Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arabs of Khuzestan

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Merge to Iranian Arabs. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-08 09:04Z

[edit] Arabs of Khuzestan

Arabs of Khuzestan (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Article is mostly rehash of content from Khuzestan, History of Khuzestan, and Politics of Khuzestan. Rest is WP:OR and/or unsourced. Furthermore one should note that there are no similar articles on Wikipedia and the article title is WP:POV for a number of reasons, including the fact that Arabs are found in other places in Iran as well, including Bandar Abbas, Tehran, Mashhad, and Isfahan. Considering Arab citizens of Israel, one must apply the same standards here: Iranian Arabs or Arab citizens of Iran. All census reports from Iran consider Arabs together nationally (3% of national population), not as separate ethnic groups as this article implies. There is no evidence that Khuzestani Arabs are a "distinct" ethnic group from other Arabs in Iran. Their culture is similar to Arabs in Iraq and to some extent the Persian Gulf states. But the current title is not well written and lacks sources for the rest of the information that is not taken from other articles already mentioned. If not deletion, then at the very least redirect to Demographics of Iran. Khorshid 22:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Oppose There is no reason why this article cannot exist and the title is hardly POV, any more than the alternative suggested (Iranian Arabs) is POV. Arabs in Khuzestan are distinct from Bandar Abbas (although some of these Arabs have been forcibly moved to other parts of Iran due to forced relocation by the Shah regime and the Islamic Republic regime), in terms of their tribal structures and language. There is a problem here and that is that content that was due to be merged into the article from other articles has been blocked. This would have benefitted the article by showing the distinctiveness of Arab tribes and their history in this province. I put it in the talk page some months ago [1], but other editors refused to discuss the content with me despite an effort at mediation that I agreed to but Khorshid refused. But this article will go because there is a body of editors that votes the same way and enforces content changes by stacking 3RRs. This is the case with all Iran-related articles. Whenever I have offered any evidence, even from academics, it is immediately dismissed by these editors.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 23:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

• • I have already explained why the article should not exist - Iran's Arab population can be detailed in a neutrally titled article such as Iranian Arabs or Arab citizens of Iran, which is what the Israel article has: Arab citizens of Israel. The same standards should apply to citizens of Iran. Do not level accusations at other editors - your reveals the root of all the problems in Iran's Khuzestan articles. Most editors here are interested in WP:NPOV. You, however, have been pushing a nationalist political agenda, which again your block log shows. The only "academics" you have cited is one professor from Shaw University in Canada who makes outrageous claims that have no acceptance among scholars anywhere. Yusef Azizi Bani-Torof who you constantly cite is not even an academic but a journalist. Give it a rest. There is no justification for this article or the controversial separatist and nationalist agenda you have been pushing for all this time. Wikipedia is not a battleground to wage such campaigns, do you understand? Khorshid 23:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  • In addition, we don't and can't have articles for every single Persian, Azeri, and Kurdish ethnic group in Iran. For instance there are literally dozens and dozens of Persian ethnic groups in Iran! It is outrageous to have articles from them, from Tehrani, Isfahani, Shirazi, Mashhadi, etc etc. We have one article on Persians here, one article on Kurds (there are also dozens of Kurdish-speaking groups), one on Azeris, one on Mazandaranis, one on Baluch, and so on. We can't have articles for every single local group and dialect in the world, it would be a nightmare! Khorshid 23:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  • If you want to put me on trial, then do so. If you want a discussion on this article, then stick to the point. You don't even believe that Arabs are an ethnic group![2] The fact is that you have refused to discuss the introduction of more information to the page and refused mediation, so it has sat in the talk page and has now been archived out by you. Many of my 3RR violations are simply frustrated attempts to introduce even minor changes. Why? Because my user name is Ahwaz and not the Farsi spelling Ahvaz and this simple difference in spelling turned a whole load of people against me from the very beginning. Even some of the most non-contentious edits - right down to correcting English spelling and grammar mistakes - are immediately removed. But, I don't know why you feel the need to discuss this with me now when you have refused to for months.