Talk:Politics of Khūzestān Province

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion in the past. The result of the discussion was rename to Politics of Khuzestan and review later.
WikiProject Iran Politics of Khūzestān Province is part of WikiProject Iran, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Iran-related topics. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of objectives.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project's quality scale.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project's importance scale.
After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's ratings summary page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.

Archive 1

Contents

[edit] removing unreferenced claims

I removed this:

.......................... The following table, allegedly based on unofficial provincial census data gathered in 1996 by the Centre for Iran Studies and published in 1997, accompanied his lecture. These claims and the existence of the Centre for Iran Studies have not been verified:

Iran Population Census 1996
Name of Shahrestan Total Population Proportion Arab Arab Population
Abadan 252,047 70% 176,433
Omidiyeh 80,533 60% 48,320
Andimeshk 155,594 20% 31,119
Ahvaz 1,110,539 80% 888,425
Izeh 172,027 5% 8,601
Baq-e-Malak 90,106 5% 4,505
Bandar-e-Mahshahr* 230,696 65% 149,052
Behbahan 163,032 15% 24,455
Khorramshahr 1,293,460 95% 1,228,779
Dezful 351,942 35% 123,180
Dasht-e-Azadagan ** 125,825 100% 125,825
Ramhormoz 158,542 35% 55,490
Shadegan 121,000 100% 121,000
Shush 173,232 85-90% 155,909
Shushtar 210,108 35% 73,538
Masjed Soleiman *** 222,211 20% 44,422
* Kaparha, Mashur-Ghadim, Sarbandar and Hendijan
** Khafajiah, Hoveizeh and Bastan
*** includes Khamsa, Raghivah and South Haft Kail

....................................

There isn't any credible reference for these claims. We can not put these numbers in the article just because Banitorof has used them in his presentation. Bidabadi 15:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

There is no reason why this table, in a lecture by an Iranian academic, should not be included in the article.--الأهواز 16:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
So, for example, you mean any table about the Spanish population in USA (without any credible reference) should be included in Racial demographics of the United States? Bidabadi 16:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
The source is an Iranian academic. If a similar table exists for the Hispanic population in the US, provided it was backed by a credible expert in the subject or academic (Bani Torof is one of the most published authors on Khuzestan's Arab population), then it would be OK. The article states "The following table, reportedly based on unofficial provincial census data gathered in 1996 by the Centre for Iran Studies and published in 1997, accompanied his lecture: These claims and the existence of the Centre for Iran Studies have not been verified" - so it is clear that the data are unofficial and not verified, but are the only source available.--الأهواز 16:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
These kind of tables about numbers and percentages should be supported be official data from censuses. Banitorof's claim is mentioned in the article. There isn't any reason to copy his presentation here. To include the table, you can not just refer to Banitorof's claim (no matter if he is an academic figure or not). Indeed, he is a journalist and a political activist, but not an academic figure (he doesn't even have a PhD). Bidabadi 16:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
There is a matter of possibility, HOW, this so called schollar has such an accurate statistics about ethnic percents? HOW and WHY that Centre for Iran Studies can not be found? and something else, if it is not verifiable, so it is not more that POV. Qoqnous


Bani Torof was giving a major lecture on Iran's Arab population at a university, in which this table was included. If you can find more accurate and recent estimates on the Arab population and demographic concentrations, please feel free to include them so we can compare them.--الأهواز 16:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Banitorof's claim about the Arab population is mentioned in the article (the is no need to emphasize it or explain it by a big table). About the other estimates, CIA's estimates about the Arab population and the Arabic-speaking population in Iran is in the article. It's not hard to see that Banitorof's estimates are far from reality and based on his POV. Bidabadi 16:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
1. I myself am from Ahvaz, and have relatives in many towns and cities all over Khuzestan. And I assure you that mentioned table is indeed invalid.
2. There is no place for POV in Wikipedia. Who ever's that POV is. Am I wrong?
Qoqnous 16:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History

Does Khuzestan history began with Arab rulers? I don't think so. Why delete some 3 or 4 millennias? Qoqnous

The history of Khuzestan is included in the Khuzestan article. There is no need to duplicate it here, unless it is relevant to ethnic politics.--الأهواز 16:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moved to archive

I moved older discussions (last one was from May 13th) to Archive page. Qoqnous

[edit] Bani Torof

Could someone tell me what their problems are with Bani Torof? He is one of the most widely published authors on Khuzestan and the history of Iran's Arab population in the Farsi language. He cannot be described as a separatist and he lives freely in Iran. As far as I am concerned, his works meet Wikipedia's verifiability rules.--الأهواز 16:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

