Talk:Ahvaz

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If there's any debate about the nature of the British Ahwazi group, perhaps we should create a page for the organization and lay out the arguments for both sides, instead of trying to delete links or add editorial comments.

I Agree.--Zereshk 23:21, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

---

Zora,

We agreed to have a separate page for the Ahwazi separatist debate. We will then paste all your favorite pro-Ahwazi links there.

I dont know why you insist on pasting those links here. You dont have any clue to our history, just as I dont know anything (or care) about the 25 Hindi and Bengali separatist groups of India.

If you feel you sympathize so much with the cause of "Al-Ahwazi" separatists, please go ahead and contribute to the page The Al-Ahwazi separatism debate like we agreed to, instead of reporting me to your buddy administrators.--Zereshk 21:13, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

I care when people are being oppressed, no matter who they are. I don't agree with separatists of any kind -- or nationalists of any kind. IMHO, nationalism is a nasty primate attitude that we should learn to transcend. Thus I'm unlikely to "sympathize" with people trying get their way through violence. However, I think we ought to tell it like it is, rather than pretend that unpleasant things don't exist. Zora 22:52, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

1. We can "tell it as it is", by making a special page for it, instead of dragging the debate to the Ahvaz page itself. Im OK with the Ethnic conflict in Khuzestan link you posted.
2. Im not OK with the section on the "origin of the name Ahvaz" that you have almost blanked out to 3 to 4 sentences. That information is very pertinent.
3. Arabs arent the only people in Iran who are having it rough. Iran's prisons of political dissidents are almost entirely filled up with Persians. Scenes like this are quite ubiquitous in the heartland of Persia. Some people are however trying to fish out of muddy waters, and that's not cool.--Zereshk 00:31, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

---

I've written an Ethnic conflict in Khuzestan page.

As for the etymological analyses -- the writing in the section was extremely confusing, randomly jumping round the centuries. Citations from medieval etymologists are suspect, given that etymology (East, West, anywhere) used to be a matter of "Well, they sound similar to ME, I see a link". You can get from anywhere to anywhere by that method. Modern etymologists are much stricter in their methods. In fact, I'm thinking that the section should be cut down even further, eliminating the Elamite etymology, which is unsourced, and many of the alleged city names. I found citations only for Tarieana, Hormuzd-Ardashir, Suq-al-Ahwazi, Nazeiri, and Ahvaz (which I presume is the Persianized form of Ahwaz). Attempts to argue that Ahwaz/Ahvaz is actually a Persian name strike me as nationalist fantasies. The origin of the name, if it is Arab, doesn't alter the fact that the city seems to have been founded by people who were arguably "Persian" and that the city has been part of Persia for much -- but not all -- of its history.

I'd defer, of course, to any properly sourced citations from modern etymologists. Lacking those, cutting out the debatable material seems like the only honest course. Zora 01:27, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Contents 1 Reply to Zora. Ahvaz IS Iranian. 2 Reply to Zora, Trying to change history 3 Historical debate 4 Dear Zora 5 The origin of the name Ahvaz 6 User who is trying to promote conflict 7 Case is closed 8 Thanks for reference to Encyclopedia Iranica 9 Southern Comfort's reverts 10 POV template applied 11 AHVAZ IS IRANIAN!!! 12 Source for ahvja? 13 A suggestion 14 NPOV tag 15 Do you really want to play revert war? 16 Re-org 17 Re-Org v2 18 Zora's vandalism 19 Removal of NPOV tag 20 if I may ... 21 Trying to separate controversial and noncontroversial elements of article 22 You don't even READ before you revert, SC 23 <What you need to know about Ahvaz.> 24 Muqaddasi 25 Adding more sources 26 Origin of the name 27 Writing "Ahvaz" using "w" is incorrect. 27.1 No 27.2 Yes 28 Ahvaz is correct

[edit] Reply to Zora. Ahvaz IS Iranian.

I will now debate you, not as a westerner, but as an Iranian who speaks the southern dialects prevalent in territories claimed by al-Ahwaz, where I was born, and as a native tongue.

• You said: Citations from medieval etymologists are suspect, given that etymology (East, West, anywhere) used to be a matter of "Well, they sound similar to ME, I see a link". You can get from anywhere to anywhere by that method. Modern etymologists are much stricter in their methods.

1. Modern etymologists being more strict doesnt make the medieval ones wrong.
2. Modern etymologists in fact base their conclusions on the collection of medieval accounts and studies. Without them, there is nothing to study.

• You said: In fact, I'm thinking that the section should be cut down even further, eliminating the Elamite etymology, which is unsourced.

It is far from that in fact. I can give you as many sources as you like. That you dont find them acceptable is simply your POV.

If you studied Old Persian, you would realise that the cuneiform used was not an alphabet, but a cross between an abjad and a syllabary. U-W-J, also U-W-J-I-Y, U-J, U-J-I-Y is read /Hūjiya/; R. Kent (1953) writes that it appears incessantly in the cuneiform inscriptions, which explicitly equals "(h)altamti, (h)alamti". he also notes that the early middle persian form of the same word as /xuuź/, which appears in the arab traveler's writings when describing xuuzii - the language or dialect of xuuz. with the usual ethnonymic addition of the ezade and -staan, c.f. siistaan 'saka-land' etc., we get modern persian Khouzestan /xuz-e stan/. The index of Kent lists UVJ as Elam, but also lists in the *dictionary* section Hū(w)jiya "'Elamite, Susian'; derivation of preceding"; the preceding being Hū(w)ja "'Elam, Susiana', a province of the persian empire; also as ethnic, 'Elamite, Susian': Elam. hal-tam-tu, Akk. e-lam-mat, cf. MPers. Huź".

• You said: Ahvaz (which I presume is the Persianized form of Ahwaz).

Your presumption is simply and firmly incorrect. It's the other way around. Would you like me to give you another analysis for that?

• You said: Attempts to argue that Ahwaz/Ahvaz is actually a Persian name strike me as nationalist fantasies.

The facts remain however, in spite of your opinion. The text you deleted is in fact derived from the publication of The Khuzestan Office of The Governor, held by Arabs by the way. I can give you Arabic citations for that.

• You said: the city seems to have been founded by people who were arguably "Persian".

Not "arguably". But Factually. There are more archeological ruins in Khuzestan proving this than you can muster. The entire region was in fact Persian until the conquests. And the Persians never moved out. The Arabs came in.

• You said: and that the city has been part of Persia for much -- but not all -- of its history.

I'm curious, can you give me relaible sources for this claim? This is one example of a day-light fallacy.

• You said: I'd defer, of course, to any properly sourced citations from modern etymologists. Lacking those, cutting out the debatable material seems like the only honest course.

Granted.

Resources I have (grabbing randomly from the top of the pile): Khačikjan Margaret (1998): Elamite Language. Deshpande & Hook eds. (1979): Aryan & Non-Aryan in India (article: McAlpin, "Linguistic Prehistory: The Dravidian Situation"). Webber & Belcher (eds.) (2003): Indus Ethnobiology: New Perspectives from the Field. Hole Frank (1987): The Archaeology of Western Iran: Settlement & Society from Prehistory to the Islamic Conquest (Smithsonian Series in Archaeological Inquiry).

I hope those will allay any concern you have over my resources.

Also,

Whereas your arguments simply have no academic merit, I'm putting back the section. --Zereshk 02:09, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

---

Your insistence on seeing "Persianness" millenia into the past is the usual nationalistic distortion of history. I imagine that if you were sent in a time machine back to ancient Elam that you'd find it completely alien. What are the salient features of "Persianness"? What makes the Elamites Persian? That's why I said that they were "arguably" Persian -- it's a debatable point.

As to the region ALWAYS being Persian -- well, centuries of Arab rule rather counts against that, unless you've managed to convince yourself that the Ummayads and Abbasids sere Persians.

Several of the books you've cited have nothing to do with Hormuzd-Ardashir/Ahvaz. India? Dravidians? The fact that you have a book about the Elamite language doesn't prove that the derivation of Ahvaz from Ooksin is plausible, unless you cite something to that effect from the book. Ditto the archaeology book. Does it discuss the etymology of Ahvaz? I'll give way happily to the experts.

The quotes you give above re UWJ - xuuzi - Khuzi seem like a plausible etymology for Khuzestan. (Not that I could really tell without knowing the historical sound shift patterns.) But I fail to see any connection between Ahvaz/Ahwaz and Khuzi. It's Ahvaz that's in question, not Khuzi.

As to accepting medieval etymologies -- one has to distinguish between a dated citation showing that a city name was in use at a particular time, and a pre-scientific etymology, which is always a guess to be proven by more scientific methods. Linguists will always accept citations, and may choose to investigate pre-scientific etymological theories. But they may not. I have a number of older sources re Polynesia. One hundred years ago, authors who knew very little about the subject felt quite free to speculate about the derivation of Polynesian words and place names. No one even BOTHERS with Fornander and Reiter's etymologies any longer; they're just too bogus. You haven't shown that your medieval writers are any more trustworthy.

You've restored the section in all its garbled English glory. I'll let it sit for a day or two while I figure out what to do. Right now, I'll just point out that you seem to have misused the word "anagram". Perhaps you meant "acronym"? Do you have any evidence that the ancients used anagrams or acronyms to name their cities? I'm wondering if you may be thinking of modern terms like SF and LA, and extrapolating into the past. But without some citation of intermediate forms, it's just speculation.

The earliest use of an acronym that I know (just off the top of my head) was the Christian uses of the fish (ichthys in Greek) as a Christian symbol, because it stood for something like (Iesu Christo ... I forget the rest). But that was in the context of persecution, and picking a 'secret sign'. Zora 03:04, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reply to Zora, Trying to change history

• You said: Your insistence on seeing "Persianness" millenia into the past is the usual nationalistic distortion of history. I imagine that if you were sent in a time machine back to ancient Elam that you'd find it completely alien. What are the salient features of "Persianness"? What makes the Elamites Persian? That's why I said that they were "arguably" Persian -- it's a debatable point.

It's not debatable, no matter what you throw at me. In fact, you are supporting Pan-Arabist nationalism. To quote yet another text,

The Elamites, fierce rivals of the Babylonians, were precursors of the Royal Persians. Persians, Masters of Empire, John L. Papanek. ISBN 0-8094-9104-4

• You said: As to the region ALWAYS being Persian -- well, centuries of Arab rule rather counts against that, unless you've managed to convince yourself that the Ummayads and Abbasids sere Persians.

