Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:09, 6 March 2006

The distinction between "Persian Arabs" and "Iranian Arabs" seems to conflate culture and descent. So far as I can tell from the article, Iranian Arabs are described as following "non-Persian" customs and organizing themselves in tribes. Persian Arabs are just like other Persians but they speak Arabic. Iranian Arabs are described as immigrants and Persian Arabs as real old-stock Persian.

But ... you can't just assume that cultural differences mean differences in descent. Culture isn't transmitted in the genes ... it's learned. In this case, you can't even assume that someone in a tribe, claiming Arab descent, is really of Arab descent, since in the first century of Islam converts were required to have an Arab patron and be adopted into an Arab tribe. The only way to demonstrate any of this would be genetic analysis. Do you have any to cite?

There was a recent article in the National Geographic about a genetic survey done in Lebanon. I don't recall all the details, but the survey showed a surprising continuity between the pre-Arab-conquest population and people who would be described as Arab now.

Scholars are quite interested in the whole process of "Arabicization" right now. Why did it happen in some countries and not in others? How IS it that the peoples of the Iranian plateau kept their own languages and, to a great extent, cultures, whereas the non-Arabs of Syria and Iraq gradually became "Arab"? It's a hard topic to study, as it is only glancingly treated by conventional history, which is a record of wars and conquests and dynasties, not of culture and language. Zora 07:48, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Responded on Talk:Khuzestan. SouthernComfort 09:07, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Zora's recent edits

Problems I addressed with Zora's edits:

Claiming some historians as "academic" while judging others as not is subjective writing. A graduate student with an unpublished PhD thesis is no more academic than a scholar with a PhD from France teaching in Tehran University for 50 years.--Zereshk 22:23, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Depends very much on who he is and what he has to say. You don't give a name or any details. Zora 21:08, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

It doesnt depend on anything Zora. You (nor me) cannot judge who is an academic and who is not. It's not your call. I'm sure you can still write everything youve been writing without introducing such subjective distinctions.--Zereshk 22:23, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

We dont need the Ansari guy anyway. It is well accepted that Arabistan was a name in use around the 17th century. It is accepted and needs no proof.--Zereshk 22:23, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

But his study doesn't go back all that far, and it isn't clear exactly WHEN that name for the province began to be used. That's why we have to be vague, because we don't know. Do you have cites from any old government records? Zora

Are you contesting that "Arabistan" was in use by the 16-17th century? If not, then you dont need this guy to prove something which is already accepted, (and which I'm agreeing with). Why would you? Unless youre trying to re-invent the wheel.--Zereshk 22:23, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Attaching "Persian" to Sassanid and Achaemenid Iran is erroneous (even though I even do so unconsciously in writings). Why? Because Pahlavi was not exactly Persian. Nor is Aramaic (which was prevalent around the Sassanid era). Neither is Persian similar to what the Achaemenids used 2500 years ago. Iran's historical identity is much more complex than the average westerner realizes. Persian as we know it today came out around the 9th century. Just say "Sassanid" or say "Achaemenid". Dont drag race issues into it. If Cyrus merged Media and Persia, then that practically makes Azeris even "Persian". Or does it? That's why it is more correct to use "Iran" instead of "Persia", even though prevalent.--Zereshk 22:23, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I need a scorecard here. I never know when to use Persian or Farsi, say Persia or Iran. Furthermore, it's strange that you are chiding me for considering the Achaemenids Persian, when in other debates you have asserted that "Persian-ness" goes back to the Elamites. I thought I was making a nod to your position when I used "Persian" so much, and here you are telling me that I'm wrong. Interesting. Zora 21:08, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I know Ive been sloppy in using "Persian" alot. The way Ive been using it, "Persia" was simply "pre-1920-ish Iran" (pre-Pahlavi era). But we're getting really technical here, and I need to start being more careful in words usage: The reason I prefer the word "Iranian" is because people keep viewing "Persian"-ness thru ethnic eye-glasses, which is incorrect. If the achaemenids merged the Medians and Persians together, that technically makes Azeris as Persian. Ah, but does it? Do you see my point? You see, to be Persian, is not just to speak "Persian language". It's more general than that. And since people now tend to use "Persian" as an ethnic term, then "Iranian" is more correct, when referring to the entity and peoples of what is today "I.R.Iran". Tell me, do you have a better term? Give me a name that will encompass the people that have been living in what is now I.R. of Iran, and who call Iran their home, and I will use it instead of the term "Persian" which has taken an ethnic meaning.--Zereshk 22:23, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't know what other people think. I vaguely know that there is some controversy. I know that if I were a member of non-Persian minority, I would much prefer to live in Iran, where many people speak Farsi. I don't know how far back in the past I would want to go in calling things Persian. I see a huge discontinuity between the pre-Islamic and post-Islamic conquest language and customs, but ever since Firdausi, the post-conquest Persians have asserted their continuity and identity with the pre-Conquest Persians. So that's problematic. Zora 09:18, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Thats exactly why I prefer to use the word "Iranian". Not "Persian". Because everyone in the west (like yourself) views the word "Persian" as an ethnic term. When the greeks made up the word "persis", they viewed all of us as one (no matter where from Iran and from what tribe). But today that has changed. That's why it's better to use the word Iran, because Iran refers to all the tribes and groups of the land (not just modern "Persians"). It is a place name (Iran means "where the Aryan lives"), it is not an ethnic name, and the name refers to times even before Cyrus.--Zereshk 02:58, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

No one is out to get Arab lands and "throw them out" of Iran. This is the pure propaganda Bullshit that is NOT academic, nor verifiable.

I think it's verifiable just in the attitudes you and Southern Comfort have expressed here. The two of you have continually pushed for a late date of Arabization, asserted that Sheikh Khaz'al was an immigrant, and in general seemed to regard the Arabs as suspicious foreigners. Zora 21:08, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

In fact, the date your "Ansari" guy provides is the 17th century. The date I provided was 16th century, earlier than yours. And SC also did say that "Arabistan" came about with the arrival of the Mushasha'iyah. We do know that the Mushie tribes were firmly in place by the 16th century.

Sheikh Khaz'al however is different. He did arrive much later. By a century or so. There are different tribes and clans. Not all arrived at the same time.