First of all, where are you getting these numbers from? What is your source? Is it a book or an online link? Second of all, if these numbers are coming from Bani Torof then they are not verifiable as Bani Torof is a pan-pro-Arab political activist, he can't be considered a neutral, reliable and credible source, especially in a topic like Khuzestan. --ManiF 17:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Firstly, the source is Bani Torof's lecture at Isfahan University, which has been published on several website. Secondly, if you read Bani Torof's article, you will see that he is not a "pan-Arabist" - he clearly states: "The Arabs of Khuzestan, as a nation or an ethnic group, are inseparable parts of the Iranian nation." He is not a separatist. But even if he was, why would this make him an unreliable source - he is recognised in Iran as an expert in his field and is a member of the Association of Iran's Writers. He was arrested last year at a press conference hosted by Shirin Ebadi. Are you saying she is also a pan-Arabist because she respects him?--الأهواز 17:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Did you know that he once arrested for propagating sepratist ideas? Qoqnous 17:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
He was arrested along with a whole load of intellectuals, but was never charged and continues to live in freedom in Tehran. I hope that no-one is going to argue that every intellectual arrested in Iran is a subversive and therefore unreliable.--الأهواز 17:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
He was not arrested along with anyone, lest scholars. I tell you what, I'll contact Bani-Torof and ask him for proof. Qoqnous 07:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Go ahead. Ask him about his views on separatism while you are at it, because everything he has said and done does not support your claims. I know that he was arrested at a press conference attended by Shirin Ebadi, who is not known to be an "extremist" in any way.[1] A number of other teachers, academics and journalists were arrested around the same time, including the editor of Khuzestan's Hamsayeha newspaper. Most were released without trial soon afterwards.--الأهواز 09:30, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Problem

I think this article has too many problems. It makes many false claims and acts as if Arabs are the majority in Ahvaz and Abadan. I have been to these places before and this is not true. Khorshid 02:21, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

This article is painting a distorted picture. The people of the area all live in harmony, any deviancies are odd cases and not to be to be generalized. Please keep this in mind. When Iraq invaded Iran it was the Arabs of the area who fuoght him the most fiercly even when he attmepted to win them over through pan-Arabic gestures and rheotoric. 72.57.230.179
A "distorted picture"? :) Tell me about it.--Zereshk 02:50, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sources for the claims concerning Hezbollah?

Hello,

this article claims that Hezbollah is allowed to train in Khuzestan, quells dissent among Arabs in Iran, and even operates out of Khuzestan in Iran. Do we have a source on that? Evilbu 16:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Hezbollah's involvement in quelling dissent among students and Arabs: "Tehran and Hezbollah's Secret History" by Ali Nouri Zadeh, Asharq Alawsat: http://aawsat.com/english/news.asp?section=3&id=5884
Hezbollah's training camps in Khuzestan: http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=5956
Hope that helps. There's a lot more information out there.

[edit] Transferring content to Arabs of Khuzestan

I have copied and pasted relevant content into Arabs of Khuzestan, as agreed in the AfD. I would suggest that we need new sections in this article on Elections in Khuzestan, including results of the Presidential and Majlis elections.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 12:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arabs: Immigrants or indigenous?

Arabs came to Khuzestan during the Islamic conquest in the seventh century, although there were some non-Muslim Arabs present before then. More waves of migration occurred in later centuries, with the Bani Tamim present for centuries and the Bani Kaab ruling from the 16th century with the area known as Arabistan.[2] Consequently, the Arabs of Khuzestan are mostly indigenous. Certainly, they are not immigrants. An immigrant is someone who has migrated to a country, not someone born in a country to immigrant parents, which makes this statement wrong: [3]. If you are born in a country, you are not an immigrant. There are some Iraqis in Khuzestan, but they are vastly outnumbered by indigenous Arabs.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 22:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia itself is not reliable to quote from. If you are making land claims they are immigrants relative to the ethnic indo-Iranian population which would constitute more native element. The elamite would be the most native element, but after three centuries in the Islamic conquest there is no trace of them. Khuzestan is the much older name (Parthian time). Either way the majority of Arab tribes in Iran came in the Safavid and later Qajar era. Including the Bani Ka'ab and Bani Torof which are the major ones. Some of these groups still speak a southern Iraqi dialect. Note since you have quoted some Ahwazi groups claiming these lands, it is necessary to point out that Arabic language is a recent elemnt in Khuzestan. Much like Arabic in Algeria, Morroco and etc. Note these groups are making land claims and in any land claim, history plays an important rule. (check information on Karabagh where there is arguments about Albanian/Armenian or the Israeli/Palestinian conflict). --alidoostzadeh 01:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Human rights organisations