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 23:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  • BTW the same exact Arab tribes (like Bani Kaab and Bani Tamim, two of the biggest) in Khuzestan also exist in Iraq and the Arabian Peninsula. In fact, they come from Arabia! So much for your "distinct" theory. Khorshid 23:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I am half-Arab (and half-Kurd) myself genius, so don't start with the "Persian chauvinist" routine. I have never denied that Arabs are not an ethnic group. But "Khuzestani Arabs" are not an ethnic group - they are no different from their cousins in Iraq and the Arabian Peninsula and the Persian Gulf Arab states such as Bahrain and UAE (except Iranian Arabs speak Persian!) Again, your block history proves your POV and your attempts to transform Wikipedia into an ethnic battleground. The fact that I am advocating for an article on Iranian Arabs or Arab citizens of Iran puts your accusations to shame. Khorshid 23:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I have not even mentioned the term Persian chauvinist. Where have I ever called you a Persian chauvinist? In contrast, you have called me a separatist simply for defending the existence of an article entitled Arabs of Khuzestan, which was created in May 2005 by a member of the Iranian Wikipedians team called SouthernComfort - an ethnic Persian who comes from Khuzestan, who has now retired from Wikipedia - and which I only began editing in January 2006, long after Zereshk, another Iranian Wikipedian who never contested the article's title. So why is it, after nearly two years of editing by various people, you decide that this is a POV article title?--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 00:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
      • What others have done or what others ignore is not my business. So far many Iranian editors have more interest in Azerbaijan and Turkish matters than Khuzestan (or Kurdish articles). But anyway thats not my concern. I have already explained the points of concern, which you ignore. BTW do not use terms like "Iranian Wikipedians team" - there is no such "team". Like I said, Wikipedia is not a battleground of ethnicities, races, ideologies, whatever. If you think it is, you should leave because there is no tolerance for this stuff. I suggest you look what happened to the Armenian and Azerbaijanis who were constantly in conflict at the ArbCom. Khorshid 00:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
        • Given the fact that I withheld content from this article because of your objections and put it into the talk page for discussion, which you refused to participate in, indicates that I am not the one imposing a POV but have attempted to seek an agreement. I've tried engaging in dialogue with you and agreed to a mediation offer from a neutral party, but you have refused. Now you want to delete an article which has existed for nearly two years and has had participation from Iranian editors, who have never raised the argument that the article title is inappropriate or POV.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 00:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
          • Your block log speaks otherwise about your so-called "diplomacy". I have already explained the problems. Do you want me to explain again? If Iranians don't raise objections, what the hell does that do with anything or have any concern for me? This has nothing to do with what Iranians object to or don't object to, this is about factuality and neutrality. There is no such thing as a "Khuzestani Arab" ethnic group. They are Arabs, plain and simple. Is this difficult to understand for you or what? Stop wasting my time. And articles have existed for three years and then been deleted. There is no "statute of limitation" here - if an article is bad or wrong and people ignore it, that doesn't mean it should stay because its been around for years. Thats a joke. Most Iranian editors don't seem to be interested in Arab issues, I guess, so they either don't care or don't know enough about this matter. To admins: What is obvious to me is that User:Ahwaz (see outrageous block history) is attempting to close this AfD with no consensus by hammering the same objection again and again. Wikipedia is NOT a discussion forum. Please take into account my points that no other such articles exist on Wikipedia. Khorshid 00:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
            • I'd request that editors assess the existence of this article, rather than making it a trial of me personally. As I have said, many others have edited this article, including Iranian editors who created the article in the first place. So, it is not an article created by Arab separatists to support an Arab separatist agenda, or it would have been deleted by now. It is not a POV fork. Any editorial problems should be dealt with on the talk page - something that Khorshid refused to do when I pasted merge sections from another article into the talk page for discussion.