1. And who was there before them? Where do you think Ctesiphon was?
2. When the Arabs arrived, almost every city in Iraq was either Persian or is derived from a Persian name (Examples: read about Kufa, Al Anbar)
3. The Abbaside + Umayid rule lasted only for 2 centruies over Iran. The Samanids brought back the Sassanid heritage with full vigor.
4. The Abbaside dynasty was heavily Persianized itself. In the words of Richard Nelson Frye:

It is clear however, that Iranians not only dominated the bureacracy, but all branches of The Abbasid government. Golden Age of Persia, p151.

The same is also stated by: D. Sourdel, Le Vizirat Abbaside. p699-723.

• You said: Several of the books you've cited have nothing to do with Hormuzd-Ardashir/Ahvaz. India? Dravidians? The fact that you have a book about the Elamite language doesn't prove that the derivation of Ahvaz from Ooksin is plausible, unless you cite something to that effect from the book.

1. Wrong. Read them before giving me an answer. The books in fact talk about the non-semitic, hence non-Arabic language of the Elamites.
2. The Khuzi language was in fact used in the courts of the Persian Empire, as is reported in the Al-fihrist, quoted by Ibn Moghaffa', Richard Frye, and many others. Where do you think Susa was?

Look, if you can't come up with cites from the books you have confirming your derivation, then you don't get away with just telling me to read the books, it's in there. That leads me to suspect that you can't find any cites because it's NOT there, and you're just trying to muddy the waters -- like a squid squirting ink to cover its escape. You have the burden of proof, not me.

The derivation of the town name is of antiquarian interest only; not knowing where the town's name came from doesn't detract from the article in the slightest, from the general information point of view. You want the derivation to prove that Ahvaz was Persian first, Persian forever, Persian in name always, rah rah rah. That's just silly. There are many towns in England, frex, with names that were Roman or Danish in origin. Does pointing that out mean that I want Italy or Denmark to conquer Britain? I don't think so. I don't know Arabic, so I don't know what Ahwazi might mean in Arabic. For all I know, it's a nasty ethnic slur that the Arab tribes used for the traders whom they believed were fleecing them. Maybe it means "penny-pinching rascal". Maybe they called the city "Suq al-Ahwaz" BEFORE the conquest, and once they were in charge, kept on using the name, the conquered being in no condition to object. If that's the case, so what? Does it mean that the city rightfully belongs to Iraq? I don't think so.

Given that you can't cite anything concrete re the derivation of the name, why not just leave out the whole discussion? You haven't cited anyone but yourself in supporting the derivations, so the question doesn't seem to be of great and universal interest. It imbalances the article. It's extraneous.

As for arguing that the Abbasids were "Persian" -- well, all the scholars agree that Islamic civilization was heavily influenced by the Persians -- and also by the Arabs, and the conquered Greeks. The influences went in all directions. That's part of what made it a "Golden Age". My Persian literature text says that Modern Persian (post-Islamic-conquest) was heavily influenced by Arabic, and contains not only imported vocabulary, but imported syntax. So it seems rather beside the point to point to the influences going from Persia to the caliphate, and ignore the influences coming into Persia from the caliphate.

• But I fail to see any connection between Ahvaz/Ahwaz and Khuzi. It's Ahvaz that's in question, not Khuzi.

Really? If Khuzestan is Iranian (and is connected to pre-Arab Iran), how can its member parts (like Ahvaz) not be Iranian?

The derivation of a city's name has NOTHING to do with whether or not it should be counted part of one country or another. Nothing. I don't see why you're so determined on this. Zora

• You said: You haven't shown that your medieval writers are any more trustworthy.

Your opinion. Plain and simple.

1. I dont have to prove anything to you. I can name dozens of sources that are widely accepted. Only, you seem to be oblivious about them, and reluctant to accept anything written before the 20th century as reliable.
2. The burden of proof is actually on you to prove that Ahvaz was not part of Persia, and is Arab in origin.

• You said: You've restored the section in all its garbled English glory. I'll let it sit for a day or two while I figure out what to do.

You wont. First, go learn our language, then give your expert opinion about our culture. You dont even seem to know the difference between the Arabic w and Persian v appearing in the texts.

Look. I really dont have time for this nonsense. Youre trying to change something way out of your league. And it takes me 2 hours to write you a reply that you never accept anyway.

You simply cant revise history, no matter how hard you try. And even if I'm not here, someone else will keep revisionists like you from tailoring history to their opininated whims.--Zereshk 04:30, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Historical debate

I am of the same opinion as Zora. However, this is meant to be an encyclopaedia and all sides have to be represented. The historical debate is an important one and has to be reported without bias. I therefore think that we should work together to bring both sides of the argument - as there evidently is a dispute over Ahwaz - instead of acting divisively and unilaterally, deleting text and links without discussion or adequate reasoning. Perhaps we can have a short section for either side of the argument, accompanied by links to relevant sites.Ahwaz

[edit] Dear Zora

I've read the debate several times but I couldnt figure out what do you want to say.Well I've been to Ahvaz and lived there for like a month. I had alot of interaction with people there as I have many both Khuzestani persian and minority arab friends. ( I've studied its history in depth from Elamite Empire to now for one of my projects about historic city of Susa ) So I would want to ask some questions about its ethnic arab population :

1.Do you know where and when did they come to Khuzestan ?

2.where did they historically settle ?

3.What have been their main profession ?

4.When and why did they settle in Ahvaz ?--Amir85

You seem to assuming that Arabic-speakers are necessarily of Arab descent and thus recent arrivals, settlers, in a historically Persian area. Not necessarily so. People adopt the language of their conquerors. Most of the population of the Middle East isn't of pure Arabian descent. Over time, many of the dhimmis converted to Islam and as was the custom of the time, were taken into one of the Arab tribes as a client. So it is very likely that many of the Arabs that you clearly see as "them" are in fact descended from the same stock that lived there during Achaemenid and Sassanid times.

Given that the borders of the area now known as Khuzestan have been shifting back and forth for centuries, it is not at all surprising that the population of the area should form a continuuum with the rest of the population of the lower Mesopotamian valley, rather than there being a sharp discontinuity at the current border. That can be so without the Arabs being "interlopers" and recent immigrants to the current province.

As for the rest of your questions -- based only on my current reading, the Arabs in Ahvaz immigrated from the villages to work in the oil and steel industries, and they are concentrated in the lesser-skilled, manual labor jobs. Given that Ahvaz had become a mere village before it grew again to its present size, just about everyone in Ahvaz is an immigrant. Zora 17:28, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

I see more bold erroneous statements made here and on the main page. I'll have to come in and fix them again. For the time being, I have too much going on this week. Can only drop by intermittently. Gotta keep the advisor happy.--Zereshk 07:38, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The origin of the name Ahvaz

I have restored Zereshk's original text as it is the most NPOV and factually correct and placed this disputed version by Zora, with Zereshk's comments SouthernComfort 10:29, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

It is neither NPOV nor factually correct. The fact that two people (one Ahwazi and one an outsider) are objecting puts paid to the notion that it's NPOV.

In fact, it's a straight steal from the website of the Khuzestan Province Governor Generalship, which was clearly written by someone who didn't know English well and couldn't organize his/her thoughts.

In a province where separatism or ethnic discontent is rife, where failure to toe the party line is personally dangerous, of course the website is biased. It's like believing U.S. government press releases about the reasons for the invasion of Iraq -- a sign either of fervid nationalism or political naivete. Zora 12:14, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Is Ahvaz derived from the Arabic Ahwaz, or is Ahwaz the Arabic pronunciation of the Persian word Ahvaz? [what a stupid question. It only shows the ignorance of its author. Ahvaz and Ahwaz are merely different pronunciations of the same word. The real question is where does the name originate from]

This apparently minor question [if it was minor, it wouldnt be blanked out in the first place] has provoked some online controversy, with Persian nationalists [oh? And what about Pan-Arab Nationalists?] insisting that "Ahvaz" was the original Persian name, and that Ahwaz is just an Arabic version. They say that a 12th century Arab named Abu-Mansoor Javalighi wrote:

Ahvaz is the name of an Iranian city which its Persian name has been Arabicized and the Arabs have accepted the Persian dictation of the word.

The translation is clumsy [oh really? So you know Arabic?],

It is BAD UNGRAMMATICAL English. I don't have to read Arabic to know that the English is messed up. It should be something like "Ahvaz is the name of an Iranian city whose Persian name has been Arabicized". The rest of the sentence is nonsensical and must be a mistranslation of some sort. "Accepted a dictation" is just wrong.

no verifiable source is given [unverifiable? Says who? YOU? :) ],

Without a proper Arabic name and a reference to a particular printed version, I have no way of knowing whether or not the source is a complete fabrication.

and the name of the source seems to have been transcribed by a non-Arabic speaker [Hence his Arabic name!].

But that is not how Arabic is transliterated into English. I've been reading enough Islamic history over the last year to know darn well what Arabic looks like. What you've got there is a Persian version of an Arab name transliterated into English.

Why a historian writing five hundred years after the adoption of the name should be a trusted source is unclear. [For the same reason we dont outright dismiss herodotus or any other historian of antiquity.]

We don't accept Herodotus without checking his statements, for anything OTHER than matters he observed with his own eyes -- and even for those we have to figure out how his culture and upbringing would have affected what he saw, and how he reported it.

Arab Ahwazi separatists [ah, notice the label "nationalist" does not appear here!] have argued that Ahwaz is a version of the Arabic Ahawaz.[verifiable source is not provided for this claim]

... the word of Alahwaz is ploral of the word of the HOZ and in arabic the root of the HOZ is HAZ that means "To own and to pessess in the same time," as it's used in Alahwaz during the people's conversations (dialogues) as they say "This is the hoz of such as a person and the other is the hoz of some one else, that mean the land with the known border belonges to that person". http://www.alahwaz.org/618.htm]

[Ever thought why people say "Akhmed" instead of the correct "Ahmed"? It's because the letter "ح" (deep throated h) and "خ" (kh) are quite similar sounding letters. Since Khuz-i was the langauage conversed by the Persian royalty of Susa, as has been verified in multiple Arabic sources beyond doubt, therefore the word "خوز" easily takes the pronunciation of Hoz, hence both the word "Ahwaz", "Hoveizeh", and "Khuzestan", with the Persian "-stan" suffix appearing at the end.]