Is there any proof to substantiate the claim that human rights organisations such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch are using information from "separatist websites"?[4] These organisations are highly respected and their information meets Wikipedia's verifiability criteria.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 22:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Check the article. They refer to these groups in their report. So they have had information from these groups and this needs to be mentioned. Also it should be mentioned that these groups supported Saddam whose regime commited crimes against humanity. --alidoostzadeh 01:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Revert war

I think labelling people who live on the land for a millennium as immigrants to be wrong and POV. For the same criterion Anglo-Saxons of England, Slavs of Russia and Persians of Iran are immigrants too .

I have also inserted a number of wikilinks and I do not understand why they are reverted. I basically reverted to "my" version but kept the Ali doostzadeh's reference Alex Bakharev 04:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually majority of these tribes came during the Safavid and Qajar era. Two of the major ones are Bani-Torof (Qajar era) and Bani-Ka'ab. Another one is Bani-'Asad that came during the same time. Also there needs to be point that Arabs in Khuzestan are non-idiginous relative to the Iranic elements. There is nothing POV about this and it is historical fact. Thus it should be inserted in articles relating to Khuzestan. I do not see anything wrong with mentioning this fact. --alidoostzadeh 06:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

NO, it isn't historical fact. Arabs were living in Sassanid-ruled lands during the Sassanid dynasty. They have been there for ages. As for Khuzestan being Persian -- it's not at all clear how long the Elamites/Khuzi lasted as a separate group, speaking a non-Iranian language. There are some references to Khuzi in post-Islamic conquest travel accounts, as I remember. Zora 06:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

YES it is, those Arabs from the Sassanid times were settled near Kerman and were absorbed. They were not in Khuzestan. (Kasravi, 500 years). As per Khuzestan after Islamic era, it was mixture of persian and elamites (khuzi). The Arabs that came to Khuzestan after the Islamic invasion were usually abosrbed as well. There also some false Hadeeths about Khuzi's which shows they were an element of Khuzestan. There is also enough proof for Persians from the area as dozens of personalities native to the area can mentioned. The names of the cities easily proves it plus many personalities from the area. And the major tribes I mentioned Bani-Torof, Bani-Ka'ab and Bani-Asad (which make up a large portion of Arab speakers if not majority of them) came during the Safavid-Qajar era and chronicles mentions this. For example Shaykh Khaza'l grandfather comes from Kuwait, from the area of Khaza'aliyah. --alidoostzadeh 06:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

See Lakhmids -- Arabs were a client state of the Sassanids, and their capital was close to what is Kufa today. They were in what is now Southern Iraq and part of the ethnic mix in the Mesopotamian valley. Nor is it true that Arabs arrived in the Safavid era only. It's completely unreasonable to believe that there weren't Arabs in southern Mesopotamia during the Abbasid caliphate. Much of the wealth of the caliphs came from plantations on land reclaimed from the rivers and worked by slaves (hence the Zanj Rebellion). Of course there were Arabs there.

Of course, even if some of the ancestors of the Khuzestanis arrived only two and three centuries ago, that makes them native inhabitants by most people's reckoning. Justifying discrimination on the grounds that "we were here first, even if it was hundreds of years ago and we haven't been here since then" is the kind of reasoning used by Israelis against Palestinians, or Serbs against Kosovars. It's an ugly argument. Zora 07:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Lakhmids were in Iraq not Khuzestan. I did not say Arabs arrived in Khuzestan during Safavid era. But Arabic settlements today are mainly from the Safavid-Qajar era and the rest are possibly from the Arab invasion of Persia although I believe these were absorbed by that time. And no I am not justifying discrimination(if any exists), I am just adding the fact. As for discrimination, I think you need to look into Iraq where Saddam expelled hundreds of thousands of Iranians. Some of the groups mentioned in this article were supported by Saddam as well. There is no doubt there was large number of Iranians in Iraq as well who were ethnically cleansed. All these matters do not change the fact that Iranic elements are more native than Arabs to the area of Khuzestan. This is historical fact and there is absolutely nothing wrong with mentioning this historical fact. For example Berbers are more natives than Arabs in Algeria and it should be mentioned in any article regarding the human rights of berbers. --alidoostzadeh 07:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

