prejudgement, as seen in your expressions, is kind of conspiracy theory: "oh, this bad thing should come from those infamous people". C: With those comments you obstruct the way for anyone who might be able to help in accordance with wiki guidelines (like pov, rs, v, synth, ). Xashaiar (talk) 16:31, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

And please explain your edit. See this and and this " Critics have accused the movie of a racist...". So there are concerns. But you dismissed all. That's POV. If those things about "ajam" are not about racism so what are they? Xashaiar (talk) 16:42, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

hm, you have successfully shown that somebody used the word "racist" on the internet. I think you may want to familiarize yourself with WP:RS before taking this any further. Also make up your mind, is this supposed tobe the article about an internet meme, such as "depiction of Iran in online culture", or is it supposed to address the serious topic of "anti-Iranian sentiment"? If the latter is the case, as I venture to suggest is implied by the article title "anti-Iranian sentiment", perhaps you should try and find some actual references on the topic. as opposed to googling keywords like "+iran+racism".

Also, ethnic stereotypes are not racism, and racism is not ethnic stereotyping. As you may already tentatively conclude from the fact that there are two separate articles on the topics. Cliches about Iran and Persians are ethnic stereotypes, not racism. --dab (𒁳) 16:24, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

You did not address your wrong approach to the problem. And I do not know what "you" mean by RS. I do know what it is (check out my edits; most of them are with RS). If this is not RS, then I quit the discussion. This kind of articles do try to say that "300 is not a racist film" (true or false is not important for me) but do mention that "Iranian and some others were indeed concerned about this film and accused it of being racist and anti-Iranian". There have been student protests against release of the film. You say no, the film is not racist (which might be true and is your pov). You have the right to say such things. But you do not have the right to remove mention of such accusation from wikipedia because it is a significant view. The same applies to other sections of the article. Xashaiar (talk) 18:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Is this anti-Iranian SENTIMENT?

How could the US supporting Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war be an anti-Iranian sentiment? It's a political issue, it has nothing to do with sentiments.-- And Rew 02:02, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

The Importance of not mixing anti-Iran's regime sentiments with Anti-Iranian sentiments

There are many sections of the article that mixes anti-Iran's regime sentiments with actual anti-Iranian people sentiments. This takes away the focus from the real anti-Iranian sentiments that is a serious issue and this article is supposedly about.

For example, Khomeini is even more disliked by Iranian-Americans than the general America public, so claiming that negative portrayals of Khomeini is somehow anti-Iranian racism doesn't really make sense. It's like claiming that negative portrayal of Hitler is anti-German racism!!

It also looks like an IP address is insisting on adding material regarding some incident related to Kaveh L. Afrasiabi. Again, Afrasiabi is pro-Iranian regime and disliked by most Iranian-Americans; he was even once egged by a group of Iranian-Americans, so general negative views towards him can not be correlated to anti-Iranian racism. On the other hand, many real instances of anti-Iranian racism like the Iranian-American UCLA student who was racially profiled and tasered, are missing from the article.

Inclusion of pro-Iranian regime material, in support of the Iranian regime's policies, undermines the objectivity of the article which should instead focus on the serious issue of anti-Iranian sentiments and racism against Iranians in general. Marmoulak (talk) 22:06, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

The edits (1, 2) are good edits. Xashaiar (talk) 14:01, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't know Mr. Kaveh Afrasiabi and I don't know what his beef is (or is not) with the Iranian-American community. All I know is that he has been the subject of some kind police abuse at Harvard and it has been reported in the press. The fact is properly sourced. Please note that the sentence says clearly "alleged" accusations. Regarding the "tasered student", I agree that his case could be added to the list. Why wait? just go ahead (see WP: Anyone can edit). 68.197.144.38 (talk) 15:34, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

My edits

I fixed an introduction and deleted a bunch of examples. The reason is that they presented a common logical blunder: If I kick ass of a guy from Arizona, this does not make me anti-Arizonian. For all removed cases the sources do no state that the sentiment was specifically against Iran. Moreover, most of them speak of anti-Middle East sentiment, towelhead terrorists, you know... I highly doubt that an average American skinhead can tell an Iranian from Armenian. Loggerjack (talk) 20:33, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