Arabs are not "suspicious foreigners". Neither are the ones who wish to have their civil rights observed. But the ones who you hear talking about "secessionism", definitely are. such as the people who made the "al-ahwaz" website. The Arabs of Khuzestan are oppressed, true. But they do not want secession, which is EXACTLY what "al-ahwazi" internet people are pushing for.--Zereshk 22:23, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Another myth: Arabic names were allowed. Look at the names of the era of historical statesmen. Almost all were Arabic. Mohammad, Ali, Reza, Hasan, Hosein, Abbas. etc. He did however encourage the use of Persian names.--Zereshk 22:23, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I have seen this claim, that Arab names weren't allowed, in many places. You do, however, say that Persian names were "encouraged". OK, what constitutes encouragement? What is considered a Persian name and what is considered an Arab one? More detail needed. Zora 21:08, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

"Encouragement for Persian names (not =) Banning of Arab names". Persian names are like Darius, Mehrdad, Cyrus, Ardashir, babak, etc. (i.e. pre-Islamic). And besides, I only agreed with you on my own accord that Persian names were encouraged, only because I observed them to be in fashion during the Pahlavi years. Arabic names were certainly not "banned". That is fiction.--Zereshk 22:23, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Arabs were not the only ones thrown off for their land. So were others, including Persian, if the central government decided it was necessary for economic projects.--Zereshk 18:50, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but if you're already feeling oppressed and sure it's because you're Arab, having your land taken away is just going to seem like another instance of racial prejudice. Real proof would be looking at records of land ownership before 1925, seeing what lands were held by ethnic Persians or Arabs, and then seeing if Arabs were MORE likely to have their lands taken by the government. That's possible, you know -- if the Arabs tend to be poorer, their villages or neighborhoods might be seen as "slums", ripe for redevelopment. Many African-Americans have complained of the same sort of treatment.

Yes, but until you have those records, you cannot assume as fact that their lands were taken away simply "because they were Arab". That's serious academic bias. My aunt had to move once (forcibly) because her house was on top of Tehran's Metro project being developed. It happens all the time in Iran.--Zereshk 22:23, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

We'd need a good study to show this, but I don't think it would be possible to do it under the current Iranian government. Without one, it's not clear if the complaints re land seizures are paranoia or justified. Zora 21:08, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Zora, you wont beleive what idiots run the country in Iran. Ive seen the govt seize, control, and destroy a Qajar era mosque registered as a cultural heritage, so that they can build some lucrative municipal city project. Let alone the land of peasants in rural Iran that happens to be populated by Arabs.--Zereshk 22:23, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Sheikh Khaz'al as an immigrant

BTW, Zereshk, you keep asserting that Sheikh Khaz'al was an immigrant and say that it's "established" -- but it's not clear by whom. The Ansari dissertation says that the Sheikhs were leaders of the Muhaisin tribe, which he in no way distinguishes from the other tribes as immigrants. Ansari doesn't go back very far -- his emphasis is, after all, on the changes during the period of British influence -- but I should think that he would have noted it if the Muhaisin were considered newcomers. The genealogy of the family just goes back to the founding of Mohammerah (now Khorramshar (sp?)) sometime in the 18th century. As I understand it, the fortunes of the tribe and the family rose because Mohammerah became a thriving port. They intermarried with the Kuwaitis, sure ... but that's because the Kuwaitis were geographically close, and of the appropriate rank. However, the Kuwaitis remained subjects of the Ottomans, and the Muhaisin subjects of the Qajars. Separate families, no immigration. So what makes you think Sheikh Khaz'al was an immigrant? Zora 21:30, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Zora, Im not making this up. Khaz'al was from Kuwait. His tribe was a big one. And a large portion of it was based in the district in Kuwait city still known as al-khazaliyah. There is also one such district in Iraq. There were no borders at the time, as fixed as they are today. But then again, what does it matter? I'm agreeing with you that Mushie (pardon my name shortenings) Arabs came to Khuzestan prior to the 18-19th centuries.--Zereshk 22:35, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

So you're saying that the Muhaisin were settled all across the area that is now Kuwait and Khuzestan, and that they moved freely between the Ottoman and Qsjar territories? That's possible -- but I'm not sure that it makes the Khuzestani branch of the tribe Kuwaiti. It could just as well be construed as making Kuwait Khuzestani!

What Im saying is that the Mush'ins were not originally from what is today "Khuzestan". They were from what is today considered outside the borders of Iran.--Zereshk 02:47, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Also, as Ansari describes the Muhaisin migrations, they moved on a path from Muhammerah to Ahvaz and back, depending on the season. They were only semi-nomadic; they apparently had date plantations near Muhammerah and grain fields near Ahvaz, and paid settled locals to look after their plantings while they were on the move. That isn't migration to Kuwait.

Nor do I understand what you mean about Khaz'al being "from" Kuwait. So far as I can tell, he was born and grew up in Muhammerah. Was his mother from Kuwait? Did he spend time with her family? Even if that's true, I'm not sure that that makes him Kuwaiti. Zora 03:36, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Im talking about his clan, not he himself the person. Even in America we talk about "2nd or 3rd generation immigrants".--Zereshk 02:47, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Changes to changes to changes

Slight changes I had to make:

1. Arabic newspapers are not banned in Iran. They arent. I purchase them myself in Tehran. Look for yourself: (The newspaper is printed in Tehran)
2. The phrase "demonized Arabs". When Iran says "Arabs", they mean foreign country Arabs (e.g. Bahran, Saudis, Kuwait, Egypt, etc), not the insider local Arab population, which is considered by the govt and Iranians as "Iranian". (in the eyes of the Iranian govt, Iran is one country with many ethnicities and languages).
3. The sentence about "supporters of the central government". Am I a supporter of the central government? I am not. Is this ghetto in Tehran populated by Arabs? It is not. It is fact that poverty in Iran is not just limited to Khuzestan. Some provinces have it wose than Khuzestan.--Zereshk 23:00, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Hear me out on this Zora

One last fault I spotted:

The question in Khuzestan is not "secession" at all. That's the whole point Ive been trying to focus on this whole time. The vast majority of Iranian Arabs do not think of secession as a solution at all.

The Arab leaders of riots, the Arab journalists in Iran, all the people directly involved in Ahwaz are not talking about secession. Because they know they belong to Iran and Iran belongs to them. Even the unschooled Iranian Arab is aware of his heritage. They are proud of Shush as the achaemenid capital. Even Saddam considered the Elamites as Iranian (I can give you referenced quotes from him). People in Khuzestan know these things. They know that they are not like the Arabs on the other side of the border. They have Iranian blood in them.

That's why Saddam invaded Iran in 1980. He was capitalizing on support from Khuzestani Arabs to secede from Iran. But the Khuzestani Arabs proved him wrong.

Instead, the Iranian Arabs are talking about better living conditions and civil rights. The BBC Persian service keeps interviewing the Iranian Arab leaders all the time. The only people talking about secession are foreign based websites and few individuals associated with them.