More native? You're speaking in very large generalities there. Your argument covers up the fact that until oil was discovered, Khuzestan WAS Arabistan. The lowland areas were mainly Arab. The ethnic Persians who have settled in Khuzestan since the 1920s are the immigrants. Insisting that their distant relatives lived there 1300 years ago doesn't take away in the least from their immigrant status, or the resentment of the natives at seeing immigrants take Arab land and the best jobs. Zora 07:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Your Wrong. Khuzestan is a name of the province from Parthian times and it is in most Islamic sources and in the Qajar era sources. The name Arabistan was used from the Safavid era (no suprise there since most of the Arabic settlements are from this era). Thus Khuzestan is the more ancient name. Also you show either your clear racism or lack of regards for history or perhaps lack of knowledge of the region. Dezful, Behbehan, Masjed Soleyman, Bakhtiari, Shushtari dialects have ancient Pahlavid traits and are much more archaic than most Persian dialects in Iran. Thus these are natives of Khuzestan relative to Arab elements. Also Khuzestan belongs to Iran and is not a separate country, thus everyone has the right to seek better oppurtunities in the industries there specially oil industry. Thus Persian/Iranic elements have been present in the province much longer than Arabic elements. Any serious historian will confirm this. Mind you that the prominent ethnic element in Khuzestan is Luri/Bakhtiari and Persian dialects of dezful, Behbehan, Masjed Soleyman.. These are all native dialects. That is why it is important to mention this fact, since by pan-arabist propoganda they want to actually kick out all these Iranians from these lands (some of the groups have threatened to do this just like their master Saddam kicked out all people of Iranian background in Iraq). Iranic presence is attested since the time of Achaemenids. Also Iranica agrees with me that Banu Ka'ab came during the Safavid times. The Banu Ka'ab are the biggest Arab tribe of Khuzestan. The Bani As'ad and Bani Torof also came to Khuzestan from Southern Iraq during Qajar era. These are all sourced. Without getting into detail, the general statement that Iranic elements are more native than Arabic elements is 100% true. Note also in the wiki entry: [[5]], the bani ka'ab are the largest tribe. It is fact that they came in the area during the Safavid era (mentioned by Iranica and many other books). Note another article: In the latter part of the 16th century, the Bani Kaab, from Kuwait, settled in Khuzestan. [1] And during the succeeding centuries, many more Arab tribes moved from southern Iraq to Khuzestan, and as a result, Khuzestan became "extensively Arabized". [2]. According to C.E. Bosworth in Encyclopedia Iranica, under the Qajar dynasty "the province was known, as in Safavid times, as Arabistan, and during the Qajar period was administratively a governor-generalate."'. Although the name Khuzestan is also attested during Qajar and Safavid era. Either way Iranian elements were present at least since the time of Achaemenids, if we do not consider Kassites who might have been regarded by some western scholars as indo-Iranian. --alidoostzadeh 07:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
َAnd note the major reason to mention this fact is that some of these saddam supported groups have audacity to call Khuzestan as occupied land (also mentioned in this wikipedia entry as well). Whereas it has been part of Iranian civilization for much longer and the many native Persian/Luri/Bakhtiari dialects in the province attest to this. There is not one serious historian who will claim Arabic elements are more native than Iranian elements. Thus this needs mentioning. --alidoostzadeh 08:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Guys, it is a very facinating discussion you have here. Maybe it is worth to write an article History of Khuzestan or History of Arabs in Iran? It may be interesting and it is related to the modern times because of the Iran-Iraq war. Still, we probably cannot refer to Khuzestan Arabs as "immigrant non-indigenus people". The story appears to be much more complicated than that. I do not see any problems to say something like: Many Khuzestan Arabs migrated there only in 17-18th century[citation needed], thus, Iranian officials do not consider them eligible for the rights of the indigenus people[citation needed]. If it can ve referenced it might be a compromise we all are seeking Alex Bakharev 10:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Khuzestani Arabs have the rights of all Iranians despite being a minority in Khuzestan. Arabic is thought throughout Iran and even the Iranian government is arabophile in many ways (Palestine issue which majority of Iranians really do not care about) and every university has an Arabic studies program and the Iranian government even (very absurdly) tried to join the Arab League. Also there is a large number of Iranians in iraq, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia and etc. and none of them have these rights. Note even in Iraq the names of many areas like Baghdad, Fallujah, Anbar.. are Persian and all these Iranian elements were wiped out through time (which I think deserves another article). Also there are state owned Arabic television and newspapers again supported by the government. Virtually all khuzestani Arabs belong to a tribe and thus we can trace when each tribe settled in khuzestan. That might be part of another article. But the simple fact that they are recent relative to Iranians is important. Note, the reason this fact needs to be mentioned is simply. Since some of these groups consider Khuzestan occupied, there needs to be a correct historic response since virtually all these tribes are recent immigrants from Safavid-Qajar times (500-200 years ago). Also the majority of cities have indigenous Persian dialects: ِDezfuli, Masjed Soleymani, Behbahani, Mahshahri, Hendijani, Shushtari.. are all native Persian dialects and Bakhtiari/Luri which are SW Iranian dialects akin to Persian. All these are archaic dialects. Note since some of these pan-arabist political groups have made lands claims, their claim will be responded to in every article. And the fact is Iranian elements have been continously present since at least Achaemenid times (I consider Elamites to be part of Iranian history and culture although linguistically they spoke an isolate or perhaps related to Dravidian). The pan-arabist propoganda wants to make the native Iranians there who are much more native as occupiers. Some of these groups were backed by Saddam and Saddam's crime against humanity is well known. So this fact that Arabs are recent immigrants relative to the Iranian elements should be mentioned and they are not natives relative to the Iranian population. It is historically correct and politically relavent. Indeed I believe it should be mentioned for every separatist group that is listed. And it does not violate any Wikipedia policy as it is not original research (it is a well established fact) and it is relavent when separatist groups make land claims. --alidoostzadeh 15:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Remove junk and rename again