• Yah, I'll remember that next time I'm called a "raghead." It wasn't anti-Iranian, it was anti-Middle Eastern in nature. That makes it okay. Oh, and if you assault someone from Arizona because they are either Arizonian, or even just LOOK Arizonian, according to U.S law, you committed a bigoted hate crime, regardless of what they actually are. It is all about intent. Sorry to inform you of these little facts. The Scythian 01:10, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

The source for the second example (Esfahani) clearly demonstrates that the antagonists (at least according to the accusation) were attacking him for being from the "Middle East" or "Iraq" and not from Iran. Loggerjack has a valid point that this isn't necessarily anti-Iranian but rather anti-Middle Eastern or islamophobic discrimination. The first example (Boroumand) seems to have been targeted specifically for his national origin, so I think that would count as anti-Iranian. GabrielF (talk) 06:10, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

What you say is a fallacy since there cannot be "anti-anything" because everyone is UNIQUE. 68.197.144.38 (talk) 14:03, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your point. Would you mind rephrasing it? GabrielF (talk) 04:03, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

According to this reasoning, one can always find a sub-group. For example when Israeli-Jews spit on Christians, one would not be able to call it "anti-Christian" since it can also be defined as "anti-Gentile" or something broader. 68.197.144.38 (talk) 20:32, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

• • Scythian, it seems that you completely misunderstood my arguments, both about "anti-Iranian" and "anti-Arizonian". Also, please avoid insulting and mocking comments, such as that you are "sorry to inform me". As other users explained, my edits were completely valid, because (I am repeating my edit summaries) (a) the sources dotn't describe them as anti-Iranian (b) anti-middle-East does not equal to anti-Iranian. If you disagree, please provide proofs. Meanwhile I am about to restore my edits, since you failed to prove your point. Loggerjack (talk) 00:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

  If you disagree and insist that the removed cases were specifically anti-Iranian, I admit that I may be missing something from sources, therefore kindly please provide the quotations which confirm that the cases were indeed targetting an Iranian person for his Iranian nationality. Loggerjack (talk) 00:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

  These are good edits. This article has a long tradition of reaching beyond its defined focus (at one time Genghis Khan was in here!) I am also going to remove the video of Saddam and Rumsfeld as this is irrelevant to the topic. GabrielF (talk) 02:31, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Article problems

Per Scythian77's request, here is an explanation of my changes to this article on January 3rd.

First, some background. This article has historically had a number of problems. It has gone through 3 AfD votes and the concerns expressed in those discussions was that very large sections of the article constituted original research because they implied that particular events constituted "anti-Iranian sentiment" without citing a source saying so. For instance, at one time there was a large section on Genghis Khan. Doubtless, Genghis Khan caused terrible suffering in Persia, but by including him in this article we are implying that he did so out of racial prejudice against Persians and this is simply a very strange assertion to make without a source. Just because someone does something that may harm Iran or Iranian people, does not mean that this is an act of racism or prejudice. Certainly, the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. was an act of racism, but to list every shooting of an African American by a white man in an article on racism in the United States would be a terrible thing. Not only would it be OR, but it would also imply a particular viewpoint about race relations. It would also make it very difficult to have an honest conversation about race, because if every negative action is automatically treated as racist than the idea of racism itself becomes meaningless.

With this in mind, here is an explanation of each of my changes.

Edit: I've decided to add Loggerjack's edits here as well, since I happen to agree that these pieces should also be removed