Your idea of what is plausible doesn't convince me in the least. I've seen too many junk etymologies. Real linguists demonstrate an overall pattern of sound shifts, instead of making them up on the spot. Zora 12:14, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

However, an etymology triumphantly put forward in a political argument, without historical citations or any support from a trained linguist, is also suspect. [as is true about its counter claims]

Apparently, there are no citations of any use of the terms Ahwaz or Ahvaz before the Arab conquest in 630 C.E. Before that, the city was known as Hormuzd-Ardashir, or shortened versions thereof. Arab histories describe the newly conquered town as the Suq-al-Ahwaz, the Bazaar of Ahwaz (referring to the destruction of part of the city, and the survival of the commercial section). Lacking any citations or contemporary inscriptions, it seems to yet other observers that there is not enough evidence, one way or another, to decide whether Ahwaz/Ahvaz was originally an Arabic or a Middle Persian word [of course there is. You just have to accept the word of the historians]]... nor is it clear why the name's etymology is so important that nationalists and separatists should quarrel about it.

[Because some Bengali from Hawaii gives herself the authority to decide that Ahwaz does not belong to Iran, ignoring 7000 years of Iranian history in the region, instead of writing about subjects of her expertise, such as Hindi films.]

It's quite amusing that you think I'm a Bengali. I'm half Swedish and half Texan, I grew up on the U.S. mainland, I speak French and Tongan, and a smattering of Hawaiian, Japanese, and Hindi; I'm a cultural dilettante. I am by no means an expert on Persian culture, but I may be one of the few Westerners you know who has read large chunks of the Shah Nameh and the surviving Zend Avesta in translation, has edited two volumes of English translation of Persian literature (Khayyam, Hafiz, Saadi -- available through Project Gutenberg), and listens to Jamshid and Axiom of Choice. I would defer to you and to Zereshk on matters of Persian culture and history if it weren't so painfully clear that in addition to what you guys DO know, you also "know" a great deal that isn't so.

Arguing with you two reminds me of a year or so I spent in a Usenet discussion group arguing about Tibet with a few ardent Chinese imperialists. The same labored historical arguments -- "the Yuan Dynasty (i.e. the Mongols) conquered Tibet therefore Tibet belongs to China by historical right". I point out that if that claim were carried to its logical conclusion, China would be claiming most of Russia and the Middle East, and it doesn't. Point ignored, return to claiming Tibet. How come you guys aren't claiming the very broadest extent of the old Persian empires?

IMHO, ethnic and linguistic nationalism doesn't work very well for former "empires". The Ottoman, the Russian, the Chinese, and the Persian empires were unabashedly expansionist and managed to grab chunks of all sorts of territories inhabited by people who weren't Turkish, Russian, Han, or Persian. The Ottoman and Russian empires have fallen apart, but the Chinese and the Persians are still trying to hang onto the old imperial possessions even if the the outlying regions aren't culturally or linguistically Han or Persian. It's a basic confusion about the justification for the state.

The other thing that you and Zereshk don't seem to get is that I'm not a nationalist. I don't BELIEVE in ethnic and linguistic nationalism. Abolish the U.S.! Abolish the Islamic Republic of Iran! Abolish Ahwazistan! Abolish everything! I spit on all flags impartially! Explaining what I do believe would take too long; perhaps I ought to put it up on my web page. Yes, this gives me a POV -- but it also allows me to see that many things that other people accept as perfectly "natural" and "obvious" are in fact POV, just a particularly pervasive one. Read Ernest Gellner on nationalism. It might open your eyes. Zora 12:14, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Greetings to you too, Zora. Your opinions concerning the issue of old empires and the modern 'nation-state' aside, what you have to keep in mind that modern day Iran formed the core of what was the Persian Empire, which acquired many territories from ancient times up until the 1700's when the empire fell into decline under the Qajar dynasty. However, none of these territories were ever part of Iran itself. The Persian Empire was not Iran - Iran was only the centre of this empire. And all the provinces of modern day Iran, including Khuzestan, had been part of Iran since it's foundation under Cyrus the Great, though this goes back even further to the Elamite Empire, who really were the architects of what was to become Iran as we know it.

You also have to realise that Iran, like Israel, is more than just a nation, it is a concept founded thousands of years ago with it's origins going back to the Elamite era. Iran is not a modern nation, but an ancient civilisation, and the people of Iran do not think the same way that Westerners do as far as ideas concerning nationhood are concerned. The same goes for people in India and the tensions they have with Pakistan. Similar tensions arose when Russian imperialism led to the separation of Azarbaijan from Iran, and these tensions continue to exist today. And one thing you are forgetting about Iran is that the vast majority of the population - Persians, Azeris, Kurds, Gilanis, Bakhtiaris, etc. - are all related. That is to say, we have the same origins. Kurds, for example, were known as Medes in ancient times and were one of the founding peoples of Iran, along with with the Persians and the Parthians (and the Elamites before any of them). SouthernComfort 12:51, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

I also will add that your recent comments here do not address the fact that your edits were just plain factually inaccurate. Whatever you personally believe in is fine, though such blatant POV should not transfer over to Wikipedia articles, and on top of all this, disputing legitimate and documented facts is simply irrational and absurd, and this is a case where the facts are quite clear and emphatic. SouthernComfort 13:24, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User who is trying to promote conflict

Zereshk's original version of the above section was NPOV and factually accurate as it was. Anyone who doubts the veracity of his additions is welcome to reference any major encyclopedia or academic text concerning the history of Iran. Zora, for whatever reason, has decided to promote a fringe view that is not accepted by any academic or scholarly source, and this is most certainly not in accordance with the spirit of Wikipedia. It must also be said that it is painfully obvious from some of Zora's edits on this page and others related to Khuzestan that her knowledge of this province and it's history, as well as the history of Iran, is limited and one speculates as to what agenda she has in mind when irrationally attacking legitimate and accepted facts. SouthernComfort 10:31, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Case is closed

I have added documentation to the section restored by SouthernComfort.

I found exact quotes out of Encyclopedia Iranica that support all my statements. Encyclopedia Iranica was written by 40 editors and 300 authors from The US and Europe. It is indisputably the most accurate account of Iranian history.

Ahvaz is Iranian. Both historically, and etymologically. Case closed.--Zereshk 13:59, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for reference to Encyclopedia Iranica

Hey! I found the Encyclopedia Iranica online; it is a useful source. I'm guessing that Zereshk has an older, printed, version, because the online version differs in some significant ways from the excerpts he added to the etymology section. I have rewritten the section to use the newer quotes (written by a C. Bosworth) and taken out all the text that Zereshk had cut-n-pasted from the governor's website. The link is there, however.

I also made a few corrections suggested by the encyclopedia article. Zora 10:33, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Why must Persians be allowed to write history how they wish and deride others as biased propagandists? I do not accept that Zora's rewrite is wrong or "revisionist". There has been a campaign to ethnically cleanse the Arabs from the politics, culture and history of Al-Ahwaz on wikipedia, without an attempt to debate or reach agreement on a NPOV position.--Ahwaz 12:26, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Because what you and Zora have been promoting IS historical revisionism. No historian worth his salt would give these sort of views the time of day. On top of which, Zereshk has also done his research on the subject and provided more than enough references. It is obvious that you don't like the truth for political reasons, and that you state there is a campaign to 'ethnically cleanse' the Arabs from Khuzestan is ridiculous and absurd and carries no weight, as there is no evidence. There is, however, plenty of evidence to support the fact that there is a campaign, begun by the British during the height of their empire, to separate Khuzestan by force in the name of liberating the Arab minority - and yes, before the war, the Arabs were most definitely a minority group in the province. And as for ethnic cleansing, these fringe 'Ahwazi' groups you seem to support so strongly, were not only pro-Saddam, but were also involved in the genocide of both Persians and Iranian Arabs. And now that Saddam is gone, they are attempting to get the Western world on their side. Unlikely after the events of September 11th, 2001.

At any rate, this issue has been discussed to death, and the Ahvaz article is NPOV - since it strictly adheres to well established fact and NOT historical speculation or anti-Iranian political propaganda. SouthernComfort 13:16, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Nonsense - the article as it stands is Persian monarchist historical revisionism. I object to the slander that I am pro-Saddam. There is plenty of evidence to prove that Arabs are being ethnically cleansed from Khuzestan - the anti-Arab stance of the current regime and the supporters of the Shah, the imposition of the Farsi language, the banning of Arab language media, the confiscations of Arab land, etc. To deny this is historical revisionism. You are an ethnic Persian who is a member of the US Republican Party. Your claims of neutrality are dubious.--Ahwaz 13:31, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Nonsense? You know, I originally had some empathy for you in regards to anti-Arab prejudice, which does exist to some degree, and also in regards to Arabic-speakers being marginalised politically, since I have many Arab friends and acquaintances in Khuzestan and Bandar Abbas, and not only that, but because Iranian Arabs (and not illegal immigrants or workers from Iraq or Persian Gulf states) are just as Iranian as anyone else, be they Persian, Kurdish, Azeri, Lori, or any of the other Iranian groups. But you are promoting revisionist views which are not only historically incorrect and false, but also incendiary. I don't know you, and I don't like to make assumptions since you may very well be truly misinformed and mislead through your involvement with these anti-Iranian 'Ahwazi' groups. Maybe you are not involved with such groups, but have bought into their views. I really don't know. What I can say with absolute certainty is that these views are indeed revisionist and false, and the references are all there for you to check out for yourself. You will recall that Persian-speakers have the oldest heritage in Khuzestan, since Arabic=speakers only entered the scene after the Islamic invasion.

As for your other comments, such as the alleged 'confiscation' of Arab land - what Arab land? Is there Persian land as well? Khuzestan is Khuzestan, and there is no land allocated for just Persians or just Arabs or for whoever else. Like most other Persian Khuzestanis, my family bloodlines have always been firmly established in the province. My ancestors did not 'immigrate' to Khuzestan. I am not an ethnic Persian from Fars province or Mazandaran or whatever. You may not like this fact, but Persian Khuzestanis are Khuzestani and this heritage is not in dispute, except by these radical pan-Arabist groups.