See this BBC report's 4th paragraph from last. Ask an Iranian friend to verify this for you (if you dont trust me). It says:

"در بين عده کمی از اعراب ايران انديشه های تجزيه طلبی وجود دارد و چند گروه کوچک از اعراب خوزستان که در خارج از کشور فعاليت می کنند رسما از استقلال خوزستان دفاع می کنند"

which means:

"A small number of Arabs in Iran sport the idea of secession, and a number of small groups of Khuzestani Arabs operating outside Iran defend the idea of independence for Khuzestan."

That's why we should be very careful on such pages like this. Any guy calling himself a Khaled Ahmad can come here and claim that Arabs want secession in Iran. But that is not the voice of the Iranian Arab. When the regime does this to one of its own (who is a Persian), do you really think race and language are really what determine injustice there?--Zereshk 03:54, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

No, I don't think that the secessionists represent the majority of the Khuzestani Arabs. However, it seems to me that discontent with the central government tends to have an ethnic flavor in Khuzestan, and that people there feel that they are even WORSE off than other Iranians because they are Arabs. I imagine that if there were free speech and real democracy, there would be demands for an end to policies designed to Persianize, policies that disproportionately affect Arabs, calls for greater provincial autonomy or federalism, and above all, a call to spend oil revenues in Khuzestan, improving the lives of people THERE, instead of shipping all the money to Teheran. Those folks aren't idiots. They see the Kuwaitis, who also live on top of the same pool of oil, living like maharajahs, while they struggle for money for food.

Zereshk, there's a middle ground between secession and rah-rah nationalism, and so far as I can tell from a distance, that's where the Khuzestani Arabs are. You seem to think that if they aren't secessionists, they must be nationalists. I don't think it's that black and white. Zora 04:09, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Speaking to the BBC in the first place is not allowed to begin with (in Iran). So you can be sure that what these guys say there is not said under fear or pressure. Theyre talking to the BBC because they want to speak out. They dont want secession. It's against their own identity.

Zora, I strongly encourage you to buy a ticket and visit Iran next summer. It's cheap, and it's safe (even for an American). I'm not joking. Be like Sandra Mackey or Elaine Sciolino. You must see in person to believe. What you call "nationalism" in Iran is what Iranians see as their natural default identity. Every Iranian is born with it, and in time, comes to embrace it one way or another. Perhaps then, when you have seen the literally hundreds of achaemenid and elamite ruins scattered all across Khuzestan might you realize why people in Khuzestan do not identify themselves with people across the border merely speaking the same language.--Zereshk 04:31, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

The article is improving, but still has minor issues.

I wonder where you keep getting these statements from:

• "While some of the Arabs fled into Iraq to escape the war..."

Flee into the same brutal baathist regime whose army is bulldozing their homes? The same Baathist Iraq that massacred all Shias in the thousands? The same Baathist Iraq that dismantled Najaf and blasted a hole thru this building? Saddam pulverized houses of Iranian Arabs in 1980 when he invaded. He showed no mercy.

Nevertheless, I've read several references to Arabs who fled into Iraq and are now marooned there, unable to return to Iran. If your home were in the middle of a battlefield and you need to flee, you might go to your closest relatives, even if they do live in the country that's invading. Zora 05:43, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I certainly wouldnt go toward the tanks that are shelling my house. Would you? Even if you had relatives in Iraq. The keyword is "away". Not "toward". Run away from the tanks aimed and coming at you.--Zereshk 05:50, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• "Despite the bravery shown by the Iranian Arab soldiers,..."

The defenders of Khuzestan mostly werent "soldiers". They were civilians, residents, and volunteers defending against the invasion. Iran's army was incapable of putting up a defense in the first 2 years of the war (because Khomeini threw nearly all the heads of the armed forces in prison during the revolution and decapitated it). That's how the Baseej and Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps got started. Because Khomeini had kicked the crap out of what used to be the mighty Shah's army. It took 2-3 years for the army to lift its head up from the damage done to it by the revolution, and join forces in driving Saddam's army out of Iran. look for yourself. Do these brave fighters look anything like what used to be Iran's armed forces only a few years earlier? Look at the pictures. Look closely if you want to learn. Look what Saddam did. (those pictures bring tears to my eyes. Lots of memories. I remember those days.)

OK, that should be changed. Militia? Volunteers? Irregulars? Zora 05:43, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Why cant you just say Iranian Arabs?--Zereshk 05:50, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• "few Persians still doubt Arab loyalties."

Which "Persians" exactly? You dont happen to mean the royalist pro-pahlavi Los Angeles Diaspora that still re-lives the 7th century fall of the Sassanids to the Arabs? (the anti-Arab rant is always coming from them. why not? They see the turban wearing Khomeini, whom they fled in the revolution, as the incarnation of the 7th century arabs who toppled "the great Persian empire".)

Anyway, is there a source for this statement? Nobody ever doubted the Arabs in defending Iran.

I have to go.--Zereshk 05:16, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I found at least one quote, from a travel journal, from a Khuzestani Persian woman claiming that the Khuzestani Arabs sided with the invaders, gave them info, guided them with flashlights in the night, loyalties of remaining Arabs are doubtful. I think I included in the Ethnic conflict article. Is it still there? I don't think that was just a lone nut. It's not likely. If I could read Farsi and read Iranian bloggers, I suspect I might find similar sentiments on some blogs. Zora 05:43, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I dont. The vast majority of people who say such stuff are pro-Reza Pahlavi III royalists who lost a great deal in the revolution. The diaspora. The ones in exile. The ones whom Khomeini brought wrath upon.--Zereshk 05:50, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Zereshk, but I can't trust you on this one. You don't like the royalists. Myself, I'm sure that some of them are corrupt, evil, and ex-Savak, but not all. Nor is it evident that anti-Arab prejudice is found only among the royalists. You don't think you're prejudiced, but frankly, things that you, Southern Comfort, and Paradoxic have said here sound ugly to me. Zora 05:59, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Fine. Dont. My grandfather was a colonel of the Shah's army. I'm not saying the LA monarchists are bad people. But the vast majority of the anti-Arab sentiment of the Iran-Iraq war comes from them. If you dont wish to trust me, then you must provide a link to a credible source that says Persians doubted Arab loyalties during the war.--Zereshk 06:09, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Also, about Item No. 2 above:

When you say "soldiers", it gives the impression of being separate from the Arab people. As if The Arab Iranian soldiers--not the people-- defended because they were soldiers. They had to. They werent with the people.