1. Removing the video of Saddam Hussein and Rumsfeld. Countries ally themselves with each other for many reasons. By including this video we are implying that the alliance between the US and Iraq was based on racism against Iranians. This is an extraordinary claim and requires extraordinary sourcing. Isn't it more likely that this alliance, like most diplomatic activities, was based on a political decision about what would be in the United States' best interest?
2. Transformers This is a movie about machines that can transform from cars into robots. The idea that a line in this movie stating that this technology is beyond the capabilities of Iranian scientists constitutes some form of prejudice or racism is silly. This is technology that is beyond the capabilities of anyone on Earth. We need a source that makes the connection between this and prejudice or racism against Iranians. Otherwise, including it is OR.
3. Other movies For the remaining list of movies we are given no information about why they are anti-Iranian. Without a source, they should go.
4. Saddam recruiting foreign Arabs - How are Saddam's recruitment tactics an example of racism or prejudice against Iranians? Again, there's no source that connects this sentence to the topic.
5. Palestinians - Again, this seems like a purely political issue. In fact, the text of the paragraph explicitly states "We, as the Palestinian people, support whoever supports our people and President Hussein was one of those." If a Palestinian political leader supports one country over another based on past relationships than how is that an example of prejudice or racism?
6. Kurdish Noruz riots - The source quoted here suggests that there was a violent protest and that people were killed. If this is an example of racism than we need a source that explicitly states so.
7. Turkey and Iranian regional movements - again, is this an issue of politics or an issue of race and ethnicity? We need a source that says that the Turkish Ambassador's statements represent prejudice and racism rather than just political calculation about what is in Turkey's best interest.
8. International Scientific Community - this is an issue of copyright violation. The text is blatantly copied from the Nature article and must be deleted for that reason per WP:CP. I will delete this section while we discuss the other issues.
9. Car dealer The source says: "I can't believe you are buying from that terrorist. He is from Iraq, and he is funneling money back to his family and other terrorists. I have a brother over there and what you're doing is helping kill my brother," - clearly this is a case of anti-Muslim or anti-Arab prejudice but it isn't a case of anti-Iranian prejudice since the individual in question couldn't distinguish between Iraq and Iran. We could use it as an example of how Iranian-Americans experience prejudice because they are lumped in with Arabs and/or Muslims but we can't state that it represents "anti-Iranian sentiment"
10. Afrasiabi He claims he was subject to prejudice. On the other hand he left a bar without paying his bill and the police found that he had a warrant for his arrest. That side of the story needs to be present. But even if the POV issue is resolved, is Afrasiabi really claiming that the police were anti-Iranian? The source: "Police officers, who he alleged targeted him because he “looks foreign and has a foreign-sounding name...” - this might belong in an article on xenophobia, but there's no reason to call it anti-Iranian specifically.
11. Taser incident reading through the wikipedia article I don't see anything that says this is an explicitly anti-Iranian incident. This is in contrast to the Merrill Lynch trader who was clearly targeted because of his nationality.

I think the section on the film 300 is a pretty good example of what this article should be. We are given plenty of background information and we are shown sources that explain why the film constitutes racism or prejudice against Persians. I would like to see the other side of the story, if there is one, but at the very least there are no issues of original research. I think that if the material listed above is going to stay in the article it needs to look more like that section.

Thanks, GabrielF (talk) 15:57, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

• I actually agree with much of what you are saying here, believe it or not. I have wanted to take this article in a very different direction, for sometime, but simply have too many commitments in the real world for now. For instance, the notion of "anti-Persianism" has far more of a record and historical documentation, than any idea of "anti-Iranianism" toward a modern nation state, though there is some. This book comes to mind, for instance[1]. I disagree with some of your notions, though. For instance, Donald Rumsfeld may not have "hated Persians," our even cared less, other than a beef with the then new Iranian government. Saddam Hussein, though, did. This is well documented, and, and resulted in the deaths of countless Kurdish civilians by chemical weapons usage, Iranian soldiers, and even the killing Iraqi Shia Arabs. That is well documented, and simply not open to debate. Secondly, the fact that this article was driven no less than three times before a deletion review, and kept each time, shows much more about the clear POV bias of some editors on Wikipedia, than any judgment on the validity of this subject, be it "anti-Iranism," or more accurately, anit-Persianism. After all, the article is still here, despite the clear agenda of some editors, who simply wish an actual subject would not be mentioned on Wikipeda. The same could be said for articles on "anti-Middle Eastern" sentiment, as well as Islamophoiba. In the case of the article on hatred towards Middle Easterners, something the U.S Government takes very seriously, documents and investigates, the article was deleted. The reason should be obvious.