All the garbages about fake Arab parties and separatists (see WP:RS, WP:N, and WP:V) should be removed as they are NOT compatible with the WP policies. How many articles got deleted because they said they violate those policy? This one is without any kind of question a MAJOR violation of ALL those policy. Maybe only one or two of those groups (the ones that commit terrorism acts) are compatible with policy and they DO NOT belong here because - they should go into an article about Acts of terrorism against Iran < VERY IMPORTANT (no accusations or heresay, just FACTS please).

Then anything that violated those same policies should be REMOVED - I ask the other people here like Alex to please OBSERVE the WP policy - SO MANY good articles get deleted because of those policy and then because of this article which contains ATTACKS against Iran, it is okay to keep this garbage? I am speaking this as a half-Arab half-Kurdish of Iran! Facts is one thing, racist garbage is another! How come no one talks about how these Arab separatist groups HATE people like me because I am not PURE?!? HUH? Tell me more garbage excuses. The same is true of Kurdish separatists - they look at people like me as LESS THAN ANIMALS! That is the Gods honest truth - I have dealt with this racism from those peoples before and yet NO ONE in the Amnesty or Human Rights groups says these things, except maybe for some reports of ethnic cleansing against fellow Kurds by Turkish PKK and even those reports were ignored by Amnesty!

To use an American saying, the people here who support the Arab separatists can kiss my ass! Islamic Republic is bad, but at least mullahs are not going to kill every single member of an ethnic group! The Arab separatist would kill EVERYONE who is not 100% Arab and God knows after that whatever Arab tribe came to power they would try to cleanse the place of all other Arab tribes! Lots of Arab unity huh?! Arabs never have unity because they only know how to kill each other - if they were capable of unity they would have a pan-Arab state by now!

Sorry for my language but I am very angry since I go away for awhile and I see that this garbage is still here and no one fixes it and instead they only want to fill it with more garbage! UGH! Khorshid 01:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

You are right about one thing. The pan-arabist groups who are all racists nutcases who were supported by their master Saddam and follow the same ideology Ba'thism, pan-arabism. They cleasned of all Iranians from Iraq, killed hundreds of thousand Iranic Kurds and etc. Note the user Hamid/Ahwaz is also a separatist. [6]. Thus he does not in any way represent any NPOV. And for 100% we are going to mention that Arabs are late arrivals in the area to offset his separatist propoganda. This is an important fact, making separatists like Hamid who believe in disecting khuzestan from Iran know that historically the land belongs to Iranian civilization. --alidoostzadeh 04:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yipee, Good ole times again