When you say "irregulares or volunteers" it gives the impression that the Arabs werent accepted into the regular army because they were Arabs, or that they fought as irregulars because the army wouldnt fight to defend them.

Yes, that's what you said. The army couldn't defend them because it was completely disorganized by purges. Zora 08:14, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

You see? I worked at IRIB for 2 years. I observed what IRIB's main specialty: propaganda, playing with words, and the craft of making you form an opinion without saying anything explicitly. I know how tricky it is this business. Slightly change a word, and the sentence picks up an entire new meaning. (CNN and Fox know this art as well. So does Karl Rove.--Zereshk 06:09, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Just say "Arab Iranians".--Zereshk 06:09, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

No, that isn't right, because there are pockets of Arabs elsewhere in Iran, as I understand it. Smaller pockets, but still. This is an article about the Arabs of Khuzestan, not about the Arabs of Iran generally. As to the terminology used for the fighters -- if you won't accept soldiers, irregulars, or volunteers, there's not much left. You have said that they weren't soldiers -- so irregulars would be the usual English term. Militia would imply that they had been organized beforehand, which I don't think was the case. Zora 08:14, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Fine. Say Arab Iranian fighters.--Zereshk 20:36, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Don't censor article

Hajjagha, this is the second article relating to Khuzestan that you've attacked, deleting swathes of material on the grounds that it's "false" or "racist". You clearly do not like any mention of the Arab minority in Khuzestan. Please stop trying to censor articles. Zora 16:53, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Proposal

I would like to propose that this article be merged with the Ethnic Politics in Khuzestan entry. It seems that ethnic politics - in the sense of ethnically based political movements - mostly revolve around Ahwazi Arab grievances and debates over the history of Khuzestan. Consequently, we should have one or the other entry, but not both, in my opinion. Then they can both be merged.--Ahwaz 19:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the merge is a good idea, myself. We need articles on the other ethnic minorities in Khuzestan (and Fars) -- the Bhaktiari (sp?), the Lur, and the other nomadic/formerly nomadic tribes. We haven't had anyone here to speak for those minorities, but I know that they figured in the history of Khuzestan and I'm guessing that they have their own causes for grievance with the central government. Forcing nomads to settle is the same sort of thing as forcing Arabs to Persianize. Zora 20:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with what you are saying about the Lurs and Bakhtiari and I am not saying they are unimportant groups. In fact, Sheikh Kazal's Arabistan arguably depended partly on the deal he made with the Bakhtiari tribes. However, there is not enough material out there to run separate sections for these groups. I suggest deleting the Arabs of Khuzestan entry and putting it under the Ethnic Politics of Khuzestan entry. I am not making this suggestion for any political point, just on the basis of practicality and organisation. The danger is that a lot of material in this the ethnic politics entry would need to be pasted into this entry in order to expand and clarify the issues raised.--Ahwaz 21:00, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's just bits. Try the merge and let's see how it goes. If the resulting article is unwieldy, we can split them again. Zora 20:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Is this something that we need to discuss with others for the sake of consensus?--Ahwaz 05:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Let's wait a few days. If no one else has an opinion, then do it. Zora 06:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

There is much nonsense in this article about Arabs coming from Elam. Who says this and why all this racism and "Persianization" this and "Arabization" that? Why all this hatred? Hajjagha 10:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't know as I did not write that, but I don't understand why you refer to this as racism and why you are continually vandalising pages relating to Khuzestan--Ahwaz 10:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

The anti-Persian bias is quite evident Id say. If you can call us "persian nationalists", then we can likewise call you Persia-phobes and Pan-arabs. In a real balanced article, views of both sides are properly addressed. Not just the Arabs and pro-Arab editors. I havent seen that happening here, or on any of the Khuzestani pages. Im just waiting to see how far this bias will go. But there is a limit to everything.--Zereshk 04:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

If you have a problem, then make suggestions. What in any of the Khuzestan-related articles is biased? Then let's address the situation. But deleting large swathes of content and perpetually moaning about bias doesn't achieve any progress.--Ahwaz 07:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I just told you what to do: Bring balance to your writings. Using terms like "propaganda" and "persian nationalist" to further your cause isnt helpful at all. Add equally balanced pro-Iranian material. Not just passes.--Zereshk 07:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

You say the bias is evident, but where is it evident? And where is the "pro-Iranian" material? My guess is that the only mention you'd like of Arabs in Iran is as the "enemy within". You confuse Arab with anti-Iranian, which is typical of your type.--Ahwaz 07:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Im encouraging you to add pro-Iranian stuff to balance the article. Im not accusing you of it.

Also, I suggest you stop "guessing". Iranian Arabs are no "enemy within". The people spreading such ideas are the actual enemies within. Otherwise, the highly sensitive post of Iran's Minister of Defense wouldnt be held by an Arab for 9 years.

Any writing or editing that smells of, or even hints at depicting Iranian Arabs as secessionists gets a red mark from me.--Zereshk 08:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Look, I did not have any involvement in this entry. I have mostly concentrated on the Ethnic politics of Khuzestan entry, in which I have included all the reports and information I can find, including accusations by Ali Shamkhani against one of the most publicised groups. I have been as objective and thorough as possible, including information on which groups are advocating terrorism and where they are based - mostly Canada, for some reason.

I have tried over recent days to find secondary information on the indigenous Persian groups in the context of ethnic politics, but have found very little - the largest I have found is . I have even asked you for advice on where to go for this, but you have not offered help. I am not saying that the Bakhtiaris are not as oppressed or marginalised as the Arabs, just that they appear to have less political mobilisation behind their cause.

I personally feel that the entry on Arabs of Khuzestan is unnecessary since there are other sections that cover all the issues here. Some of the information on tribes can go under the Khuzestan entry and the more political aspects can go under the Ethnic politics of Khuzestan entry, which was created for this purpose.

But it angers me that the work I put into human rights - with proper reference to reliable secondary material - was simply deleted by you and one other. If you wanted to expand on the criticism section, then you should have done so with proper references. I have not touched those sections on Khuzestan's history that you have researched and spent time writing. All I ask is that you have the same respect for what I write.