• I myself propose to at the very least, rename this article "anti-Persianism," as the concept is far more applicable, and documented to a much greater degree. The Scythian 22:09, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Scythian's reverts

I find the behavior of Scythian unethical: this editor reverts huge pieces of edits of other people without explanation and ignoring my request for explanation, while demanding explanations from others. Mine are just "drive-by edits", so I didn't know the history of this page, and assuming good faith, I thought that Scythian's request for explanations from me as a new editor was reasonable. But now I see a certain pattern in Scythian's actions, which I see as disrespect of other people's work. If this editor persists in his behavior, I am afraid I will have to complain somewhere, even though I don't have any particular interests in this topic. Loggerjack (talk) 20:59, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

• You haven't actually done any work on this article, Loggerjack. You have only removed and deleted the work of others. Not to mention, your rationale on doing so has been in question by several Editors here for some time. Explain yourself like Editor GabrielIF,and you might find yourself actually getting somewhere. Continuing with yourself current behavior, signifies that your viewpoints are rather fringe, at best. You might be suprised that we actually have a similar vision for this article. Then again, maybe not The Scythian 21:48, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Like I said, please provide references where the deleted stuff is called anti-Iranian centiment, and I will crawl back under the stone. Loggerjack (talk) 22:00, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

As to the article content, I am afraid that colleague Scythian has a misunderstanding about the addition/deletion of content. In fact, it is the person who adds content bears the burden of proof. We questioned the relevance of the deleted pieces to the article. If you think that they belong here, please provide citations from valid sources which clearly state that they constitute anti-Iranian sentiment. Loggerjack (talk) 21:17, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

• You didn't just delete one thing. You made walloping edits, and in fact re-added stuff who's removal was already justified. I have to question your interest in this subject, as with many others. This article was put forth no less than three times for deletion, a few years back. The rationale behind it? That anti-Iranian sentiment simply does not exist. An absurd notion, but one that certain highly bias editors believe in. For the record, I do not like this article. I think the notion of "Anti-Iranian Sentiment" is in inaccurate, and historical scholarship backs me up. What should exist are two articles. One on "anti-Middle Eastern" sentiment. A very real fact in the Western world at this time. Another on "anti-Persian" sentiment, which is a something that has be in existence for millennia, and what really should be the purpose of this article. This article confuses dislike of a modern nation state and Government, I.E Iran, with historical bigotry towards and culture and people. I.E Persians and related ethnic groups. It is far easier to document these facts, than any modern day rivalry between nation states. Unfortunately, many on Wikipeda seem to feel that since they do not wish a subject to be present on Wikipedia, that it in effect does not exist. The Scythian 21:48, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I think you are confused: I didn't re-add anything but my clafication of the intro. Your speech here is misdirected. I have no interest nor knowledge in the subject. But do have a computer with internet access I can easily verify what is supported by citations and what is not. II do agree with you that the whole subject is thoroughly confused, since it is very difficult to separate anti-Islamism/Anti-Middle-easter/Anti-Iranian/anti-Arab/anti-Persian. Not to say that "anti-Middle Eastern sentiment" is just as well a misnomer, since Israel is somewhere in the very middle of the middle east (I think). Anyway, I am bored already. Since nobody else expresses interest here, I am done with this pissing contest. Bye, drive safely. Loggerjack (talk) 22:00, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
    • See ya! I am glad you admit you know little on the subject. I guess one can just "Google" one's way to a graduate degree in the topic, I suppose. Oh, and Israel is in the Middle East, and for example, many Israelis have experienced bigotry and prejudice in the U.S, because of their "Middle Eastern" appearance and language. Though, it is obvious that is not what you were alluding to. The Scythian 22:13, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Hollywood's Depiction

Examples must be referenced from sources which claim that they are anti Iranian. For example, saying "arabian gulf" instead of "persian gulf" may simply show someone's stupidity, rather than racism. Loggerjack (talk) 21:09, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

• Wikipedia actually has an article on that. Not to mention, you changed ALOT more than that. The Scythian 21:33, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I merely restored your revert of mine and Gabriel's edits, explained above in detail. Please don't revert them again without discussion. Loggerjack (talk) 21:46, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
  • As for the Gulf, I didn't edit this at alll, and the article you cites says that it is about pan-Arabism, not specifically anti-Iranism. Loggerjack (talk) 21:38, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Loggerjack, one of the tenants of pan-Arabism, is unfortunately hatred for Persians, amongst others. Jews, as well. At least in it's more extreme form. Read for yourself. I mean, you can even read Bernard Lewis' take on the Arab view of all things "Persian." Not a big secret. Are you not familiar with the modern ethnic relationships of the Near East and Central Asia? The Scythian 21:53, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
      • So, you are welcome to write about Anti-Persian aspects of pan-Arabism. IMO it is a valid splitting of the topic. Loggerjack (talk) 22:03, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
        • Sounds like overkill, to me. One article would be enough, though the scholarly work is certainly there for it to be well sourced as a subject all on it's own. The Scythian 22:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
          • I beg to disagree: it is a huge underkill: the current Pan-Arabism article says nothing on the subject. And since it is a well-defined topic, as you say, it may well be started from a new article. Loggerjack (talk) 22:33, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
            • Fair enough. Go for it. The basis of Pan-Arabism bares much in common with National Socialist notions, as much as with influence form socialist and even communist ideas as it evolved. It has an inherent racialist notion of "Arabness" to it. You can find other example of that in the Middle East, as well as Europe, and Asia. The Scythian 22:52, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Opening Discussion on Potential Article Rename