As for the regime's actions against the Iranian Arab minority, well guess what? Most Iranians hate this regime. Most Iranians have been suppressed, repressed, and oppressed by the Khomeinists. If the regime does something against a certain group, do you think most Iranians support that? Are you so ignorant and biased that you cannot see what you are saying? Are you not able to see for yourself that in Iran, in Khuzestan, most Persians and Arabs live side-by-side peacefully and without incident? This regime is anti-Iranian Arab, but certainly not anti-Arab since the Khomeinists funnel countless amounts of cold hard cash to Arab terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah. The regime, like the British colonialists of old who tried and failed to conquer Khuzestan, feed and thrive upon conflict.

Lastly, my being a Republican has nothing to do with these articles. I am not a monarchist, nor am I involved with any nationalist Iranian organizations. Unlike you, I do not buy into political propaganda nor do I try to promote historical revisionism, which is exactly what you have attempted. I hope that in time you will open your eyes. SouthernComfort 15:51, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

If I publish proof of the confiscation of Arab-owned land on here with independent references, will you just delete it and complain to the adminstrators? It is worth my while, or will I be censored by you like I am censored by the fascists in Tehran? Frankly, I am not interested in some "edit war" and it is not worth my while if what I write is just going to be deleted as soon as I publish it. Nor can I be bothered to spend time and effort worrying about wikipedia.--Ahwaz 16:36, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

---

Ahwaz,

1. It is very foolish to call a historical document, written by 40 editors and 300 authors from places like Harvard and Columbia University as "monarchist revisionism". It only shows Pan-Arab bias on ones behalf.
2. Spare us the "ethnic cleansing" crap, will you?
   1. The Arabs invaded Persia in the 7th century by the bloody sword of Umar, the misogynist racist calpih.
   2. The Arab rulers implemented the "mawali" racial apartheid system against Persians.
   3. The Arab invaders forced their subjects to change their language. Persia was the only conquered land that resisted this force, only to end up having the script arabized.
   4. The Arab Saddam invaded Iran in 1980 to annex Iran, killing 1,000,000 people in total as a result of the war he started.
   5. It was the Arabs that used chemical bombs on Iranians, even officially admitted by the UN. See items 6,7 and 8 of The UN report: ( page 1 page 2 ). See also surviving sufferers here, here, and here to brigthen your senses to reality.
   6. While all Arab nations were pouring in money to Saddam to help him annihilate Iran, I have two cousins that were hit by Saddam's Mustard Gas. I myself suffered a right leg paralysis. So dont lecture us what fuckin "ethnic cleansing" means. Heck, the Arabs even supported Saddam against Kuwait.[1]
   7. The majority of Iran's Arabs are with Iran. Didnt you know that even Iran's Defense Minister, Ali Shamkhani, is an Arab?
   8. There are 23 Arab countries, only One surviving Persia. Makes you wonder who is doing whom?--Zereshk 16:28, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, Zereshk, Arabs are the source of all evil in the world and have no right to live in Khuzestan. They must be eliminated, root and branch and wiped out of Khuzestan's history so they become aliens. After all, this is what IRNA is saying, so it must be true. Have you seen the living conditions of Khuzestani Arabs? While the Iranians pump oil wealth out of the region, the Arabs are left with nothing. Even the Palestinians are better off than the Arabs of Khuzestan. Do you think that this is fair payment for the crimes of history?

This is becoming even more ridiculous. Iranians spending the oil wealth elsewhere? Do you think the oil wealth benefits any Iranian or any province? The oil wealth benefits only group: the Ayatollahs. But you already know that. Instead you continue to attack the facts and established history and try to change the subject and make all these unfounded and false accusations as you have done once again above. The crimes of history? You really want to discuss the crimes of history, and who is *really* trying to destroy whom? SouthernComfort 18:13, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

So 'Ahwaz', when are the Arabs going to pay me and my cousins retribution for getting fucked up with Saddam's Arab-paid-for Chemical bombs?

By the way, this is deep inside Persia, not Ahvaz.--Zereshk 18:23, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Zereshk: I can't see how you can claim to have a neutral position when you blame all Arabs for the actions of Saddam Hussein. I have stated that I am and always have been against Saddam. I have never glorified those groups supported by him - see what I wrote on ethnic conflict in Khuzestan. There is no denial of Saddam's crimes and how he tried to hijack Arab issues in Khuzestan. Remember, chemical weapons do not attack races, only people and Arabs were also killed by Saddam in Khuzestan. But that does not excuse the persecution of Khuzestan's indigenous Arab population by the regime in Tehran, both before and after the revolution. According to the regime's own statistics, 80% of Khuzestan's Arab children suffer malnutrition, 50% of Arabs are illiterate, the majority are unemployed or under-employed and their culture is subjugated by ethnic Persian hegemony. The facts are facts. You cannot change them. I am less interested in the historical arguments than the current realities, in which the Arabs are far more deprived than ethnic Persians. Yes, this is caused by the bastards in power, but the Iranian monarchists are not any better. The denial of the identity of Khuzestan's Arabs is a classic example of Persian chauvinism.

I'm not sure what that picture is meant to prove (wow, a stream beside a market - controversy!), but I note that you reference ISNA as a reliable source of information. Whose side are you on, Zereshk?--Ahwaz 23:31, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Southern Comfort's reverts

Southern Comfort, you reverted to a version that contains quotes from an OLDER version of the Encyclopedia Iranica, in preference to more recent quotes. You also insist on including a chunk of prose, in garbled and substandard English, copied directly from a Persian government website, without attribution -- a copyright violation. You have censored any mention of the etymology advanced by Ahwazi separatists. You also reverted all the edits that I made to the rest of the article, without even engaging with them -- even though they were taken from the Encyclopedia Iranica, which you and Zereshk otherwise seem to trust. Making blind, angry reverts and then accusing me of inaccuracy and POV -- that's really too much. Zora 18:45, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Excuse me? His section was accurate as it was, and you didn't add any new information from the encyclopedia other than to delete his additions and including the revisionist views of a fringe secessionist movement based in Britain. Political propaganda doesn't belong in Wikipedia, and that you have been attempting to promote such views is as POV as you can get - *that* is too much. And what garbled prose from a government website? The information is from the Encyclopedia Iranica. I'm sorry to say that you seem to be the angry one here, not I. SouthernComfort 19:10, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Zora, that was the final edition I put in. Edition 1985. Everything after that was a reprint.--Zereshk 19:41, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

The version that is online is significantly different from the one you cite. The online edition is much more likely to be current -- 1985 is old, for academic works. As for the copyvio -- Zereshk, own up. When I found the website, I figured out where you'd gotten your text, in all its garbled glory. Word for word. That can't have been a quote from the Encyclopedia Iranica, even an older edition, because the Encyclopedia is edited by English-speakers who would not make such mistakes. As for including someone's opinion being POV -- I think you've missed the point of Wikipedia. It's not to exclude views that make you uncomfortable, it's to present all the viewpoints. Please note that my version did NOT take sides on the origin of the name. There is a controversy (however minor) and presenting both sides is not POV. Zora 20:04, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

As Zereshk states below, there is only one edition of the Encyclopedia Iranica, and there was nothing wrong with the quotes he was using, since they came from this scholarly source. And let us say, for instance, purely for the sake of argument, that the print version is 'older' than the online version, or that certain data which is in the print version may not be available online - which also would not be unusual. What difference does that make exactly? Is established historical fact (that 'Ahvaz' originates from the root 'Avaz') subject to change? As for 'excluding' other so-called views, what you are promoting is revisionism, pure and simple. You can call it what you like, it's revisionism. You did not take sides, that much is true, but by including revisionist speculation by a fringe movement (which is not even popular amongst Iran's Arab minority, just like how the Mujahedeen-e-Khalq Organization has no popular support amongst the Iranian populace as a whole - both movements having been pro-Saddam), you are debasing the nature of Wikipedia as being a source of facts, rather than speculation, especially speculation from a virulently racist anti-Iranian political group (based in Britain) which wants the expulsion of Persian Khuzestanis (who have always been in Khuzestan since ancient times) and the formation of a chauvinist Arab state.

Whatever controversy exists is in your mind and in the mind of these pan-Arabists. The academic community has never given the revisionism that these groups promote the time of day, and you will not find one academic or scholarly source who will back up such claims. Search for yourself if you don't believe me. Find every single book on Iranian history (and there is plenty in the English language) that is out there and find one iota of evidence that Ahvaz is not of Persian origin. Please, by all means, go forth and reveal to us the truth - but be sure to back up your claims without relying upon political propaganda. SouthernComfort 23:04, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

As I stated, there is only one edition. The online and the hardcopy are the same. Therefore I will quote, by properly crediting sources, or use material straight out of the online version that Zora provided to us.--Zereshk 21:11, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

SouthernComfort,

I deleted (for now) all the stuff from other sources, and just kept the Encyclopedia Iranica stuff, which she accepts. That all by itself is enough, as it clearly states the origins of Ahvaz. I hope she stops her campaign of desecrating this and the Ahvaz page with the most ignorant remarks. Nazaret chiyeh? Or should we keep the other stuff as well?--Zereshk 21:35, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

I have to say that Zora appears to have some problems and issues with Iranians and Shi'a. My opinion is that we keep the original version you had put up, which was fine as it was and the sources were all verifiable. Zora appears to think that only online sources must be referenced, which is not the case. If this was so, then Wikipedia would not be possible. Zora can complain and beat her chest all she wants, as loud as she wants, and complain to admins as often as she wants. But facts are facts, and when the facts are as clear and emphatic as they are here, there is no disputing them. The fact that she has to resort to referencing fringe 'Ahwazi' groups to support her claims proves her POV and potentially bigoted nature. I hate making accusations like that, but what else is one to surmise from the endless problems and conflicts she initiates in regards to Shi'a and Iran-related pages? Her actions are not dissimilar to neo-Nazis trying to reference their own online sources (i.e. racist propaganda) to 'prove' that Nordics are indeed 'Aryans' or using the Protocols of the Elders of Zion to 'prove' that there is a global Jewish conspiracy. On top of all this, as I've stated before, as evidenced by her previous edits on this page and the 'Ethnic conflict in Khuzestan,' her lack of knowledge concerning this subject is painfully obvious and one doesn't go storming in and making changes when they have no idea what the hell they are talking about.