            • Additionally, the argument that all Arabs are just Arabs is not true, as Arabs are varied in their tribal, religious, national, linguistic, geographical, historical and racial profile. It is not "plain and simple". Arab identity is complex and Arabs in Khuzestan are distinct from Arabs in other parts of Iran, unless they have migrated to another by of Iran either voluntarily or by force.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 00:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
              • You have never sourced any of your claims. Instead you rely on anti-Semitic "scholars" like Nasser Pourpirar, who you have constantly praised (editors please check history of Arabs of Khuzestan for evidence). Arabs in Khuzestan belong to the same tribes as Arabs in Iraq and the rest of the Arabian Peninsula. Stop repeating the same thing again and again. It won't work. Khorshid 01:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
                • I must say, this is a gross distortion in order to discredit me. In a discussion, I quoted from a document. In another part of that document, there was a quote from this man. To claim that I have quoted him, let alone praised him, is just wrong. It seems this entire AfD is turning into a personal attack rather than a debate on the article.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 01:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Well, it seems to me that there is a serious problem of editor disagreement here. The subject itself is likely to be buried in the face of such an ongoing dispute. FrozenPurpleCube 01:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately User:Ahwaz is very good at diverting discussion with his unsourced claims, so this may result in no consensus. See his block history. However, my points have been made. It is POV to have this kind of article for Iran, while Israel, Turkey, and the Arab countries themselves (which have various dialect groups of Arabic) have only one article - if that - about the Arabic-speaking populations. That is what the closing admin should take into account, the POV nature of the article title, the mess that the article is, and the constant hauranging by Ahwaz, who repeats the same objection again and again. If anything he should be blocked again for two months this time for wasting my time. In a way I am foolish for continuing to reply to him, but I'd like to make sure the closing admin realises who he/she is dealing with. Most countries keep this information at Demographic of [country]. Instead, we have this POV nationalism. Again, Wikipedia is not a political battleground. Furthermore, there are no sources at all to distinguish Khuzestani Arabs from other Arab groups. Khorshid 01:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
    • It takes two to get into a fight, and speaking for myself, I don't care to sort out the dispute between the two of you, but it is obvious that there is an ongoing dispute, and that's not healthy for Wikipedia. If you believe this user is disruptive, try WP:DR instead of AfD. And as far as the subject itself goes, I don't see a problem with it. If somebody wants to make articles about other ethnic sub-groups in other countries, I am not inherently opposed. They need only provide reliable sources. And yes, examples those sorts of pages do exist. See Irish Americans in New York City for one. Not a great page, but the subject itself is acceptable. Just like this one. FrozenPurpleCube 01:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Show me one reliable source in the article. Like I said, I have already made my points. It is true it takes two to get into a "fight", but I am not going to allow this user to make baseless accusations against me without responding to them. You clearly do not know much about the subject matter, and that is why I have to respond to such accusations, lest people think he is making a legitimate point. This user has a long history of creating problems - if you want to ignore that, fine. But don't make accusations yourself. Again, I have stated before clearly that no reliable sources have been provided! You ignore my statement. That is abusive. Read my comments carefully. Khorshid 01:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
      • And BTW, WP:OR is not allowed on Wikipedia. Please read the policy carefully. If another article exists that is WP:OR, that does not mean others should follow. We need to focus on encyclopedia building, not crap. Khorshid 01:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
      • BTW that article on Irish Americans in NYC is just a list! It should be moved to List of Irish Americans in New York City! For heavens sake, at least come up with a better example to prove your ill-conceived point! There is not even a single mention of a Khuzestani Arab in this article, since we already have a list of Iranian Arabs at Famous Iranian Arabs. Again, an article on Iranian Arabs is justifiable, one on Khuzestani Arabs, that has barely any properly sourced content, is not. One that is being defended by a user who has been blocked numerous times, the last time for a month! We do not accodomate abusive and troublesome users here. If you want to back that sort of person up, go for it, but remember what you're doing. Khorshid 01:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