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Anti-Iranian sentiment → Anti-Persian sentiment — I am opening up a discussion for the possible renaming of this article, from it's current name of "anti-Iranian sentiment," to "anti-Persian sentiment." The article's current naming suggests a purely national notion of prejudice or bigotry, against a nation state and/or government, and those in it, which unto itself is somewhat questionable. It is a notion that though written about, has more to do with the popular views of modern governments and their actions, such as the current "Islamic Republic of Iran," than anything to do with actual historical bigotry and hatred towards those labeled as "Persian," and the related ethnic groups that that are commonly perceived as being lumped in as "Persian." In this case, the article has led to a great deal of confusion, with some editors seeing and understanding the term "Iranian" as reflecting the modern nation-state and those strictly from it, and other editors seeing the articles purpose as giving of summation of historical prejudice, bigotry and stereotypes of people and and peoples who are culturally Persian, or even by some editors as belonging to a larger "Iranian" ethno-linguistic group. I believe that this would be best addressed by both renaming the article, and giving the article a massive rewrite in the sourced historical context. I would like to hear as many views on this matter as possible. The Scythian 23:33, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

• Why not two articles; one for anti-Iranian and the other for anti-Persian sentiment? Quigley (talk) 01:12, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Well, history shows that the two concepts were intentionally merged. See also the history of Anti-Persianism. (And Anti-Iranianism was title before Anti-Iranian sentiment.) So you better ask these people why they did this. Anyway, I guess you better to come up with a good article plan first, if you want to put forth your idea. This kind of separation I see, e.g., in Anti-Zionism/Antisemitism. IMO it is worth looking at how other "anti"-sentiments are handled. A first best off-the-category:Anti-national sentiment case, Anti-German sentiment, is apparently happy with a two-in-one approach. Loggerjack (talk) 16:38, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
    • I am leaning towards Loggerjack on this. The two concepts do fuse together, and Wikipedia's edit history clearly reflects it. The only problem with my own take on a major rewrite? Time...Might be a few days before I can even begin to ponder it. The Scythian 05:31, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
      • I don't understand WHY some people want to deny that anti-Iranian sentiment exists? 67.85.17.129 (talk) 05:48, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

First we should decide which one we are talking about. Iran or Iranian is a new name compared to Persia or Persian. When someone talks about anti-Iraninan, this reflects recent politics of the current country, but anti-Persian is a deeper word which reflects much more subjects and goes back to the ancient history. I think they are two different subjects. However, Anti-Iranian sentiment could be a subheading for Anti-Persian sentiment. Of course other editors' ideas are fully respected. *** in fact *** ( contact ) 07:12, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Missing section

I think a section like "Anti-Iranian sentiments by Islamic Republic" is necessary (it ranges from persecution of individuals with Iranian history and culture as their main concern and activities, also several "islam only matters" speeches, insult to iranian people (like whoever speaks an Iranian language goes to hell, and 100s more) by official of khomaini-khameni regime in official tribunes like TV/friday gatherings of islamists/... ). Is it only me or others do have some concern? If people agree I can create that section. The number of sources is overwhelming and there will not be any source problem. I was wondering if other editors would reject this proposal. Xashaiar (talk) 15:06, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Title of Article

There is absolutely no need for there to be the word "sentiment" anywhere in the title of this article. Having the word "sentiment" in the title is seemingly aiming to make Anti-Iranian prejudice seem more normal (or natural) in my opinion, and that's another prejudice against Iranians right there. As an Iranian (who's experienced racism first hand for being Iranian), I think the title of this ethnic/cultural prejudice is misleading with that word. It should, like other cultural prejudices (like anti-Italianism, anti-Turkism) follow the same title format on Wikipedia. I've renamed it "Anti-Iranian Propaganda" for now because I couldn't revert it back to Anti-Iranianism for some reason. Someone seriously needs to get this fixed asap.