And let me confirm something to you. I am not a nationalist of any type and actually oppose secessionist movements, many of which have a heavy involvement by those who are not even members of the groups they are claiming to represent. I am interested in minority rights in the Middle East (and, yes, the Bakhtiari and Lurs are also economically marginalised groups)and this is where I am coming from.--Ahwaz 08:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

1. Why Canada you ask? Because Canada is a haven for anti-Iranian activists. Especially ever since the Zahra Kazemi case, theyve cozied up pretty well to Ottawa: Canada and Britain; The hubs of "al-ahwazi" separatist advocates.
2. You keep forgetting that oppression against Persians in Iran is not classified under "ethnic" oppression. They are considered "political" dissidents. So if Akbar Ganji is tortured in prison, you wont hear anything about him under "ethnic" reports on HRW or Amnesty. So does that mean Persians are living better than Arabs in Iran? Hell no. Hence my point: The central govt is being brutal to everyone. Not just Arabs or Bakhtiaris or whoever else. Which brings me to my next point:
3. "Ethnic politics of Khuzestan" has been highly and incorrectly amplified in the west. When 3 bombs explode in Tehran before elections, nobody says anything in the media. When they explode in Ahvaz, it's reported as an "ethnic unrest". Iran has 80 various ethnic groups. The Arabs are no different than others. In fact theyre doing much better than many other groups. I keep emphasizing this.
4. You in fact deleted my writings based on your "proper referencing" pretext. How am I supposed to reference that modern Arabic is taught in schools, in addition to classical Arabic? It's because I went thru the damn schooling myself. Look up their goddamn high school curricula, if you can find it anywhere on the web. What am I to do if you cant read farsi where it says Khuzestan's GDP is ranked 3rd in Iranian provinces? And it's from the governors office.
5. The bakhtiaris and Lurs are indeed economically marginalised. Write about those. The Azaris and Arabs and Kurds are in the upper bracket of the status quo. The Baluchis, Lurs, Bakhtiaris, they dont have shit. And nobody even mentions them anywhere. Because it's not a media worthy issue with any political leverage. So please leave the Arab issue alone Because it can easily be hijacked into a pro-secessionist article by editors (like Zora) who know nothing of the social infrastructure of Iran. People dont look at facts that Iran's largest industrial projects are either built or being planned in Khuzestan (irrigation dams, steel mills, nuclear reactors, etc). They just listen to where some Arab says they are destitute because of Persian policies, (as if the other minorities arent).--Zereshk 09:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Khuzestan may well have a high level of GDP, but this is all going out of the province. I quoted one Majlis member for Khuzestan, who has tried to get 1.5% of Khuzestan's oil revenues redistributed to Khuzestan's provincial administration and it was voted down. It is not just secessionists who are arguing for greater distribution of wealth and against land confiscations - it is also members of the Iranian Majlis, whose candidacies have been vetted by the regime. UNCHR and HRW have been among the groups pointing out the disparity in wealth and the fact that land is being confiscated from Arabs and given to Persians and Azeris who have been moved into the province as well as the Pasdaran. So what if Khuzestan is the motor of the Iranian economy, the fact remains that Arabs are excluded from this wealth generation.

I am writing on this issue, but writing on it does not compell me to write on every injustice face by all minorities in Iran. If you feel that their cases should be also understood, then go ahead and write about them. Why should I do the work for you?

I note that you are a former employee of the Iranian regime.--Ahwaz 09:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

1. The MP is right. The money isnt coming back like it should. But that doesnt say anything about Arabs doing worse than others. Does it now. Mashad has 10 million tourists every year to its govt operated Imam Reza shrine. I dont see the money coming back to Khorasan province either.
2. So tell me, where are the waters of the newly built dams in Khuzestan going? It's being used for irrigation. Where is the labour for the steel mills and industry coming from? It's providing jobs, isnt it now. Land confiscations? My aunt had to move because of Tehran's Metro Project. That's what I mean by the media catching fish from muddy waters. And youre following that lead. Think about it.
3. And what if I did work for the govt? Is that a reason to discredit me?--Zereshk 10:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

The waters from the dams in Khuzestan are being diverted to other Iranian provinces with plans for export to Kuwait. The jobs for many industrial projects in Khuzestan are going to people brought in from outside the province. As for land confiscations, the policy has been criticised by the UNCHR's Special Rapporteur on Adequate Housing and the European Parliament. These are not the media, they are international institutions. It is a systematic campaign of ethnic restructuring of the province.

The fact that you are a former employee of the Mullah regime explains everying about your apologism for its actions in Khuzestan, despite the overwhelming evidence provided. Your denial and your former employment by the Islamic Republic explain a lot about why you are so against any mention of ethnic persecution in Iran.--Ahwaz 10:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

1. So all the water is going to Kuwait? And how do you know? Oh, by news reports of course. But they dont tell you how much of it, or from where, or which dams, if all. Do they now? SO YOURE JUST ASSUMING. Well I can give you reports too: According to ISNA, the water ISNT going to Kuwait but is being invested in by the govt for rural provincial projects. (Yeh I know the link's in Farsi, but I urge you to have it translated, because it's full of details about water projects in the province). And this dam is sending its water to Qom. That refutes your claim too, now doesnt it? Same for your importing labour falsity. Funny how people never check the names of CEOs and people in charge in Khuzestan to see if theyre Arab or not before shooting off their mouths.
2. Likewise, the fact that youre advocating secessionist Arab movements explains your pan-Arab agenda. And youre full of shit too, because, if Im Persian and I go to prison for demanding equal rights, you and the likes of you wouldnt give a rats ass, because you only care about a particular ethnicity, i.e. youre fishing for ethnic grievances to fit your theories. Hence a pretty biased position. Ive seen entire cities made by govt operated settlements. And it wasnt in Khuzestan. Im not saying ethnic policies dont exist in Iran. I am saying that Iran is a equal opportunity oppressor. And youre the one whos in denial.--Zereshk 11:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Zereshk: You are the lickspittle of the Mullahs. Any talk of Arab human rights is secessionist to you. You are using this for your own nationalist agenda. I have not once praised or condoned separatism, quite the opposite. Show me one word of support voiced by me for any of the groups. By working for IRIB, you were a collaborator with a fascist government that is hated by all Iranians, no matter their nationality or religion. As for Akbar Ganji, I have supported the campaign for his release. Don't give me your bullshit about anti-Persian racism, you fucking prick.

As for water, Iran has drafted a bill to export 300 million cubic metres of water to Kuwait annually. The government planned way back in 1999 to build a 330 km pipeline from the Karkheh Dam to the Gulf coast and then a 210 km pipeline along the seabed to Kuwait. There was an agreement between the two governments, but I believe construction has been postponed. It is a fact. The government is also planning to divert the waters from the Karoon hydroelectric project to Isfahan. It is a fact. See: Khuzestan's Majlis members even called for the impeachment of the energy minister over the issue. I don't care about ISNA's state propaganda, or IRIB's nonsense either. But obviously, you are hell bent on representing the regime's line - to the extent that you have, in the past, plagiarised government websites.--Ahwaz 12:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Here is the reaction to your wonderful Mullah regime's plans for water diversion, from Iran Daily (which is published by the Islamic Republic News Agency): It states: "Khuzestan's more than 2m hectares of fertile lands will face destruction if the Karoun River water is transferred to Rafsanjan". I suppose you are now going to argue that IRNA is the product of a pan-Arab agenda.--Ahwaz 12:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Your line of argument has completely degenerated into ad hominems. How unfortunate.