Iranian history cannot be denied. There are some things which are open to debate, such as census numbers, but established historical facts are not open to idle speculation and revisionism. Zora's complaints have literally no foundation whatsoever, and the section you had presented was NPOV because it was 100% factually accurate, with references to boot. It's true that the recent changes you've made should be enough as it is, but I feel the previous section was also very good. The fact is that the Encyclopedia Iranica is the 'end-all, be-all' of Iranian history, and there are other very good texts around with the same information, but the most complete texts are generally from the 30's-60's, and of course, Zora has a problem with 'old' history books, despite the fact that they are still used and accepted in current university curriculum. But she isn't the dictator of Wikipedia, and Wikipedia is a sourcebook of facts - and as we've both stated countless times again, all this information is very well documented and established as fact. SouthernComfort 23:04, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

---

Zereshk's latest edit cleared out the copyvio (which he won't admit was a copyvio) but it mangled the Encyclopedia Iranica references. What is there now is a mixture of the 1985 version and the online version, faithful to neither one, and still attributed to the author of the 1985 article rather than the online version.

I don't think it's accurate to say that I "accept" the Encyclopedia Iranica as the the final arbiter of all things Persian. It seems to be a good, sound, well-meaning academic source. It gives the names of the authors, and references to further reading. I would trust that everything in there is something that a reasonable person might believe. This is not to say that its conclusions will never be overturned by further study ... of course some, or even many, of them will be revised. Nor is it to say that all academics and/or experts would accept all of its conclusions ... I'm sure that they don't. It's just it's MORE trustworthy than many of the sources I've seen.

It's also just completely WRONG to insist that any references to sources with which you don't agree should be deleted. Wikipedia does not handle controversy by declaring one side or another right. We try to step back and present both sides of the case. In my rewrite, I tried to do that. But evidently anything that mentions an Arab origin for the town name must be suppressed ... Zora 23:23, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Read my comments above, as I've responded as clearly as I possibly can to this insane level of ignorance. As I've said, political propaganda is not a legitimate reference. I've challenged you to find one, JUST ONE, factual, scholarly source to back up this alleged claim of Arab origin, without relying on political propaganda websites. If what you say is true, it shouldn't be difficult now, should it? I daresay that you will find, as others have, that 'Ahvaz' is derived from 'Avaz' - all very much Persian and Iranian. It just doesn't get much clearer than that now, does it? But don't take our word for it, go look it up for yourself. SouthernComfort 23:37, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

SouthernComfort,

Then by all means please revert and edit as you see fit. I will add more information and documentation the next time I pass through my library.--Zereshk 23:30, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

I have restored most of your original text with minor alterations. I'm going to pay a visit to the university library as well sometime this week or next, but honestly, it's beating a dead horse as the references are valid and the facts verifiable. I have presented the challenge to her - if she truly wants to 'prove' that Ahvaz has possible Arab origins, without relying on a political propaganda website. I mean it's really, truly absurd. It's one thing to reference an academic and scholarly source to back up one's claims. It's quite another to reference blatant revisionist propaganda - off a website, no less. What a world we live in when there are those who question even the most clear of facts when presented to them. If that's not prejudice, I don't know what is. SouthernComfort 00:10, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

I added material I found in my library this evening before going home. I also found two interesting articles about how the Arabs settled in Khuzestan and Ahvaz, which I will read tomorrow and add to the text as I go through it gradually.--Zereshk 04:01, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] POV template applied

Zereshk and Southern Comfort are attempting to impose their POV and censor any others. I would invite any other editors who are visiting to look at the last version I contributed. It at least tries to be neutral, by presenting all sides. Zora 09:39, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Instead of vandalising these pages as you have been doing over these past few days, why don't you respond to my queries? Why don't you prove us wrong? All we have presented are historical facts. You are the one with the agenda, who cannot seem to grasp that you cannot just change history. I have presented my challenge to you - prove us wrong, instead of being a blatant vandal and historical revisionist. SouthernComfort 11:09, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Zora,

Deleting text and blanking out sections is far from being neutral. Your last edit was not only NOT neutral, it was factually inaccurate. What you call "your edit" was actually your personal analysis on what is FIRMLY established to be F A C T by HUNDREDS of academic authors. You totally ignore them and call their verdict "uncertain".

I let you get away with your judgements on the Shi'a pages. But here, youre waaaaaaaaaaaaay out of line.--Zereshk 18:26, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] AHVAZ IS IRANIAN!!!

Ahvaz is of Iranian origin, and I am not sure who is the one responsible for messing up the page. Frankly, I don't care, all I care is that on the page It says it is of Iranian origin.

[2]

SouthernComfort,

If Zora's giving you trouble with the material from the Khuzestan Governor's Official website, I just thought I'd let you know that the text they have on their website is a Persian-to-English translation of what Iran's National Heritage Organization provided to them. Also, check this out, I thought it was interesting.--Zereshk 04:48, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

You know, now Zora wants a definition of what 'anagram' means (can you believe this?) and 'evidence' that Avaz appears in the inscriptions - despite the fact that I've told her to go read what the historians have to say for themselves. She is a vandal and a troll, period and at this point I really don't care what she has to say. I'm not going to bother responding to her ignorance anymore. SouthernComfort 08:38, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

If she went to Naghsh e Rostam and actually saw the inscription [3] [4], she would probably ask for proof that it was carved out by Darius I. :) --Zereshk 13:15, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm willing to accept that it was carved by his workmen. This link, [5], has the complete text of the inscriptions, in both old Persian and English translation. I don't think they prove what you think they prove. Darious boasts of being Persian, and conquering OTHER countries, such as Elam (Uvja). Are you claiming that every ethnic group or country listed by right belongs to Iran? Zora 19:02, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Considering her volatile nature, I would not be surprised. Check out her latest absurdity, which is not so far off:

I have looked at the primary sources and they do not agree with the contention on the government website. You say that the inscriptions have been cited and they have NOT. Where is the proof that Ahvaz appears in surviving Achaemenian inscriptions? Zora 09:02, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

She has personal problems. Whatever. As long as she doesn't vandalise these pages again, she can believe whatever the hell she wants. I mean, it was amusing at first, to encounter such idiocy for the first time in a long while, but the novelty has quickly worn off. C'est la vie. SouthernComfort 18:03, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

I've been patient with the personal attacks, but guys, this is contrary to Wikipedia policy and is the sort of thing for which people are warned or blocked. Please talk about the issues, don't just refuse to talk me on the grounds that you think I'm insane. Zora 19:02, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Zora: Question: is Mostowfi Qazvini the same person as Mīrzā Muhammad born ‛Abudi’l-Wahhāb-i-Qazwīni? Thx. Nobs 19:35, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't think so. A little Google work pulled up this citation:

Probably the best example of an early "scientific" Islamic work on zoology is the fourteenth century "Nuzhatu-l-Qulub" or "Hearts Delight" by Hamdullah Al-Mustaufi Al-Qazwini (translated into English by Stephenson ((1928)). Found at [6]

It's sometimes difficult to find outside references to the authors and works that Zereshk cites, because he uses English transliterations of the Persian versions of Arabic names used by Persian authors! References in English are usually to be found under the Arabic names. I wish that he would give both versions. Zora 19:57, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Mirza Muhammad Qazwini or Mirza Muhammad Qazvini, this is the person I'm interested in. Google brings up much interesting results, but I'm not sure which spelling to use. Thx Nobs 20:33, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Qazwini would be an Arabic pronunciation and Qazvini would be a Persian pronunciation. Choosing one or the other transliterion would expose you to attack! Best to use and give both <g>. Zora 20:55, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Source for ahvja?

I see that Zereshk has incorporated my link to the Behistun inscriptions into the controversial etymology, but where the link transliterates the old Persian as uvja, Zereshk has added ahvja as a possible reading. Where does this come from? Zora 21:11, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

• I actually put in avâja, not "ahvja". The word appears in the text [7]. Ûvja appears in both.
• Emilyzilch, Zora here resiliently doubts the Iranian (or Elamite to be more precise?) origins of the word Ahvaz. Could you please provide specific documentation, since youre better versed in this stuff than I am? Maybe she will hear it from you.

Thank You.--Zereshk 22:31, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

And when this issue of the Iranian origins of 'Ahvaz' has been settled, despite the fact that it was settled so long ago and documented so thoroughly in the annals of history, what will Zora attack next, I wonder? I again bring up the example that discussing these issues with her is akin to debating whether or not the earth is round with a 'flat earthist.' None of us should have to justify legitimate, established history with this ignorant user. This is like debating 'Holocaust revisionism' - the facts state that six million Jews died - period. To state otherwise or to debate this issue is to enter into historical revisionism. Likewise, Iranian history has been well established and thoroughly researched. To debate this history is to enter into historical revisionism. Zora should be ignored, so as not to encourage her revisionist tendencies. SouthernComfort 23:49, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

---

Zereshk, you are claiming that avâja is a reasonable reading of the cuneiform text that the livius site reads ûvja. It is not at all clear to me that this is so. I did more #@$%@#$% research. I couldn't find a copy of the cuneiform original of the Behistun inscription, so I went to the inscription on Darius' tomb, also at livius [8]. That page has the original cuneiform, their version of the Persian, and their English translation, and the disputed word occurs on the page. I found the relevant line in the inscription, 22, and copied down the cuneiform. I then found a site that gives an Old Persian syllabary: [9] and puzzled out my own translation. Since the script uses ja or va as consonants, and there's no reinforcing vowel signs after the ja and va, it's reasonable to read the word as uvj. It's not reasonable to read it as avj, or avaja, because the script has two distinct signs for a and u, and the inscription uses the u sign. Avaja can't be the Elamite version, as that's Halamtu.