We have Anti-British sentiment, Anti-Chilean sentiment, Anti-Estonian sentiment, Anti-German sentiment, Anti-Hungarian sentiment, Anti-Igbo sentiment, Anti-Japanese sentiment, Anti-Korean sentiment, Anti-Mexican sentiment, Anti-Pakistan sentiment, Anti-Polish sentiment, Anti-Qing sentiment, Anti-Quebec sentiment, Anti-Scottish sentiment, Anti-Ukrainian sentiment and Anti-Western sentiment. I fail to see how Iranians are being singled out here. GabrielF (talk) 00:11, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Also, looking at the edit history at Anti-Iranianism, which is located here, it appears that this page was moved to Anti-Iranian sentiment from Anti-Iranianism as the result of a lengthy discussion. You should review that discussion and the rationale behind the move before making this change. If you still want to move the page back to Anti-Iranianism you need to go through the Wikipedia:Requested moves process]]. GabrielF (talk) 01:16, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

move to Anti-Iranian propaganda

I'm concerned that moving Anti-Iranian sentiment to Anti-Iranian Propaganda violates wikipedias rules on maintaining a neutral point of view and avoiding original research. Particularly, I feel that the term propaganda implies content that is created explicitly to advance a particular political agenda. A number of examples listed in this article (for example, the movie 300, may be insensitive, but there's no sourcing to suggest that they constitute propaganda. Other sections of the article, such as "The Netherlands" or "Sanctions against Iranian scientists" are actions, not speech. GabrielF (talk) 00:06, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Anti-Iranian sentiment in Israel

is quite widespread and has been recognized by the media: http://badgerherald.com/oped/2012/03/05/israeli_anti-iran_se.php I think a reference needs to added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DarklyCute (talk • contribs) 23:36, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Turkey the 1993 Sivas Massacre

What does this have to do with Iran? Nowadays everybody wants a piece of this (Kurds, Alevis, Folk Singers, Hotel Owners....and especially politicians). The plain fact is the violence was directed at an atheist writer Aziz Nesin, for his atheistic world view( He said "your allah, not mine" to IHA, an islamic news agency). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.108.10.94 (talk) 23:45, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to see Prince of Perisa added to the list of movies

Prince of Persia movie also happened to share anti Iran views. in the movie, the prince himself had unknown parents which highly suggested the prince of Persia himself was an illegal child. Also the Persian army in the movie happened to look like Taliban's ancient army with invading other beautiful civilizations (like Persia was not one itself) and destroying everything and forcing their women to marry them. While this all happen to be so untrue if you just take a look at the Cyrus the great's invasion of Babylon. I believe nothing more needs to be said. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shervin7 (talk • contribs) 08:28, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

rename the article to Iranophobia?

let me know what you think. Brickchairbrickchair (talk) 22:01, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Pointless reverts

Add the BLP violations one more time and it is off to ANI. Darkness Shines (talk) 02:39, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Your attitude is VERY accusatory, and violates Wikipedia protocol. Please discuss your changes, and let's avoid an edit war here please. I am sure a a happy medium can be found. I am just trying to resolve a conflict. The Scythian 02:43, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Read the crap you are reverting in, A It is unsourced. B there is a BLP violation it it. Or do you think that adding "Michael Bay's Hollywood make over depicts Persians in a degrading way" is suitable? Darkness Shines (talk) 02:51, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Look, I am happy to work with you here, and partially agree. In the mean time, using terms like "crap" towards me is unacceptable. The Scythian 02:58, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

No, what is unacceptable is your blindly reverting unsourced and BLP violating crap into an article, discussion over. Darkness Shines (talk) 03:00, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Ajam meaning

The word 'Ajam' or 'عجم' is an Arabic word which means 'foreign' or 'not Arab'. What does it have to do with Iran itself? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.37.162.15 (talk) 15:37, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Euphemism criticized

PersiansAreNotArabs.com theres even a site about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.32.114.123 (talk) 18:53, 29 June 2015 (UTC) > Sanctions against Iranian scientists

Why do you call magnetic-attached car bombing of iranian scientists "sanctions"? The whole world calls that assassination!