        • Ahem, I'm not taking about the other user, I'm not backing him up, nor am I attacking you, but I'm concerned that the obvious problems between the two of you are detracting from any discussion of the subject itself. Which they are. You can worry about responsibility if you want, I'm not. I'm saying there is a problem between editors here. And hey, I don't think Irish Americans in New York City is a good article, right now, but I think the subject itself is quite valid. Sources could be provided for it (there are books documenting the history of the Irish in New York City. See for example: [3]. And there are pages on individual neighborhoods in NYC, from Chinatown, Manhattan to Hell's Kitchen and more. Given that this Arabic group is real, I see no reason not to have an article. Or at least some coverage. If you want to cover them under some other article, that might be worth discussing, but this isn't the forum to do that. Sorry. FrozenPurpleCube 03:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
          • Why do you insist on changing the subject again??? We are not talking about neighbourhoods. We are talking about an ethnic group. There is no such thing as a "Khuzestani Arab" ethnic group. They are Iranian Arabs who live in the Khuzestan Province. Are you suggesting we also create articles for each and every Persian group in Tehran, Isfahan, Shiraz, Mashhad, Abadan, Ahvaz, Yazd, Kerman, on and on and on and on and on??? Christ. Khorshid 18:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
            • I already said, I have no objection to providing information on any ethnic subgroup on which reliable sources exist. And if you don't see the connection between a neighborhood and an ethnic subgroup, well, I'm not sure how else to explain it. If it's ok to cover a few blocks in NYC, it's ok to cover the ethnic groups of a population of a province in Iran. As I see it, there's no real reason not to cover these subjects. FrozenPurpleCube 19:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
• Close - take no action; this seems like an editorial debate that you guys need to work out for yourself. AFD is not exactly the place to take this up. --24.68.187.88 01:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC) — User:24.68.187.88 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Keep the sources listed refer to it as a specific group. DGG 04:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  • What sources?? The article barely has any! As Mardavich points out below, there are no "specific" Arab groups - should we also create articles for "Anglo-Saxons of New York", "Jews of New York", "Jews of Los Angeles", "Persians of Los Angeles", "Persians of California", "Persians of Toronto", "Kurds of Toronto", "Jews of Montreal", "Mexicans of Calfornia", "Mexicans of New Mexico", "Germans of Illinois", "Dutch of Pennsylvania", etc etc??? Are you kidding me or what? Khorshid 18:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and Redirect to Iranian Arabs. We don't have "Azeris of Ardabil" or "Arabs of Jerusalem" articles, we have Azeris in Iran or Israeli Arabs, same standard should be applied here. --Mardavich 09:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment "Arabs of Khuzestan" is a horribly POV title, and as I suggested even if the article was to be kept Iranian Arabs (the best choice) or even Iranian Arabs in Khuzestan would be better (not a good choice considering the lack of information in this article alone). Though to conform with other Wikipedia articles, Iranian Arabs is best. Do you think there would be support in the Israel articles for Arabs of Tel Aviv or Arabs of Haifa??? If this article is kept, then we should definitely create articles for every Israeli city and township that has a significant Arab population. Same holds true for United States - we should create Arabs of Michigan, and for France, Arabs of Paris, and the UK, Arabs of England as well as Pakistanis of England and Indians of England, and so on. We have to be fair. Khorshid 18:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  • You are most certainly welcome to work on any of those articles which you have an interest in, and can provide reasonable sources for. I for one, would welcome more coverage of immigrant populations in England. Category:Ethnic groups in the United Kingdom is bit sparse. (And every Israeli city and Township should have an article, and that article should cover the Arabic population there if there is meaningful information on it, whether or not that should be spun off? Probably not, but that's because the size of the article itself isn't likely to be a problem.). FrozenPurpleCube 19:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Delete and Redirect to Iranian Arabs or Arab citizens of Iran. I agree with Mardavich . I am sure there are some differences between different arab groups but the same can be said about any other group in Iran and many other countries as well.Not all the persian people of Iran live a life exactly similar to each other. Each little town has its own tradition, food, etc. Same thing can be said about Italian people, French people, Germans, chineese, etc. The only rational way is to go based on language as do most sources such as CIA [4] CIA obviously does not