I will only resume discussion once youve apologized for calling me "fuckwit" and "fucking prick" and all the ignorant remarks.--Zereshk 04:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I will only resume discussion if you apologise for calling me an Arab separatist, that I am "full of shit", for deleting text I wrote (which conformed to Misplaced Pages guidelines) without consultation and for encouraging Damned to participate here after he has made racist comments about Arabs.

I think you should stick to painting pictures of angels.--Ahwaz 05:43, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Speaking a Semitic language doesn't make you Semitic in descent

The sentence re Bani-Torof is OK, but the following sentence, which seeks to disprove him, is not. He seems to be talking about genetic continuity, which is an entirely different matter from cultural or linguistic continuity. If the Khuzestani Arabs speak a Semitic language, that doesn't make them genetically Semitic -- anymore than growing up in the U.S. and speaking only English makes the child of Persian immigrants "genetically" identical to everyone else in the U.S. (as if there were uniformity, but there isn't). Now Bani-Torof doesn't give any genetic evidence, so it's hard to see how he could prove his assertions. But by the same token, they can't be *disproved*.

This is something that scientists are investigating. Genetic similarities between Jews and Palestinians is a hot topic, as is the degree of Arab ancestry for North Africans. This link is not a very good link, but it's the best I can find. It seems to be a copy of an original article I can't find. Most of these investigations do seem to be showing that there is much more genetic continuity between pre-Arab conquest and post-Arab conquest populations than one might imagine. Zora 02:32, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with your first point, taking into consideration that the issue, as far as history, ultimately comes down to linguistics since it would be impossible to determine who the Elamites were, ethnically or racially. I'm content with leaving out any mention of linguistics. SouthernComfort 02:43, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

It's so far from academic behaviour to make a claim and challenge the others to disprove it. When someone makes a claim s/he has to provide at least a ting of evidence or reason. Otherwise someone might claim that Bani Torof is a CIA agent and challenge you to disprove it. This claim is not impossible to disprove. A study of history of Khuzi speaking people in Khuzestan and what happened to them could shed some light. In my opinion Shushtari and Dezfuli people are more likely to be decendants of Elamites. (As you see when one has not tangible evidence, s/he 'd better say "it's my opinion")

Even if you love that baseless claim that you want it to be present in a Misplaced Pages article you have to warn the reader Elamites were not Semitic and there is no logical reason supporting his claim.

My remark on Arabs of Khuzestan was not out of racism. If you live in Ahvaz for a while then you'll understand what I talked about. The movies "Bride of Fire" and "Duel" are not far from fair. Damned

I must add that this is a very nasty game. Your "Some Khuzestani Arabs " on one hand claim to be decendants of Elamites to get indigenous, and on the other hand insist on their "Arabic heritage and culture" to seek autonomy. That's seek for "khoda" and "khorma" at the same time.

Is Misplaced Pages a forum for presenting hypotheses? If yes it needn't edit at all.

Damned, youll be surprised at what length some editors are willing to go to erase any memory of Iran on these pages.--Zereshk 08:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

An obvious reason in rejection of that claim is tribal life of Arabs of Khuzestan. The society of these Arabs is not so open to the others. In the beginning of this article it is mentioned that: "Many Khuzestani Arabs identify themselves as members of the following tribes:" and "Many tribes share a common heritage and a number have retained their original customs." So it's not difficult to trace these tribes to their origin. So at this time this article needs a contradictory symbol because of presenting contradicting stuff.

I regarded you, Zora, as a mature person but only a partisan could adhere to that baseless and contradictory claim.Damned 18:01, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

BE CAREFUL EVERYONE CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS ARE TRYING TO CAUSE CONFLICT BETWEEN IRANIANS

Go look at the websites in relations to Iranian peoples such as the Kurds and various groups. Certain governments are trying to nurture seperatist elements in Iran. Israel, Britain, and America are the main sources. They are trying to make a Yugoslavia out of Iran where everyone fights each other.

That's how you try to defeat an enemy when you cannot invade it like Iraq.--Zereshk 18:04, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Ali Shamkhani

I note that Zereschk has chosen to put a picture of Ali Shamkhani as a typical Arab of Khuzestan. It is an act of provocation, since Shamkhani is hated by Ahwazi Arabs and all Iranians. If this is allowed, then should we also put Hitler as an example of Germans or Ahmadinejad as an example of Persians? If you want to persist in this game playing then I will seek to put Ahmadinejad's face on Persian culture article.--Ahwaz 07:32, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there was a similar problem in the Persian people article concerning the inclusion of Khomeini's photograph, and which was eventually replaced (with the Shah, which no one seemed to have any objection to). SouthernComfort 07:52, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

It is important to put the typical person of a culture, not politicians. I would not put Khomeini or Reza Pahlavi (which Shah? - there is no Shah any more) on an article on Persians and would expect others to do similar for Khuzestan Arabs. I object to Shamkhani's picture representing Arabs.--Ahwaz 07:58, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you. SouthernComfort 08:03, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

The box

Apparently it's a provocation to insert the picture of the uniformed man, and SC insists on putting population figures in the box, giving them special weight, even though they are disputed. Doesn't seem to me that the box is doing much good, so I just deleted it. Zora 08:00, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Refresh your browser, Zora. I replaced Shamkhani with just the girl, as it originally was. SouthernComfort 08:02, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

BTW, your edits included Shamkhani's photograph. SouthernComfort 08:03, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, Ethnologue is a very reliable source and well accepted here on WP, and it is one of the few, if one of the only, neutral sources for figures concerning Khuzestani Arabs. SouthernComfort 08:05, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Exactly what is your justification for putting "disputed" there in the box? If you have another neutral source that offers a different figure, then that's something. But if you're disputing because you'd rather see the figures inflated, then that's not a good enough reason. Ethnologue is a reliable source that can be identified. Bani-Torofs figures, which you and Ahwaz seem to prefer, are from a source that cannot be verified or identified and are very old. SouthernComfort 08:24, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

The CIA World Factbook estimates that 3% of Iran's 68,017,860 citizens are Arabs, which would put the Arab population at 2,040,540, of whom the majority live in Khuzestan. That's one of your edits, Zora, which only puts Iran's Arab population at around 2 million, and not all of them live in Khuzestan (ever heard of Khorasani Arabs?). So what is your dispute Zora? Or are you just politicking again for the hell of it? SouthernComfort 08:30, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I would agree that Ethnologue is probably more accurate than Bani-Torofs. But that's my OPINION. It's unfair to enshrine it in the box as truth. Readers must know that the figures are controversial and that they need to consider whose figures they are going to accept. Since there are no census figures (which would be definitive, at least as to what people call themselves), all the figures are guesses. The box leaves out all that detail, so it would be misleading to just give figures and leave it at that.