You know, I would happily accept that Ahwaz, in Suq-el-Ahawz, is the Arabic version of an old Persian or Elamite city or place name if there were any believable source. I don't want to advance a particular version of events; I just want to find out what happened. But it seems to me that you've decided what conclusion you want to reach, and you're busy digging up evidence to support the foregone conclusion. You're citing old works (for which you carefully don't give the dates), or geographers writing five hundred years after the controversial Arabic translation/transliteration/neologism/whatever. You're using an older version of the Encyclopedia Iranica and refusing to believe that the online version could be new and improved. This is all in service of some sort of holy war to erase any vestige of Arabic influence from the history of the province. That does not lead me to trust your version of events.

But that's OK. There's room in the article for your version of the etymology. But what about allowing the alternate views? That Ahwaz IS an Arabic word? or that there isn't enough info to know?

What fascinates me is that there MIGHT be evidence that would settle the matter. Instead of relying on relatively late texts, what about clay tablets? Inscriptions? The cache of accounting tablets found at Persepolis? We might be able to reconstruct the rise and fall of cities in old Elam/Susiana/Arabestan/Khuzestan and figure what they were called when. Solving a controversy with NEW evidence would be the best way, yes? Zora 00:17, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Uvja is clearly mentioned as Elam here. And we all know what that means. There is no "controversy", except the one you keep trying to make up (and I dont know why). Please Zora, stop taking up my time. I have 20 other projects to attend to.--Zereshk 17:26, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] A suggestion

Many of you have cited the Encyclopaedia Iranica. As a suggestion, it's very healthy to use more than one type of reference when trying to get facts. --Neigel von Teighen 14:39, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

The Encyclopedia Iranica is not the only reference cited on the main page, as anyone can see. In addition, it is considered the most authoritative source on Iranian history. How many sources will we have to provide in order to prevent Zora from attempting to promote the revisionist idea (and I stress this point, because this is revisionism, verging on historical denial) that Ahvaz is of Arabic origin? If Zora wants to set up a third party website which promotes this idea, that's perfectly alright. But this is an encyclopedia, and you will not find any encyclopedia or academic reference which justifies her motives, nor will you find in any encyclopedia or schoarly work the idea that Ahvaz (or Khuzestan) is of Arabic origin. If you don't believe me, by all means please check the references out for yourself. I challenged Zora several times to prove that what is presented on the Khuzestan-related pages to be factually incorrect. She avoided the question and insisted on delving into this historical revisionism/denial. There is no tolerance for such behaviour in the academic community, and likewise there should be no tolerance for this type of thing here on Wikipedia. I, and other users, have become increasingly frustrated in having to deal with Zora in these matters and her attempts at undoing all our many hours of hard work and research. SouthernComfort 22:54, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

It's not undoing to allow other points of view. As for academic argument -- I took the trouble to look up the inscriptions by Darius, find a site that gives the accepted sound values for the Persian cuneiform, and did an independent transliteration: I got uvj, not avj. Since the script discriminates between a and u, you can't just assert that they are the same thing. Persian government websites are worthless evidence in this regard. Rather than deal with this, you just tell me that I'm insane and not worth debating.

I'm NOT saying that there's definitive proof that Ahwaz/Ahvaz is an Arabic rather than a Persian or Elamite word. I'm just saying that the issue is more open than you assert. Since the name first makes its appearance with the Arab invaders, there's a possibility that it's an Arabic word ... just as there's a possibility that it's just an Arabic pronunciation of a name that was current before the invasion. The Achmaemenid inscriptions are really not much help here, since they were chiseled more than a thousand years before the Arab invasion. That's a long time, for an area that saw so many wars and invaders. The name of the province, Khuzestan, doesn't prove anything, since it's NEW; the province was known as Arabestan under the Safavids and Qajars. I imagine that there's some historical evidence, somewhere, of how the name was chosen/created/whatever.

Since I don't believe in Arabic nationalism, or ethnic separatism, I'm NOT making these arguments because I believe that Khuzestan should be a province of Iraq or an independent nation. I don't. I just don't like Wikipedia being used to promote bogus history in the service of Persian nationalism. That's all. Zora 23:20, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Bogus history? I'm not going to get into this with you again, and so far you have been the only one to dispute these facts. You accuse me of Persian nationalism (funny how I have not attempted to promote a political agenda in these articles) - I in turn accuse you of being pro pan-Arabist. It's a pointless discussion. The page is NPOV as it stands and the references are legitimate. If the references were 'bogus,' then that would be something. But they are references from actual sources and historians. I'm sorry, but your arguments have consistently been moot. You can invite as many third-parties as you want, and I think that they would all find that the articles are fine as they are, and certainly fall within the realm of NPOV. SouthernComfort 23:33, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

SouthernComfort, it doesn't matter if Zora had or hadn't insulted you, that doesn't give you any right to insult her. --Neigel von Teighen 20:51, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

That's the most absurd thing I've ever heard, though this is not surprising considering you are not a neutral party here since you have declared your intent to be an 'advocate' for Zora, rather than to participate as a neutral observer. Furthermore you have indicated that your knowledge in this subject is lacking, which makes your advocacy for Zora difficult to comprehend. SouthernComfort 21:01, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Where's the diff that shows I have ever said that my knowledge on this is lacking? I think it was User:Nobs who said it! Also, I never said I'm a neutral party: you supposed it. --Neigel von Teighen 21:04, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

My mistake. At least now everything is out in the open and we can let the absurdity begin, because let's face it. This situation has reached the limits of absurdity when even established history is being questioned. Whatever happened to the Wikipedia policy of 'no original research'? Anyway, it's all very moot at this point but I am confident that in the end, the facts will speak for themselves and the historical revisionism that Zora is promoting will lose out. SouthernComfort 21:35, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV tag

I have added the {{npov}} tag as a neutrality dispute is ongoing. Please, don't remove it until a solution (anyone, but a solution) arrives. --Neigel von Teighen 21:05, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Do you really want to play revert war?

Southern Comfort, whatever I do, you revert. That is ugly, ugly behavior. Zora 07:03, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

What's ugly is what you have done to the article. It looks bad and the writing has not been improved at all. You haven't added anything to the article, but you have disrupted the whole flow. SouthernComfort 07:45, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Re-org

My re-org may not last long, but I moved all the contemporary stuff to the head of the article, as that's likely to be what encyclopedia users will be wanting/needing. The history comes next, and I tried to keep it neutral. The etymology dispute is cut down and put as a comment on history, which is where it belongs. I think the article is more balanced now. One more tweak, if it's still there ... Zora 07:13, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

See my comments on Talk:Khuzestan. The flow of the article has been ruined. The mention of 'Ahwazi separatists' and 'forced Persianisation' (the latter very POV) is POV and is dealt with in Ethnic conflict in Khuzestan. SouthernComfort 07:18, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm OK with removing the forced Persianization -- I think you'd agree that that happened, you just don't like the emphasis. OK. But there's no reason OTHER than political for removing any mention of Ahwazi separatists and their preferred etymology. I was thinking of adding a third option, "dunno, not enough evidence", but I can't find a citation for that -- even though I think it's the most intellectually responsible position. Zora 07:48, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

I was fiddling with the formatting, and I just couldn't get it to look right. I think the map is too big. The png needs to be edited down. If that's done, I think I can get the article looking nice. Zora 07:48, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

I've returned the article back to its original format with minor changes unless you can provide something better than your previous changes. I'm alright with removing the etymology section, but that will destroy the flow with the photos. I would tinker with this right now but I don't have time. SouthernComfort 08:15, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

I've added the Arabic pronunciation next to the Persian at the top, which should have been there anyway. Iranian Arabs always use the Arabic pronunciation, not just separatists. This has nothing to do with politics on their part. SouthernComfort 08:50, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

You reverted to your version AGAIN. SC, someone looking up Ahvaz, who doesn't know anything about the town, is NOT primarily interested in the etymology of the town's name. That's your bete noir. The reader is going to want to know where it is and why it's notable. The etymology is not that important. I agree that the pictures aren't working well. Part of it is that the map is too large. Some of the contemporary pictures could be put in the history section. Zora 09:41, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Again: I've returned the article back to its original format with minor changes unless you can provide something better than your previous changes. I'm alright with removing the etymology section, but that will destroy the flow with the photos. I would tinker with this right now but I don't have time. SouthernComfort 09:52, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

And by the way, I do agree that the etymology should not be at the top, but until a better format comes up, the original format will have to remain. If it ain't broke, don't fix it - until something better comes along. SouthernComfort 09:54, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Re-Org v2

Trimmed the etymology section of Khuzestan by moving the Ahvaz info from there to here. Section regarding 'etymology' should be moved to the bottom, but since this will disrupt the flow as far as the photos are concerned (which need to be next to Contemporary Ahvaz), I'm going to leave this 'as is' for now as it looks good and the TOC allows any interested party to skip ahead. SouthernComfort 10:33, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Zora's vandalism

Zora has vandalised the article, even after I had trimmed the Khuzestan article's etymology page and placed the relevant information here and also after I had expanded historical data, among other minor changes. Blind, angry reverts do not add to the Wikipedia. Hopefully more users will find this article of interest and be able to revert when large chunks of valid information are deleted out of spite and bigotry. SouthernComfort 12:52, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

I think you're confused about the nature of vandalism. Editing is not vandalism. As to reverts -- pot, kettle, black. What *am* I supposed to do when I make changes and YOU revert? Why is it OK when you do it and bad when I do it?

I fail to see why I should be accused of bigotry. The only major things on which we differ are:

1) Organization. You want to put an expanded etymology section front and center. It's a pointless argument, and it doesn't matter one way or the other. You seem to think it has some political significance. From my point of view, the legitimacy of the central government derives from the consent of the governed, not from convoluted historical and etymological claims. If the governed are unhappy, you aren't going to make the unhappiness go away by citing history at them.

2) The size of the etymology section. If it has to be there, then a few paras in a side note near the end is enough, and probably more than most Wikipedia users want. You seem to want to pack in everything that comes to hand, and it's confused and unreadable. Not only that, it duplicates the history section. That's why history should come first and then the etymology note.

3) A few points of emphasis in the history. I would have to do more research, but I believe that your treatment of Sheikh Khazal and the Kabide Emirate is inaccurate. That's why I left it out completely. This is not the place to go into it. Zora 23:33, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

SouthernComfort,

be een Zora roo nadeh. Otherwise she will gradually reduce down the entire page to her own personally acceptable version. She does not know our country. Many of the edits she makes are simply based on an agenda not even accepted by Khuzestani Arabs. She ****is**** in fact vandalizing this page.