distinguish between different Arab groups in Iran. when it says 3% of Iranians are Arab, it means all the Arabs so obviously they are close enough to be considered ONE GROUP. Also I agree with Khorshid who says the title is POV. these people dont live in a country called khuzestan, they live in a country called Iran and why shouldnt the title reflect that? I think it would be a good idea to follow the example of other ethnic groups in Iran. I can not understand how ahwaz can claim that Iranian Arab is POV? what part of it is POV? that they are Iranian? or that they are Arab? what is POV in calling the Arab citizens of Iran as such?Gol 19:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Unlike other Arab groups in Iran, Arabs in Khuzestan had a degree of political autonomy until 1925, when the region was known as Arabistan. The local ruler was Sheikh Khazal, who led the tribes of Khuzestan in alliance with some local Bakhtiari tribes. Arabs in other parts of Iran, eg Bandar Abbas, were never a part of this and even have different tribes, origins and dialect. Consequently, the culture and origins of the Arabs of Khuzestan deserves an article. Khorshid claims there is a lack of sources, but this is no reason to delete an article. The quality of an article does not determine whether it should exist. As for Arabs of Paris, British Pakistanis, etc articles, why not? There is no rule against this. If there is a notable ethnic group in a region with a distinct history, then there should be an encyclopaedic article. Incidentally, there are articles on different Persian ethnic groups (Bakhtiari, Lurs), which I think deserve more attention.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 19:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

actually lack of proper sources is a very very strong reason for removing an article, it is usually the first and most important reason.Gol 20:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• • Nothing you just wrote has any source or attribution. There are no sources to substantiate the claim that Khuzestani Arabs form a distinct ethnic group. They are Arabs. The real issue at hand is the fact that Ahwaz seems to want to avoid articles that state the facts, e.g. that Khuzestani Arabs are indeed Iranian Arabs. This is Wikipedia - please read WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:RS. Khuzestani Arabs are Iranian Arabs. Khorshid 19:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep seems at least partially sourced (the deletionists should feel free to delete those parts which aren't) but it seems that this ethno-linguistic group really exists, that there are multiple independent sources to that effect. Keeping this does not mean that there will or should be all the Foos in Fooland articles because simply many of those groups aren't notable per se. Here, I think that case to keep has been made "nothing but net". Carlossuarez46 19:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  • A quick note on terminology: apparently the languages used by the Arabs of Bandar Abbas and those of Khuzestan are not the same (see the Ethnologue report), so regardless of whether the Iranian government lumps all Arabs together or not (like the Turkish government doesn't recognize that there are any Kurds) is something to mention in the article but does not negate the appropriateness for a separate article on the separate groups. Carlossuarez46 19:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

CIA puts all Iranian Arabs together as well. Also the comparision with the kurds in Turkey is completely wrong. the huge difference between Kurds and Turks are not even comparable to small differnece between two Arab groups in Iran who both speak Arabic but different dialect( not languages but dialect) kurdish is not a dialect of turkish or vice versa. they are two different languages from different families. There is no similarites between these two issues. Gol 20:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about Carlos? Arabs speak Arabic - this is basic. Arabs in Khuzestan speak what is called a Mesopotamian dialect while Bandari Arabs speak the Gulf dialect. Every Arab in every region speaks a different dialect, but its still Arabic. Persians in Tehran, Isfahan, Shiraz, etc all speak different dialects of Persian, but its still Persian. That doesn't make them different ethnic groups. Seriously you should do more reading on this subject before jumping to such ridiculous conclusions. Wikipedia is not here to pander to nationalism and separatism. An article on Iranian Arabs will have enough room to deal with both Khuzestani Arabs and Bandari Arabs. The sourced content of the current article is minimal and is basically just population figures, some of which are for Iran's total Arab population. And as Gol says, comparing Iranian Arabs to Kurds in Turkey is nonsense. Iranian government doesn't deny anything about the existence of its Arab population - but Khuzestani Arabs and Bandari Arabs are not "distinct" ethnic groups. They're Arabs, just as the Iranian government doesn't differentiate between Persians from Tehran, Shiraz, Isfahan, etc. Is that difficult to understand??? Furthermore please keep your personal opinions and politicking out of this discussion. Cheers, Khorshid 02:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep but rename Redirect to Arabs of Iran or another similar title --Rayis 19:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