Furthermore, it should be mentioned that iranophobia is widespread among jews. The roots of the divine kabbalah come from the dualistic teachings of an ancient persian sage named Zarathustra. This is not an easy to admit fact for the chosen nation, that prizes its own literacy and inventiveness so much. It is easier to hate the iranians and seek out their vanquish, even though the persian people are excellent techs, maths and savants themselves, way above arabs! How many nations have done any successful domestic satellite launch so far? 213.163.26.138 (talk) 12:54, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Fully protected, three days

Lots of reverts, no discussion, trouts all around. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:59, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

User:ScrapIronIV, please explain why two academic sources and fixed links have been removed? Edit warring has started because few Israeli or pro-Israeli editors wants to remove content, ironically even sources written by Israeli scholars. I'm afraid fact that one Israeli boy like Averysoda WP:DONTLIKE content isn't good reason for keeping Wikipedia censored. --MehrdadFR (talk) 05:44, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Easy, a partisan treatise on a neologism based upon nationalist paranoia is not a reason to completely rewrite a Wikipedia article. This article is horrendously biased already, with undue weight placed upon inividual opinions. The "section" created for Alexander is particularly egregious, being based on a single sentence. The source barely mentions Persia. The focus on films in general needs to be significantly trimmed, if not razed entirely. The entire article deserves a dose of WP:TNT Scr★pIron^IV 13:18, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

User:ScrapIronIV, I am easy with you. With Averysoda it was different because he harassed me on various articles, so he was reported and blocked indefinitely. Still, I won't making further reverts until I reach consensus with you. I do agree article has many issues and my suggestion is that BBC poll and Apple case should be removed. Poll is related to foreign policy influence, while Apple case is irrelevant since it's a misunderstanding of export policy by an employee. Nothing more then an incident. Major problem with this article is that it's based on many specific cases without any summarized background, especially in the "United States" section. Relevant literature exist, like The Great Satan vs. the Mad Mullahs: How the United States and Iran Demonize Each Other and many other. Regarding movies, I do agree making sections for every specific film is nonsense because there are at least 15-20 movies in total. However, sources can easily be find, like:

Anti-Iranian and anti-Islamic Republic features kicked into high gear in the 2000s when the diplomatic relations between Iran and the West worsened and the neoconservatives' drumming for war with Iran in the United States and Israel intensified, necessitating the revisiting of the ancient Greco-Persian wars. Perceived as the emblematic first "conflict between east and west," instrumental in Western self-perception and self-definition, these wars were invariably told from Greek/Western point of view. Old, Orientalist stereotypes of ancient Persia and Iran were revived and revised to fit the new threat. Historical movies such as Oliver Stone's Alexander (2004) and Zack Snyder's Three Hundred (2006) massively misrepresented ancient Persia's battles against the Greeks by representing them from a Western Orientalist perspective - an "Orientalist opera".

It's from Hamid Naficy: A Social History of Iranian Cinema, Volume 4: The Globalizing Era, 1984–2010, Duke University Press, pp. 286. Movies section should basically be divided into three text paragraphs by film topic: historical, cultural and political. Article is also missing parts about literature and television, which include far more examples then cinematography. I think this would be some general guideline. --MehrdadFR (talk) 06:09, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Two major problems with the article

First problem: the term "Anti-Iranian sentiment" is inherently ambiguous (unfortunately it shares this drawback with all other "Anti-X sentiment" articles): it draws no distinction between valid concerns over Iranian policies and sentiments based on stereotypical prejudices. THe article does poor job bringing attention to this fact, and this lead to possible confusion. For example the two cited poll tables may be viewed as a confirmation of overwhelming "hostility, hatred, discrimination, or prejudice towards Iran and its culture" in the world, if you look at the intro and then at the table. Which is clearly not.

The second problem is WP:NPOV. Some sections (I tagged two; about films) are written 100% about negative interpretation of some item, without presenting a possible opposite view. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:15, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Compared to these two gross problems, some coatrackishness and OR are secondary. IMO, after straightening the first problem, some others will disappear.