If this outrageously stupid censorship of information persists, I think we should tell User:Refdoc about this. And where the hell are User:Mani1, User:Pouya and User:Roozbeh ? Mage eenaa administrator neestan?--Zereshk 02:10, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

It's rather rude to speak to each other about me in a language that I don't understand. I have not tried to hide anything that I do from you. Zora 02:26, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

And where did our friend from Harvard, User:Emilyzilch leave to? I had to revert back Zora's Pan-Arab deletions to restore User:Emilyzilch's edits. Furthermore, User:Aytakin and User:Amir85 have also tried to understand why Zora is insisting on this childish campaign of deleting information.

But that is not important. I will keep on adding sources and references. Fortunately, I have close relations with the folks at Iran's Cultural Heritage Organization. And I have special access to their library as well. I will make sure to make good use of it, when I visit them in 3 weeks to put this stupidity to an end once and for all.--Zereshk 03:20, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree that she blatantly vandalized the article, which is what I've been saying all along. She deleted practically the whole article to further her own obscure political agenda of 'ambiguity in history,' whatever the hell she means by that. And she did this without even the slightest discussion. She consistently derides the information as being 'inaccurate' and POV, simply because she doesn't like the idea of established history. This is saying nothing of the fact that she contributed absolutely nothing to the article, while deleting all the pertinent data, and yet claims not to have vandalized the article. I would love to see her attempt this sort of propaganda with the Jewish holocaust or the History of California, or any other article for that matter. Difference here is that there aren't very many users watching these articles, and she can get away with this if nobody pays any attention.

It won't end with Zora, let me tell you, and I cannot even put into words how absurd and just plain lame this whole charade of hers is. Can you believe she tried to put the following sentence, "... the rude tribes of the Iranian plateau" into the article? That's just one example - any user can feel free to browse through the diff's to see her pattern of absurdist behaviour.

It's just stupid that we have to justify established history that has been thoroughly documented with a million references, when there are already more than enough references listed.

Tell me about it.--Zereshk 03:43, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

And yes, her lack of education and ignorance in this subject, most evident in her stereotyping of Khuzestani Arabs as all being separatists and anti-Iranian and whatever the else she wants to believe about them, is fantastically ridiculous. She also claims that only 'Arab separatists' use the Arabic pronunciation, Ahwaz, which is simply not true at all. And she also objects to any mention of Sheikh Khaz'al. It all smacks of Orientalism and political bias on her part. Edward Said would not be amused. And yet she will continue to condemn anyone who adheres to history as being a 'nationalist.' Where does it end with this person? SouthernComfort 03:38, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Why don't you support your claims with some 'diffs'? If you want to solve a dispute in Wikipedia (and in judicial tribunals), you need to give some evidence. --Neigel von Teighen 21:52, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

First of all, anyone who is so inclined may check the history for themselves. Secondly, I'm not interested in going so far as to take this to some sort of 'Wikipedia tribunal' (that this exists is itself amusing) for heavens sake! SouthernComfort 23:35, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Wise decision! The Arbitration Commitee is the most bureaucratic thing in WP!! ;) --Neigel von Teighen 00:02, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

First of all, there is way more than enough evidence on the Ahvaz and Khuzestan pages. The Encyclopedia Iranica alone all by itself, which Zora calls "uncertain", was authored by 300 scholars (and 40 editors) from Columbia University, Harvard, and numerous other academic institutions.

Not to mention that User:SouthernComfort is also himself a Khuzestani. I am also from the south of Iran, well acquainted with what is real and what is fiction in that area.--Zereshk 00:20, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of NPOV tag

SC, you removed the NPOV tag. As far as I'm concerned, the problems haven't been solved. I need to take my last edit, the current last edit, and meld them. I haven't had time -- my daughter came home from college last Sunday and I've been fixing up her room AND driving her here and there. I don't think the rule is that the tag stays up for a week. I think it stays up until the editors involved reach consensus. I'm not gone, I'm just busy. Zora 05:25, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

One week has passed with no consensus. Please do not destroy this article as last time you added absolutely nothing new and no other users have disputed this version. I am currently involved in the 'BCE/CE vs BC/AD' problem and I do not have the time to keep an eye on this article all the time. Please just give it a rest, will ya? SouthernComfort 07:09, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

By the way, if you're disputing the one week rule, please check the Wikipedia policy pages. It does quite clearly state if that consensus has not been reached in one week, that the tag should be removed. You brought in an admin, he took it to RfC, earlier you had taken it to Wikiquette alert. You are the only user disputing this page, and no one else has chosen to dispute anything. Honestly, it was interesting for awhile, but this has gone on for long enough, and the article is fine as it is. SouthernComfort 07:26, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] if I may ...

I see a lot of contention on this page. I do not want to get involved as I know little about Persia (except that I have personal reasons for being a huge fan of Cyrus the Great) (and I assume that isn't the "Persian" spelling), and I really do not want to make things worse, and if anyone thinks I am doing that, I apologize in advance. As to conflicts over style, I can give no constructive advice. In some cases, consulting the Wikipedia:Manual of Style might help, but usually the best way to go is first to gently explain why you think the way something is phrased or organized will make it hard for the average reader to understand, and then see if you can work out a mutually acceptable solution. There are two good reasons for this advice, and I speak as an experienced writer: On the one hand, the author (presumably an expert) has to recognize that he or she does not have distance from his or her own writing, and a non-expert is almost always in a better position to comment objectively on style. On the other hand, the copy-editor, no matter how good their ear for articulate phrasing, their eye for eloquent prose, will often miss highly nuanced matters of content that only an expert can perceive and understand (i.e, what appears to be an improvement in style unintentionally leads to an inaccurate sentence). I hope opposing parties see this as giving good reasons for listening to one another seriously.

As to disputes over content, this may be a little easier to resolve than you might think. Easier, because Wikipedia articles are not arbiters of truth. Period. This is the essence of the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy. Talk pages are not contests to prove one person wrong and another person right, they just aren't. There is only one relevant question: do you have a legitimate and appropriate source for your claim? If you do, include your claim in the article along with a citation. What if two people make opposing claims and both have sources? It doesn't matter. Each puts in their claim with their source (e.g. "According to X, .... but according to Y, ...." The only think left to argue over is whether the source is appropriate and legitimate. Here too the solution is easy. Include the claim and the source, and then mention that some people believe that the source is not appropriate or legitimate. If possible, state who thinks the source is inappropriate or illegitimate (and no, the "who" isn't a wikipedian, but someone who has published on this topic), and if possible give a concise explanation as to why they question the legitimacy of the source. In short, if you see a claim you do not like, even a claim you are absolutely convinced is wrong, do not delete it. Just (1) insist that the editor who put the claim in provide the source, and (2) agree that since you are not going to delete the editor's claim as long as there is a source, that you have the right to add that some either take a different view (provide source) or some question the source (provide source). End of conflict. I hope. And I hope all understand that I have written this with the utmost respect for all who have contributed to this article, Slrubenstein | Talk 22:21, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Trying to separate controversial and noncontroversial elements of article

I just got a wonderful book, Touraj Daryaee's 2002 Sahrestaniha i Eransahr. A translation of the famous Middle Persian text into English and modern Persian, with notes and commentary. I'm going to use it to rewrite the history and etymology sections -- LATER. Right now, I just wanted to work on the formatting. I have long thought that the layout is ugly and confusing, that the etymology section logically FOLLOWS the history section, and that both belong at the end of the article rather than at the front. I'm hoping that SC and Zereshk will accept the changed layout. Then we can limit the argument to the history and etymology sections. OK? Can we at least agree on that? Zora 23:52, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

The article layout was fine as it was. Stop ruining it. And since there is a consensus against you, you will not go ahead and make such a massive unilateral change as to 'rewrite' the article. Your efforts are not appreciated. SouthernComfort 14:09, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

SC, you don't OWN this article. It is open to editing by anyone, even people you don't like. You are supposed to consider the value of the edits, not who made them. You can't just declare any edit I make "vandalism". Zora 17:44, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

There are other editors here, and it is improper for you to go against consensus, especially when you have in the past deleted huge chunks of information and attempted to rewrite the entire article. These edits have contributed nothing and instead have resulted in the ruining of the article. This is totally against the spirit of WP and is unacceptable behavior. SouthernComfort 20:06, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] You don't even READ before you revert, SC

It's kinda amusing -- in a sad way -- that anything I add gets immediately reverted ... even if it's new, germane, evidence from a Persian text and a Persian scholar that supports one of your arguments! Yes, I found a citation for a late Sassanid use of Xuzestan in the Eransahr book, in a 3rd century inscription of Sabuhr I. It's now clear that the province name, Khuzestan, as promulgated in 1936, is a revival of the Sassanid name.

You also deleted new info re the origin of the Sassanid city name. Zora 18:47, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I added that one sentence from Eranshahr (which you added while deleting everything else). Now stop deleting paragraphs from the article and attempting to ruin the layout. SouthernComfort 22:25, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] <What you need to know about Ahvaz.>

Before I start I would like to thank Zereshk for inviting me to this conversation. Here is a little information for those of you who do not have in not information on Ahvaz to be even a part of this conversation (Zora included). First of all I would like to declare that Ahvaz is probably more Persian than anyother city in Iran (emphazised a bit). The city has been part of Iran and the persian Empire for as far back as the Elamite Empire. Eventhough many people in the city are Arabs they are still a minority and do not have the rights to Ahvaz.