• strong Keep but maybe move, of course this needs an article, but it seems its title must be something like "Iranian Arabs" or "Arabs of Iran" or ...--Pejman47 20:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect per user:Mardavich. Excessive, needs to be redirected to Iranian Arabs and probably add some of the info there. - Fedayee 21:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Subject deserves an article. Should be improved rather than deleted.Biophys 03:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Have you even read the above discussion at all? The subject of Arabs in Iran deserves an article, yes, and I agree, but that is for Iranian Arabs or Arabs in Iran, just as there is Arab citizens of Israel and Arabs in Turkey. The current article and its title is POV, mostly unsourced and taken from other Wikipedia articles, and what is sourced is just population figures. Also note that this is not a vote but a discussion about whether this particular article merits inclusion in Wikipedia or not, and it does not for reasons I've explained again and again. Iranian Arabs < fine - Arabs of Iran < fine - Arab citizens of Iran < fine - but the current article is promoting a fringe view that Khuzestani Arabs constitute a distinct ethnic group from all other Arabs. That is simply not true and there is no evidence to back that up whatsoever. Wikipedia is not here to indulge original research and this article (and the inclusion of a terribly revisionist article by Yusef Bani Torof) is in direct violation of this policy. Khorshid 04:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and Merge any meaningful content to Iranian Arabs. I agree with Khorshid that there is way too much of rehashing of info from other articles.. I believe the subject will be covered under Iranian Arabs more healthily.. Baristarim 04:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect Iranian Arabs is more correct ! The word "Arab" shows a language group, the word "Iranian" shows a historical entity that contains different ethnic and linguistic groups. If we use the "Arabs of Iran " , that may mean the KSA citizens inside Iran , but Iranian-Arabs is clear ...Alborz Fallah 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Why delete and redirect/merge? Why not just change the name of the article to whatever you choose and work to extend the content? There doesn't seem to be anything to merge this article into, as there is nothing in Wikipedia on Arabs from other parts of Iran. "Delete and merge" implies to me that the content is moved into another article - so why not save the effort and simply rename the current article? "Delete and redirect" seems like support for deleting the article content and redirecting to the current "Iranian Arabs" page, which contains very little. Is this what people want? Is it the case that they want the current content on Ahwazi Arabs to be part of a larger article on Arabs in Iran or that they want the article itself, with all its content, deleted. I think those who voted need to be clearer in order to establish any result to this AfD.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 11:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Ok, I hear your points - even though there is nothing that would bar an article such as Arabs in Khuzestan from a logical point of view (since, if there is enough content, we can also have Arabs in London, Germans in Paris), the article really looks like it has hashed too much info from other articles. Listen, I am definitely not against covering the topic, far from it - nevertheless, I believe that there needs to be a clear structure to such articles. But there is not even an article at Arabs in Iran and Iranian Arabs was just a dab page - don't you think that it would be healthier to create and expand a larger article for all of Iran (ie Arabs in Iran/Iranian Arabs), cover the Arabs of/who live in Khuzestan in a section there, then, at some point in the future when the article will have grown in an encyclopedic structure and manner, perhaps branch out to such a sub-article at that point? (Although I also hear the point of Alborz Fallah about the confusion between Arabs of Iran/Iranian Arabs - but that is a specific content issue that needs to be ironed out in those articles, not this AfD) Baristarim 11:34, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Sure, the article is not good as it stands, but I have been prevented from merging content from another article following another AfD that voted to merge. The content is here: [5]. If I had been allowed, by other editors, to add these sections or even if they had discussed this with me, the article would have improved. As I said, there has been a tendency to stack 3RRs and revert everything I write, but no interest in using the talk pages or taking up offers of mediation. Consequently, the article has stagnated. Now the way to deal with the issues that some appear unwilling to discuss is to delete the entire article, which I think is a legitimate and encyclopaedic topic of study - especially given that the Arab tribes in this region had political autonomy up until 1925 whereas Arabs in other regions had no autonomy.