And the second one is a fairly common case in wikipedia, when the editorship is unwittingy or deliberately focus on a single side of a phenomenon. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:15, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Apple incident

The source alleges nothing about A-I S. The text makes a comparison: "Apple store refusing to sell to anyone who speaks Spanish because they might have defected from Cuba. " I.e., it is about the stupidity of an employee rather than about their A-I S. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:21, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Polls

Polls are mostly related to politics and not related to Iranophobia as a cultural phenomenon. My suggestion is removal. --MehrdadFR (talk) 07:44, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Anti-Iranian sentiment. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070317053547/http://film.guardian.co.uk/apnews/story/0,,-6478028,00.html to http://film.guardian.co.uk/apnews/story/0,,-6478028,00.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070317200620/http://www.baztab.ir/news/63042.php to http://www.baztab.ir/news/63042.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080120175709/http://www.nisnews.nl:80/public/030108_2.htm to http://www.nisnews.nl/public/030108_2.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:14, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Some issues in the Arab World section

Hello all,

I'd like to draw attention to a few problems with the Arab World section of the page and wish to offer some suggestions:

- Ajam is the Arabic word for foreigner, non-Arab. It has an etymology. Every human language has a word for foreigner. Sometimes, it is used pejoratively. At first glance, the fact that Arabs called Persians foreigners/non-Arabs does not seem very surprising. If this is going to be used as an example of racism, it's necessary to explain why calling Persians non-Arabs was degrading. This is confusing - had Arabs called Persians fellow Arabs instead, would that have been better?

- The next section is titled "Other slurs", implying that Ajam is itself a slur, without any evidence given. Later down the text, the word Ajam becomes translated as "unclean" (!), no evidence or source offered either. What's going on here?

- "Majus" means Magian/Zoroastrian, it is not a slur!!! What may arguably be a slur would be to call an Iranian Muslim a Zoroastrian because of his ancestry. The article states "Sunni Arabs" call Iranians Majus. - Which Sunni Arabs? All of them? Source needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.89.36.24 (talk) 13:14, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

- Heavy reliance on primary material, e.g. citing a letter by Muawiyyah or an 11th century text by Biruni wthout contextualising their origin or significance as per modern historians. It is later stated in another section that Muawiyyah's stance was strongly denounced by the authorities under Ali. This is why cherry-picking primary sources is no good, a Wiki article should reflect the spectrum of opinions among modern scholars, and use of primary sources be limited to supporting the opinions of the scholars cited.

- Again on primary material without context: "Sati' al-Husri's campaigns against schools suspected of being positive towards Persia". Who is this man? Why was there a campaign? By whom? The Iraqi government was apparently recruiting Iranians as teachers - who was against it? Why? What did the campaign consist of and why what was its significance? The article then goes on to cite an excerpt from a job interview in the 1920s, as reported 70 years later, and simply states: "the excerpt is revealing". Why is it revealing? As a reader, this gives me the impression that the editor was just mining for quotes by obscure personages that seem to support his POV, rather than trying to present the diverse views of historians and experts.

- The article appears to take incoherent stances. For example, the Arab aristocracy apparently encouraging Persians to speak Arabic is Iranophobic. Same aristocracy apparently discouraging the use of Arab clothing is also Iranophobic. Which way is it then? Is it Iranophobic to promote the ruling Arabs' culture, or to not promote it? And according to whom?

- Pages like this one are quite sensitive, since they will be used by people to justify racist opinions. In my view, what the article should be aiming at is a format more along the lines of: "According to [modern historian 1], the period of Arab domination in Persia was marked by intense discrimination against the natives, citing [examples A, B, C] as evidence. However, [modern historian 2] argues to the contrary that Arab rule in Persia was fairly tolerant by the standards of the time, because [examples D, E, F].", and so on.

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.89.36.24 (talk) 13:08, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Anti-Iranian sentiment. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080505033543/http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=worldNews to http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=worldNews&storyID=2006-12-18T153115Z_01_PAR843520_RTRUKOC_0_US-IRAQ-SADDAM.xml&WTmodLoc=IntNewsHome_C2_worldNews-1
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.sky.com/skynews/video/videoplayer/0%2C%2C30000-witness_301206_0700%2C00.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://film.guardian.co.uk/apnews/story/0%2C%2C-6478028%2C00.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0%2C8599%2C1598886%2C00.html?cnn=yes
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://film.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0%2C%2C2033630%2C00.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.slate.com/id/2161450
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nisnews.nl/public/030108_2.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:14, 7 July 2017 (UTC)