  • "Arabistan" was not the term used before the oil industry blossomed. That's a lie designed by neo-cons and Pan-Arabs that are desperately trying to replace Al-Qaeida with Iran, as the new villain to go to war with. Ive extensively written before on the Origin of the name Khuzestan. Rather, the name "Arabistan" was only used for a brief period (16th century to late Qajar era), and concurrent with "Khuzestan".
  • Khuzestan is not Arab land. The province has a significant indigenous near-majority non-Arab non-Persian population in almost every city north of the province. e.g. the Lurs, Bakhtiaris, etc.
  • Arabs are immigrants, but so what? They are entitled to all the same rights and priviledges. Nobody questions that.
  • I dont think there is "discrimination" prevalent in Khuzestan. That's Iranphobic bull. Ive authored almost every article on Iran's provinces. Iran's government spends way more money on projects in Khuzestan than it does in many other provinces by comparison. Their language is mandatory and taught everywhere, their religion is literally the law of the country, and their culture has made other indigenous cultures like the zoroastrians and Mazdakites and Manians and others seem alien. If the locals arent reaping the benefits of the oil as they should, well hardly is anybody else either. Iran's govt is unjust to a lot of people. When it comes to minority problems, the Arabs are actually the most succesful ones if you ask me. You dont see IRIB broadcasting Armenian channels, or printing Qashqai newspapers, or teaching Zoroastrian religion in schools.
  • If we're talking about rights, you should go to Dubai, like I did a month ago, and see for yourself. You can be born in these Arab countries, and still not have citizenship rights. You cant buy property there or establish immigrant status. And when youre the only Iranian in the whole flight, and they strip search you (and nobody else) to the underwear at Dubai Airport Terminal 1 Arrival Hall (with all the sophisticated gadgetry and flashy terminal they have), it makes you kind of wonder if the Iran-hating rumors might actually have some truth to them.--Zereshk 03:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Arguing that "we're all miserable together" is hardly likely to influence people who are looking for change. If you can't change the central government, then secession is seen as one way to fix things. Bad governments get lots of ethnic/religious/whatever secessionist movements; good governments get people who want into the union (EU).
Saying that there's no prejudice against Arabs is simply not true. I've come up with cites showing prejudice. The widespread use of the term of abuse "Arab-parast", Arab-lover, for supporters of the central government, testifies to the extent to which Arab and Persian ethnicities are seen to be opposed. The behavior of numerous Iranian editors here on WP testifies to deep-seated animus against Arabs. Dismissing Arabs as mere "immigrants" is racist. Saying that Arabic is taught in school and that there is therefore no discrimination against Arabs -- misleading. Quranic or classical Arabic, as taught in schools for religious reasons, is very different from colloquial southern Mesopotamian Arabic.
I'm not arguing for secession. It's usually a bad solution to a bad government. But I do object to prejudice and distortion of history for nationalistic or ethnic triumphal ends, and I object to using WP for such purposes. That's all. Zora 21:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Again making up stuff, but you can't suppress your anti-Iranian feelings. All your allegations are based on guesses and when you are proven wrong, you move to the next one. Classical and its modern standard Arabic(directly based on classical) is the written form of the language and is thought throughout Iran. For example no one is going to teach say the Esfahani dialect of Persian. One teaches the written standard and thus not teaching the Esfahani dialect, does not mean Esfahanis are victimized in Iran! Thus that is the language that is thought! For exmple Kurdish also has lots of dialects, but the standard written form is Sorani in Iraq. There are even dialect differences between Arabic in Iraq or Saudia Arabia, but the standard written form is thought. Thus you see, you come up with weak reasons to make anti-Iranian statements. Even Arab countries do not teach their regional variety. Literary Arabic or classical Arabic is the official language of all Arab countries and is the only form of Arabic taught in schools at all stages. [7]. Recall the US does not teach Ebonics either. As per oppression, I guess all the different nationals in the Canada should feel oppressed since their language is not thought! Although Arabic in this case is thought throughout Iran as a mandatory subject.
As per popular misgivings amongst different people, Arabs also call Iranians Majus, Ajam and etc and actually more than talk, Iraq expuled all of its Iranian population with the exception of Kurds. As per Arabs being late new-comers relative to other Iranian groups, it is a fact. I do not think calling Anglo-Saxons as usurpers (which no one did here) of American-Indian land, is racist. Indeed Anglo-Saxons are immigrants to the USA and they are usurpers of native lands. That is historical fact and if some anglo-saxon finds it offensive, the historical fact needs to still be mentioned. You have already shown you lack basic knowledge of the native languages spoken in Khuzestan. Probably did not know that even most (if not all) Arab countries do not teach their own regional dialects. And stating the fact that Arabs are new-comers relative to the Achaemenids is a fact and it needs to be stated since territorial claims have to do with history as well. --alidoostzadeh 02:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