I'm not saying this just to be difficult. When I gave figures based on the CIA World Factbook, I said basically, "if this is true, then ..." Readers should judge for themselves whether they trust the CIA, Ethnologue, or Bani Torofs. Zora 08:36, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Look, we've got two reliable and identifiable sources - Ethnologue and CIA - which both essentially provide us with a range between 1 to 2 million. That's a pretty NPOV figure all things considered, since the actual numbers might very well be much lower. The source of Bani-Torofs figures are just not identifiable. We have no idea where he got those numbers. He could very well have made it up (I'm not saying he did), for all we know. So we have two verifiable and identifiable sources that are well accepted here on WP. I see no reason for a dispute unless someone comes up with an opposing source that can actually be identified. SouthernComfort 08:44, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

BTW, the only reason I chose to put Ethnologue's figures in the ethnobox is because the CIA figures cover Arabs in Iran as a whole (Khuzestan, Khorasan, Tehran, etc). So we can't put the CIA figures there, just the range since most Arabic-speakers are probably concentrated in Khuzestan (which is verified by Ethnologue's figures). The Ethnologue numbers seem to be the closet figure to reality, more or less, as regards Khuzestani Arabs. SouthernComfort 08:49, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

If I were an Ahwazi, I would want the Bani-Torofs opinion included. It's information, if only as an intimation that some Khuzestani Arabs feel that their numbers are being low-balled for political reasons. Perhaps they're wrong. However, there IS a dispute. Zora 08:50, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Why would Ethnologue and the CIA intentionally lower the figures? That's irrational and doesn't make any sense. It's one thing if the source were from the Iranian government, but these two are not connected to any official government sources at all. None of the political groups you're talking about seem to offer any opinion regarding the CIA or Ethnologue figures. So where is the dispute? Plus, Bani-Torofs information is included, but considering its nature it cannot be included in the estimate range. If you're going to think that way, then anyone can come up with any figure, post it somewhere, and then use that as a source. That doesn't quite work. Both Ethnologue and the CIA Factbook complement and back each other up. Again, if you provide a neutral, identifiable source that can provide a different range, then there is reason for dispute and to change the figures. Otherwise there is no justification for dispute. SouthernComfort 09:18, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

There is some dispute over the figures as Bani Torof - an Iranian academic and writer who lives in Iran and is not a separatist - is making a point for a higher level. Moreover, the statistics for Khuzestan's population are out of date (1996 in the Khuzestan province article, a lot of development has happened since then) and ethnic demographics are not included in Iran's census. So, I don't see why a range from 1.2-4.5 million cannot be included as the truth is not really known.

And please tell me where you get the 1-2 million range from as neither Ethnologue nor CIA are saying this.--Ahwaz 10:11, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Please see this link to HRW . That's a report from 1997 which states that the population of Arabs in the province was 70%, out of a total population of three million. That doesn't bode well for Bani Torofs figures. Mind you, I think highly of the man, but at the same time, I find this particular issue questionable due to contrast with the other sources, which are obviously identifiable. SouthernComfort 10:18, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

For your second question, see my responses to Zora above. Do you want to lower the estimate? We could also include Elton Daniel's estimate (from his book on Iran), which puts the Khuzestani Arab population at only 600,000. And I believe his book is from 2001. SouthernComfort 10:20, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

No, I do not want to lower the estimate, if that estimate is given as fact. But I'd be happy if one were to put 600,000-4.5 million, since this is the range in which figures have been suggested, although it is obvious to anyone who has been to Khuzestan that 600,000 is far too low. Since there is talk of forced migration, I would be very interested to see how ethnic demography has changed in Khuzestan. Perhaps the Arab population has indeed fallen as more people have been moved into the province and Arabs have been relocated to other parts of Iran, such as Mashhad. But we can only ever theorise until a scientific census of Iran's ethnic demography is carried out.--Ahwaz 12:30, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the current estimates given in the box are fine, since the Ethnologue and CIA figures seem to be verify each other, more or less. As for ethnic demographics, the issue not only concerns demographic shifts as regards Arabs, but also indigenous Persians, Lurs, and other native peoples of the province. You have to keep in mind virtually the entire population fled after war broke out, and Arabs were amongst the first to return immediately after the war, along with the tribal groups. Persian Khuzestanis didn't begin returning en masse until the mid-to-late 90's, and of course in recent years there have been migrations of workers from other parts of Iran into the province - these migrations have happened a number of times before, though they usually don't stay permanently. Non-Khuzestanis have very little tolerance for the extreme weather, especially during the summer. And now the regime has sold out the province to the Chinese in the name of oil (last time I visited I even saw a number of Chinese people in Abadan). So obviously it's a pretty crazy situation there right now. SouthernComfort 12:59, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, indigenous Persian groups are also not represented in statistics. It is very hard to find information on the Lurs and Bakhtiaris, despite their rich and unique cultural identity. There is also not a great deal on Arabs, although more than the Persian tribes due to the larger numbers. I think that displacement is a very serious problem for all Khuzestanis, particularly with the residential compounds for those from other provinces being built in Khuzestan. At the same time, there is little information on those Arabs from Bushehr or those moved to north-eastern provinces. Perhaps this also causes problems with estimating the Arab population. I know a lot of Arab farmers were pushed out by the sugar plantation project and others by the oil industry. Many must have gone to cities for work and outside Khuzestan. It's a very complex issue and extends beyond Khuzestan, which raises the question as to why there is not an article on Iranian Arabs in general rather than those of Khuzestan only. This issue is already covered in Ethnic Politics of Khuzestan, which makes this article an anomaly. What do you think?--Ahwaz 14:13, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, there are a number of problems in creating an article for all Iranian Arabs, not least of which is the general lack of information available out there regarding the other Arab groups because of their small numbers. For example, there is very little information (at least in English) available concerning Khorasani Arabs (who have a long history in that region), of whom I know very little about. Most of the Arabs outside of Khuzestan are Sunni and they speak Gulf Arabic (not too sure about Arabs in Khorasan though), and they also lack the cohesiveness and community of Khuzestani Arab groups. I've been trying to gather information about Khorasani Arabs for some time now, but it's been very difficult tracking down anything substantial. But if we can gather enough information, I think creating separate articles for them would be a better option, rather than lumping everyone together in one article since we're essentially dealing with culturally and linguistically distinct peoples. SouthernComfort 14:49, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Beginning of Arabization