I would also like to explain to Zora that all the proof you need can be seen in ancient persian maps. The maps clearly indicate that the first people to ever civilize and populate Ahvaz and the Ahvaz territory were persians. I would also like to point out that you are very closed minded and that you do not see the world outside the box. This problem has been solved in treaties, acknowledgment and apparently in these conversations so please give up and stop changing the Ahvaz site. You have clearly been out voted so for your own seemliness and self-rispect, from me and whoever supports my argument STOP. Pedram 7:10 PM ET, June 1, 2005

Guys, the Elamites were Elamites. They are no more "Persian" than the Babylonians were Arab. They spoke an unrelated, unclassified language, and looked different; the few theories that link them to any surviving group of people consider them to be most like modern-day South Indians. They have nothing to do with this in any event. - Mustafaa 23:42, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Actually if u insist on knowing the Indians are also related to Persians. There many categories in which humans fall under. Aryan being one is the category that only Persians, Indians and Elamites fell under. This has been proven through writings found in castles, and mud citadels even writings that belonged to the kings such as Darius. Therefore when you trace it all back the people from Ahvaz’s ancestries belonged to the Elamites and the Persian Empires making us all Aryans unlike Iraqis, Saudi Arabians, and Kuwaitis who are Arabs. There are only minorities of Arabs that leave in Ahvaz. If you want to know more you can always read the book “Les Ascendances Persanes” which I think has an English translation to it. Pedram 4:17 PM ET, June 3, 2005

Wrong Indians. Elamites are related to Dravidians, the non-Aryans of South India. - Mustafaa 20:31, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Mind you, that is just a theory. Possible linguistic connections between Elamites and Dravidians do not necessarily equate to common ethnic origins. If this were the case, then Europeans, Iranians, and Indians would share common ethnic origins due to linguistic connections, but then again, this is only one theory out of many and is often disputed. The Elamites were certainly not Persian (I don't think Pedram was implying this), but they did ultimately become an Iranian people and their civilization formed the basis for the later civilization of the Aryan tribal groups when they settled the area - and Iranian does not automatically equal Persian, as this is an inclusive term for the peoples who are (and were) indigenous to the Iranian plateau. SouthernComfort 23:59, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Some Indians are related to Persians -- i.e. Indo-European. Others aren't. The Dravidians of southern India aren't (at least in the opinion of most historians).

As for the Arabs being minorities -- well, that's a matter of dispute too. Until fairly recently, they were the majority. Not that I think it makes any difference to national boundaries. Zora 20:32, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If you have any doubts that Aryans are not Indians or Elamites you can allways look at the Aryan site in wikipedia. no-doubt you would probably think that is wrong to but it wouldn't hurt would it? And for the Arabs being a minority, that is an ALMOST fact. Surveys taken by the Iranians show this and infact they have been a minority for almost 11 years. the were only the majority between the years of 1870?? --- 1984?? My advice would be that you would go read a little more on this before you continue writing. Pedram 4:36 PM ET, June 6, 2005

[edit] Muqaddasi

Al-Muqaddasi agrees with Matheson, cited there:

وأما الأهواز فإن سابور لما بناها جانبين سمى أحدهما باسم الله عز وجل والآخر باسمه ثم جمعهما باسم واحد فاسمها هرمزداراوشير ثم طرح اسمه وبقي داراواشير ثم سمتها العرب الأهواز

Shapur, when he built Ahwaz, named one side by the name of God and the other by his own name, then joined them together into one name: Hormuzd-Aravashir (misspelling for Hormuzd-Ardashir?), and it remained Daravashir until the Arabs named it Ahwaz. (p. 149, on AlWaraq.com).

Incidentally, Muqaddasi couldn't stand the city: he says it "has no religion and no noble origins..., and no good time and no good heart, and the stranger there is in deep trouble". - Mustafaa 00:00, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Adding more sources

I just arrived in Tehran. I will gradually start adding new material to various pages, includiung this page, as I access the unique sources here in Iran.

It will take me a few days though before I can start contributing again. Im still recovering from that looooooooooooong flight.--Zereshk 01:54, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Regarding Zora's last edit, The correct name is "Nasereddin Shah", not "Nasr-ed-din". The word "Shah" is considered part of the name, even though it has an independent meaning.--Zereshk 01:22, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Origin of the name

This section is incredibly repetitive, and many parts of it overlap with (or even, like the first sentence, contradict) the history section. I suggest some serious trimming. - Mustafaa 20:15, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think I've managed to distill all the excellent points made in this section into the history section, except for one quote which I can't see how to reconcile with the "Taryana" business:

Furthermore, H. Pir Nia in The History of Persia mentions that the important cities of Elam during the Elamite Empire were "Susa, Madaktu, Khaidalu, and Ahvaz, also written as Uxiens". (ISBN 964-6895-16-6, p33)

Tell me what you think. - Mustafaa 20:30, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I believe Zereshk is working on (or will be working on) a separate article regarding the etymology of the name Ahvaz, so he had been planning on trimming the section anyway. SouthernComfort 21:27, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

---

Except the Eransahr doesn't say that Ormahzd-Ardashir was founded by Ardashir; it says, "the city of Hormizd-Ardaxšīr and the city of Rām-Hormizd were built by Hormizd the valiant, the son of Sābuhr." (Šahrestānīhā ī Ērānšahr, Touraj Daryaee, 2002). That source seems to me to be just as good -- or perhaps better -- than the Arab chroniclers. (The problem is that even though it's a Middle Persian text, we only have it in versions saved by the Arab chroniclers.) Let's not make harmony in spite of the sources. Zora 22:25, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I misread that - I suppose it refers to his grandson Hormizd I of Persia. Good point. - Mustafaa 22:28, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Writing "Ahvaz" using "w" is incorrect.

According to Persian transliteration, "vav" must be transliterated to "v". Those who thinks "Ahvaz" must\should written by "w" suppose it an Arabic word, but it's not Arabic, it's Elimate as in the Ahvaz's Wiki article mentioned. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sasanjan (talk • contribs) 13:10, 4 October 2006.

Ok, that makes sense. I still think we should include the Arabic name at the top, however. The main reason is the city's significant Arab population, and also for historical reasons. This is the same reason, for exapmle, why we have the Kurdish name at the Diyarbakır article. Khoikhoi 05:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No

• Ahwaz is actually more common than "Ahvaz". Please compare Google "Ahwaz" vs. "Ahvaz".

• Only people in Persian-speaking parts of Iran use Ahvaz because Persian does not have IPA [-w] . The local population and most of the world consider [æhwæ:z] a perfectly fine pronounciation.

• Most encyclopedia articles are either titled "Ahwaz" or include Ahwaz as a perfectly fine alternate pronounciation.

• See ethnocentricism.

Khalilak 13:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

In Iran, both spellings are used inter-changeably:

• The Iranian embassy uses the Arabic spelling: [10]
• Official Iranian news agencies use both spellings: [11]
• A list of companies in Ahwaz uses the Arabic and Persian spellings inter-changeably: [12]
• The city's airport code is AWZ: [13]

It is therefore not controversial to use either spelling.--88.111.92.91 20:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yes

The correct term is Ahvaz as already explained. As for Google hits, it doesn't matter how many people make a mistake, if a name is mistakingly pronounced, then it should be corrected. --Mardavich 18:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

"Al-Ahwaz" is not the name of the city but the name of the province as used by pan-Arab nationalist groups in UK. It is a political term today. Long time ago "Al-Ahwaz" was the name of only part of Khuzestan. The city was just "Ahwaz". Khorshid 00:35, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

But don't the Arab inhabitants of the city have a name for it in Arabic? Shouldn't we mention it? Khoikhoi 00:35, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, its just "Ahwaz". Khorshid 00:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

So it looks exactly the same in Arabic and Persian? Khoikhoi 00:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

No, Persian alphabet (modified Arabic script) has "vav" (v) but Arabic has "waw" (w). Khorshid 00:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the first part should just have "Ahvaz" because later in the article is explained details about Ahwaz/Ahvaz and etymology, etc. Khorshid 00:50, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Where? I still don't get what's wrong with mentioning the Arabic name in the intro. I've never seen anyone object to having the Kurdish name at Kermanshah, the Azeri name at Tabriz, and the Luri name at Khorramabad... Khoikhoi 00:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

So, what's wrong with mentioning the Arabic name? Khoikhoi 04:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

It is not an Arabic name. Read the history section for an explanation! Putting the "Ahwaz" and especially "al-Ahwaz" (which is NOT the name of the city but of a region of Khuzestan) in the first paragraph is POV especially when it the history is explained later which shows why it is POV. Please, stop encouraging this pan-Arabists! Khorshid 01:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Wrong! All city names in Arabic have the al- prefix. That's just the way it is in formal Arabic. The name of the city is Ahwaz, but when you write it in Arabic you write al-Ahwaz. And it has nothing to do with Khuzestan in general. Next time make sure to provide sources for your outragous claims. Khalilak 02:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

LOL YOU should provide sources for your outrageous claims! Silly pan-Arabist fantasies. Anyone with an education knows that "al-Ahwaz" refers to a region of Khuzestan NOT the city. The city has NEVER been called "al-Ahwaz"! In history it was called Suq Al-Ahwaz and Naseriyeh but NO EVIDENCE THAT IT WAS EVER CALLED AL-AHWAZ WHICH WAS A NAME FOR A SMALL REGION OF THE PROVINCE! And you want sources, go read the article and read Iranica and stop wasting our time! Khorshid 01:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the main problem is the pan Arab connection to the name Ahwaz.Khosrow II 21:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• Let's get this straight. The Iranian alphabet doesn't have "W" And they pronounce the city name Ahvaz. Ahvaz is an Iranian name and a city in Iran. In conclusion, the right way of spelling it, is the way 70 million Iranians spell it. AHVAZ. Arad 00:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ahvaz is correct

First: You indicate that Ahwaz is more common but when you do a google search, Google searchs both ahwaz and al-ahwaz, if you try ahwaz -"al" then you can see that Ahvaz is more common.

Second: Iran's official language is Persian and any name (no matter German or Chinese or Arabic) must be written using Persian transliteration, so Ahvaz is correct.

Third: "W" is just a sign of Arabic transliteration and can't represent the local's pronounciation.

Fourth: Ahvaz comes from the Elamite word "Huvja" and so it's not Arabic.

here's a long discussion on this issue: http://www.wikiran.org/wiki/Talk:Ahvaz http://www.wikiran.org/wiki/User_talk:Sassan#Ahvaz

217.219.229.3 09:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I think both spellings Ahvaz and Ahwaz should be mentioned, although Ahvaz should be mentioned first since it is the official name; it looks as if both spelling are used in English. However al-ahwaz is not accurate since, as mentioned above, it is not the Arabic name for the city but a name used by Arabs for the whole region. It does not belong here.Gol 05:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Gol. Ahvaz is the official name, but even government departments sometimes refer to Ahwaz and the airport's code is AWZ. Naturally, the Arabic spelling is commonplace because Arabs populate the region.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 10:52, 20 November 2006 (UTC)