It would be cool if they taught the southern dixie American English dialect in schools here too. By Gawd, it'd be a perty gud thang! But then again modern Arabic is taught in Iran, and it's mandatory. I dont see mandatory Spanish taught here in Texas or California, even though Hispanics are a near majority group in the U.S., more numerous than Arabs are in Iran. And I dont see people talking about secession of Mississippi or Louisiana, even though they got uber-screwed by the feds (i.e. central gov). But then again I suggest Zora be consistent and advocate things like

Ah, but no, Iran should always be the target. The rest are exempt I suppose. Anyway, someone erased the links I put in this article that showed the actual textbooks of MODERN ARABIC taught in schools in Iran. Here they are:

I mean, classical or Quranic Arabic dont teach you anything about talking elephants: [8]. Vallah bekhoda....--Zereshk 05:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

LOL! You know what, I feel oppressed since my cousin goes to middle school in the US and they are not teaching him Kurdish, Persian.. but they are teaching him English. And it is not even Tennesian English! I think all Tennesians should protest. Boo Hoo. --alidoostzadeh 03:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Response

  • Ali/Zereshk: "Arabs are immigrants". I disagree. In pre-modernity, empires did not have such a thing as citizenship or passports or votes. They were multi-ethnic and had spheres of influence. I agree that Arab populations came into Iran in waves in migration and conquest, just as Persians came to Iraq through migration and conquest - Sheikh Khazal had land on both sides of the Shatt Al-Arab, but the Ottomans confiscated his land. That does not mean that these populations can be classified as "immigrants" in the modern sense. An immigrant is someone who is living in the country that is not of their birth. Aside from a few remaining Iraqi refugees (most of whom have gone back to Iraq), Arabs in Iran were born in Iran, their parents and grandparents and great-grandparents and great-great grandparents, etc, etc, were born in Iran. They are not immigrants. However, I have removed the reference to them being "indigenous" as this is a rather vague category - it was also Ali's main bone of contention.
  • Ali: "Human rights organisations are using separatist groups as sources." I can't see any evidence of this. Show me.
  • Ali: "Ahwaz/Hamid is a separatist, a racist, a supporter of Saddam Hussein, etc." This is just paranoid nonsense. All you have in terms of "proof" is a user box I briefly had on my user page some months ago that originally stated that I believed in Arab unity and had a map of the Arab world on it - that is not proof of racism, Baathism or separatism. The user box has now changed and now shows the emblem of the Arab League and calls for Arab unification, which is different from unity. But it is no longer on my user page, so what is the problem?
  • Khorshid: "I am very angry since I go away for awhile and I see that this garbage is still here and no one fixes it and instead they only want to fill it with more garbage." This is wrong. Since November, I have taken out half the links - the ones you found contentious - cut out a lot of detail and added sections on elections. Take a look for yourself [9]. We were both offered mediation to sort out the editorial issues in the Khuzestan-related articles. But while I accepted, you turned down the offer. How can I read your mind to know what, exactly, you have a problem with? You just complain it is all racist garbage, but in fact the article states that:
"Critics of these parties claim that separatism has no support among Arabs, pointing to the decision by many Ahwazi Arabs to defend Iran during the Iran-Iraq War. They also contend that separatism has always been instigated by foreign governments - particularly the British - to weaken Iran in order to control the country's natural resources and extend their influence over the Middle East.[34] Many make no distinction between separatists and federalists, claiming that those seeking federalism have a separatist agenda and that the devolution of power to regional ethnic groups would lead to the break-up of Iran."
The article quotes an Iranian official's opinion on one of the groups [10]. Another group is acknowledged to be a front for Saddam Hussein [11]. I have removed two of the less notable groups, but those left in are regularly mentioned in the English and Arabic media. Two of them are mentioned in an article published this week in Asharq Al-Awsat [12].
  • Zereshk: "I dont think there is "discrimination" prevalent in Khuzestan. That's Iranphobic bull." You need to show that reports by Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and UNCHR and recent votes in the UN General Assembly and European parliament condemning discrimination against ethnic minorities in Iran are "Iranphobic". Racial discrimination against Arabs in Khuzestan is widely recognised by human rights NGOs and the United Nations. OK, there is industrial development and a large proportion of Iran's GDP is derived from Khuzestan, but that does not mean that poverty and discrimination do not exist. As for the treatment of minorities in Arab countries, I do not doubt it exists - South Asian migrant labourers in the UAE are particularly affected, so why not start an article on Racial discrimination in the UAE? I'll help you with it if you want. But Politics of Khuzestan should be judged on its own merits, not because there is a lack of similar information in other articles.
  • Arab language: The dispute over teaching in the Arabic language in Khuzestan is not about teaching classical Arabic as a second language, but teaching all subjects in the language of those living in Khuzestan. For many Arabs, they commonly speak Arabic at home and among themselves, but are semi-literate only in Persian because their language is not the medium of education.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 11:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Puting they are relative newcomers next to the Iranic population is important (and I have put in the article) since some of the sites you have put in this article provide the wrong information. As per teaching Arabic, enough of it is thought in Iran that one can master the language. In most if not many countries now, the science and math is thought in English. For example in many parts of Pakistan and India. Most countries have one national language which everyone must learn. The concept of linguistic discrimination does not exist with regards to Arabs of Khuzestan. There is also sufficient government newspapers, journals, tv stations, etc. in Arabic. Note in Bahrain, the percentage of Iranian population is higher (at least 10-15%) yet there is not any Persian courses. Thus when we compare a region, we compare it in its own area. Iran vs say UAE Bahrain Turkey..etc. As per HRW groups, they quote the same groups you mentioned in the article. This makes them unreliable. One of the articles even talks about "laks" in Khuzestan whereas there is no Laks in Khuzestan, there are Lurs, Bakhtiaris, other iranic speakers, but no Laks. --alidoostzadeh 03:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
The Laks are in Khuzestan [13]. But the Bakhtiari are more numerous. I haven't found enough information about the role of Bakhtiari in Khuzestan's politics in modern times, although there are some famous Bakhtiari politicians such as Mohsen Rezaei. I have in the past asked for help with this. If you have anything to add, please do so.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 12:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry but wikipedia is not a reference, do you have any other reference? I know where Laki is spoken. It is in Hamadan, Kermanshah, northern parts of Elam and Lorestan. Mohsen Rezaie is actually Masjid Soleymani. --alidoostzadeh 12:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
I am pretty certain there are Laks in Khuzestan, but I'll hunt around for information. Masjid Soleiman is a place, not an ethnic group, surely? He is a Bakhtiari from Masjid Soleiman.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 12:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
He could be. But there are no concentrations of Laks in Khuzestan (except minor immigrants like Azaris and others). Thus somehow that report seems unreliable. --alidoostzadeh 01:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
The report you are referring to is actually by a UN official who visited Khuzestan, not HRW. Perhaps he meant Lors, which would make more sense in my mind as they are more populous than Laks. However, I have come across references to a Lak population in Khuzestan, although I would imagine that it is concentrated on the borders with other provinces.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 01:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps is not scientific word. There is populations of all types in many of Iran's provinces (Khorasan, Khuzestan,Tehran, ..). But Khuzestan does not have any significant lak settlements. --alidoostzadeh 05:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Response to response