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 11:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect per Alborz Fallah and Mardavich. --alidoostzadeh 16:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect, Artaxiad 17:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete (or redirect) and merge with Iranian Arabs per nom, Baristarim, and Alborz Fallah. As stated by others, the history section is taken directly from other Wikipedia articles, with the population section the only properly sourced area. The rest is unsourced. Going through the older discussions of the article, as well as at Talk:Khuzestan Province, it seems that the Arab population of Khuzestan is quite diverse, and includes refugees and immigrants from Iraq as well as those originating from the Gulf Arab states such as Bahrain. In the end, all Arabs share a similar cultural and linguistic foundation, thus as Baristarim correctly states, a general article on Iranian Arabs is the best and most neutral course of action. All ethnic groups in the world, every single one, have diversities among themselves, such as regional dialects. But if we look at articles such as Arabs, English people, German people, French people, Persian people, and so forth, such categorizations do not occur. The issue at hand here is that of national citizenship and demography, which an article on Iranian Arabs would correctly and neutrally address. metaspheres 18:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • You're incorrect. There are articles on many German ethnic groups, ranging from Pennsylvania Dutch to Transylvanian Saxons. See Ethnic German for more. The French? Well, there's the obvious Cajun and Acadian articles. And there are ethnic groups in France with articles like the Bretons, with the Cornish, Manx, and others in England. There's no shortage of articles describing ethnic subgroups in Wikipedia, and I fail to see how you've made a real argument as to why this one shouldn't exist. If a group isn't real, or recognized by anyone, that's one thing, but given that nobody here has claimed there aren't Arabs in this province of Iran, I don't see that would be an issue. FrozenPurpleCube 19:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Bretons are a Celtic ethnic group in France, Acadians are French-speakers who settled in New France centuries ago and have no connection to France except language, thus cannot be considered "French". Same with the Pennsylvania Dutch and so on. These aren't ethnic subgroups, as they have no modern connections to their root ethnicities. I have explained that Arabs in Khuzestan don't form a homogenous "tribe" or "ethnic group" - the fact that there are refugees and immigrants from Iraq and immigrants from the Gulf states speaks a great deal to this. What sources are included with the article demonstrate that many Arabs in Khuzestan speak the very same dialect of Arabic as their brethren in Iraq, striking another blow for your unusual WP:OR theory. But just as you ignore Khorshid's points, you ignore mine. Please, don't waste my time. This is one of the reasons I rarely edit Wikipedia anymore - people constantly jabbering away with the intention to waste time and drone on. metaspheres 20:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Yet the Bretons are a distinct group of people, not just generic Celts, as the Khuzestan Arabs are a distinct Arabic ethnic group in Iran. Small differences. Besides, I mentioned Cajuns and Acadians for a reason. There are two related groups there, not to mention, the French of Quebec who they could be merged into if, for some reason the consensus were to have a single article. But wait, there's not. Not to mention you completely ignored Ethnic German which provides many articles on German subgroups that are hardly different from the coverage in this page. BTW, what theory are you talking about? I have no theory about this or any other group. They exist, if there are reliable sources on them, then like any other ethnic subgroup, an article can cover them. Or are you claiming there aren't Arabs in Khuzestan, or that sources [6] can't be found on them? FrozenPurpleCube 21:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Note, the existence of this article doesn't in any way mean you can't make Iranian Arabs, in fact, if you do have a genuine concern that the ethnic group overall in Iran isn't being covered, it's exactly what you should do. But there is no need to use deletion before you do that. FrozenPurpleCube 19:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I and others have suggested merging whatever sourced content is here (very little at that) into Iranian Arabs. Your opposition to this is strange, to say the least. We don't have room or time for POV jabbering here. You and others have shown no reliable sources to back up your claims that Khuzestan's Arabs form a distinct, homogenous ethnic group. This is because they're not. It's clearly a diverse population. Whatever provincial identity exists seems to be shared by all the inhabitants, rather than any specific ethnic groups. As I said, the discussions in the various articles are interesting. In the end, your unusual theories and comparisons are purely WP:OR and have no place in this encyclopedia. Please stop. metaspheres 20:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