The article said that most historians agree that Arabization began in the 15th century. So far as I can tell, that is not so. It is an inference from the reign of the Msha'sha'iya (which I think is mistakenly assumed to be completely Arabic) and then from the adoption of the name Arabistan for the province. However, the name Arabistan was given by the NEW rulers of the province, the Safavids, who were Persian. It's much more likely that the new name reflected the end result of Arabization, not the beginning of it. If "most historians" agree, then surely there should be some references that would show this? My own impression, after reading what is available in English, is that the study of Arabization is just starting and that there is in fact little data on which to base conclusions. All we can say is that there was probably Arabization ongoing from the 8th century to the 16th. Much? Little? Fast? Slow? We don't know. Zora 05:21, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I've incorporated the relevant information as it pertains to the Arabs of Khuzestan. SouthernComfort 05:44, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

No, you deleted everything I wrote, and substituted a version that assumes that all the Khuzestani Arabs are genetically Arab as well as Arab-speakers. That is not necessarily the case! People can adopt new languages and customs, and learn to consider themselves as bonafide Arabs, or Persians, or Turks, or whatever, even if their genetic heritage is Persian, or Elamite, or Mongol. Asserting that all the Arabs in Khuzestan are descended from tribes who immigrated LATER, and ignoring the whole period of the Abbasid caliphate, is just not right.

I will rewrite. Zora 06:11, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

You should provide sources for those controversial claims. This article is about the Arabs of Khuzestan, not Abbasids. SouthernComfort

Arabistan

Mani, even Iranian sources admit that the province was called Arabistan until 1936, when Reza Shah changed the name back to Khuzestan. Iranian.com says,

From the Safavid period (16th century) to the fall of the Qajar dynasty (1926) the province of Khuzestan had come to be known as 'Arabistan'

I don't think there's any support for the rest of that quote, which says that the Arabization was completely due to migration. We have genetic testing results from an area like Lebanon, which show that that a population that speaks Arabic and defines itself as Arab is in fact mostly derived from the pre-Arab conquest population. There was a National Geographic article on it. I can't find that issue online -- it's probably pay only -- but here's one site that mentions the original study . So it's possible for an area to be Arabized but not genetically Arab. I dunno if any such studies have been done in Khuzestan -- or what they'd show. So it could be Arabization of an older population, or migration, or any combination thereof. We don't have the DATA, just people making politically-convenient assertions -- on both sides. Zora 08:57, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Please provide a source for your edits, which by themselves are simply your own personal opinions. SouthernComfort 09:13, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

BTW, I'm not talking about the name Arabistan which is a non-issue as far as I'm concerned that we went over a long time ago. SouthernComfort 09:15, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Removal of POV tag

SC, you really really don't seem to have absorbed the idea of NPOV yet. As far as you're concerned, Bani-Torof has a theory, but you have the TRUTH, which is so true that you don't even have to give references.

Give references. Accept that your theory is just a theory. Don't remove POV tags unless a compromise has been achieved. This time I will take it to an RfC and arbitration if you don't make some attempt to respect NPOV. Zora 11:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Stop your politicking and stop making these baseless accusations. I have presented no theories of my own, unlike yourself - you constantly inject your own personal opinions into articles. The references for this information are already in the Khuzestan and History of Khuzestan articles, and much of them were provided by others, not me, including Heja helweda who helped expand the articles. Your recent edits prove how inclined you are towards injecting your own personal opinions - you don't even bother providing a single reference for your baseless claims. And yes, Bani-Torofs theory is a theory - where is the evidence backing his idea up? Tell me, I'd like to know.

You want to go to ArbCom? Fine. Let's do it, because this has gone on for too long. SouthernComfort 11:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't know this content very well... but, I think there is a legitimate claim for an NPOV tag. SouthernComfort, don't remove it... legitimacy levels for tags questioning neutrality mandate different regulation than content disputes. I second the request to keep it up until it's less questionable what should be in the article. gren グレン 12:12, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

You yourself just stated that you don't know the content very well. What is the justification for the tag? The material is sourced. If she doesn't like it, that's her problem. She has provided no opposing references. I'm removing it until she (or yourself) does so. That's the WP way of doing things. SouthernComfort 12:17, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I don't know the truth of this issue but I do think Zora brings up reasonable doubts about accuracy. How about this. You don't like POV so I will add accuracy because she is questioning how definite your sources are. It's not an issue of "I have a source and she doesn't so I'm right"... no, you can have bad sources and they can be questioned by other users. It's not like she's disputing facts that the whole community is disagreeing with here. It's you disagreeing and no, that's not the Misplaced Pages way... although, you may be right that edit warring is the WP way... gren グレン 12:31, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Like I said, she has provided no counter evidence - it's not asking much. In all this time she has never bothered to do so. I want to know why. Why does she have to inject her own personal opinions? Why can't she provide sources like everyone else? It would also be appreciated if you could tell her to stop making personal attacks. I am not a "Persian nationalist," I have not presented my own theories or opinions in the article, etc. It's been one year that this has been going on. Like I said, there is no justification for the tag unless she has sources that counter what is in the section - and if that is the case, she is free to add information from those sources without also adding her own personal opinions and speculations, i.e. majority of Persian-speaking Iranians believe that Arabs are this and that or majority of Khuzestani Arabs believe this and that, and so forth. If she is doing this out of politics or just plain spite (or whatever), that is very sad indeed. SouthernComfort 12:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

You have to source the material in THIS article. You can't just assume that readers are going to go to another article (one that you know, but they don't) to look for the references.

I assume that the references are going to ultimately come down to citations from old historical chronicles, saying that such and such tribe settled in such and such place. But you're making unwarranted assumptions if you assume that these were the ONLY Arab settlers, that there was not other, un-chronicled moving and mixing going on, and that there was no intermarriage between the Arabs and the local population, that once arrived they married among themselves and never over ethnic lines. Nor are you sure that local groups weren't being Arabicized, as happened in other areas.

I've looked for some genetic studies that might apply, but drawn a blank. But as far as I'm concerned, that just means that the matter isn't settled. It's wrong to assert that it has been. Zora 13:09, 6 March 2006 (UTC)