      • I think you don't realize something, but that to me, you are the one who is coming across as POV. Maybe you should leave off attacking other users, and concentrate on the issues at hand? Besides, if you wanted to propose a merge, you should have gone to WP:PM instead. FrozenPurpleCube 21:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment No evidence has been displayed showing that Khuzestani Arabs are a "distinct" ethnic group. I also have to mention that Manticore's accusations to the other editor, accusing him of denying the existence of Arabs in the region was purely out of bad faith, as the editor in question has not at all denied the existence of Arabs in Iran. The point that everyone is trying to make here, but being ignored, is that Khuzestani Arabs are not a distinct ethnic group and there is no evidence to justify such a theory of "original research". I say again my statement that "Khuzestani Arabs are Iranian Arabs". A Google search shows that "Iranian Arabs" is almost always connected with the Arabs of Iran, including in Khuzestan: [7] I think there are some bad faith editors trying to divert the discussion away from the real points being made here and instead levelling accusations against those who are advocating deletion and/or merging. The fact is that the article has no real content. I suggest to the closing admin to closely inspect my arguments and that of others, since we have pointed out the problems, while Manticore simply resorts to straw man arguments and bad faith accusations. Wikipedia is not a political conference, it is not a soapbox for nationalisms or any -ism, it is not a battleground of ideas, ethnicities, nationalities. The fact is that Iranian Arabs is the proper article for this subject. This article is mostly WP:OR as it postulates a fringe theory that Arabs in Khuzestan constitute their own ethnic group separate from other Arabs, when in fact, this is not true. They are Iranian Arabs, and they are found outside of Khuzestan in Tehran and other cities. People like Manticore have no knowledge or education in Iranian matters and yet desire to impose their view on cultures and nations with which they have no education about. This is called colonialism and Eurocentricism and it is repulsive. To the closing admin: Hold the Iran articles to same standards as Israel and other nations: just as there is Arab citizens of Israel instead of "Palestinians", let us have Iranian Arabs, the proper and correct term, instead of the WP:OR "Arabs of Khuzestan" which is being used by these users to postulate the existence of a "distinct" Arab ethnic group. There would be no tolerance if such gimmickery were used to postulate such theories in reference to Persian and Kurdish groups. Please, let us not make room for double standards. Regards, Khorshid 00:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

You know, instead of attacking me, you should WP:AGF yourself and try to make your arguments based on the actual situation at hand. It was clear to me when I first noticed your argument with another user that that would be a problem, and it's continuing to apply. Thus instead of the subject being the only issue, it's becoming further personalized. Perhaps you should step back and consider your actions? FrozenPurpleCube 14:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment It is interesting that Khorshid has pre-empted any decision by removing the disambiguation on the Iranian Arabs page in preparation for a merger.[8] Yet some here are arguing for the status quo and others are arguing for deletion and redirection. It seems that Khorshid's enthusiasm has over-taken him. Again.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 00:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete and redirect anything relevant to Iranian Arabs. Nokhodi 06:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - if an indigenous ethnic group in Khuzestan, which numbers millions, is now being stripped of its own Wikipedia article, will articles such as Assyrians in Sweden (of which there are a few thousand) also vanish? I'd like to see some advice on Wikipedia rules on these articles.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 10:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The indigenousness of Arabs of Khuzestan is in question. Nevertheless, that's Assyrians in Sweden, a country, not Assyrians in Uppsala --Rayis 10:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

So, are you saying that articles on an ethnic group based in provinces or cities are POV, whereas those articles on ethnic groups in countries are NPOV? This is the argument being put forward here for the deletion of this article on the Arabs of Khuzestan. I look forward to seeing the nomination of many articles and categories on that basis, or this deletion could be seen as being unfairly unfavourable to Arabs.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 10:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect and merge to Iranian Arabs per nom and others. Barely any content in the article to begin with, and looking at the history of the article, and taking in the shared history of the Arabs in Iran in general, it seems more appropriate to provide a single article to detail this. Khodavand 10:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.