1. On language: User:Ahwaz says: "The dispute over teaching in the Arabic language in Khuzestan is not about teaching classical Arabic as a second language, but teaching all subjects in the language of those living in Khuzestan."

I disagree. First of all, it isnt "classical Arabic". I dont know why he keeps repeating this, even though I keep showing him the actual textbook of "Modern Arabic" taught in Iran, unless of course he has an intention of doing so. Second of all, Show me one public school or University in Los Angeles, Miami, San Antonio, or any other city that has a Hispanic majority where all subjects are taught in Spanish. User:Ahwaz's definition is therefore simply incorrect because if everything were taught in Arabic, the rights of the Non-Arab population in the schools would be usurped. Furthermore, Article 15 of the constitution of Iran clearly stipulates that "the lingua franca of Iran... is Persian." That very constitution is ratified by all Khuzestani MPs of Iran, and is recognized by the UN. User:Ahwaz is basically saying that there should be no lingua franca. But even the U.S. has a lingua franca.

2. Are Amnesty and HRW always trustworthy?: User:Ahwaz showed one HRW/Amnesty source once on this very article which stated that "Arabic is not taught in elementary schools, and the Arabic teaching in secondary schools focuses exclusively on religious texts." I posted documents on this very page exposing such lies by Amnesty. In fact not only is Arabic taught in Iran, but it is mandatory for non-Arabs. And 7 years of it too. And it isn't "religious", unless as I mentioned before, we accept that Islam teaches about talking elephants.

3. The sources of HRW and Amnesty: Citing Amnesty or HRW as a standard and final verdict doesnt sound so solid to me. They can report biased or be influenced by biased sources. For example, Amnesty keeps using the word "reportdely" in this report. Who is this reporter here that reportedly reports? How can he/she be verified? Is he/she a member of the MKO, or some opposition group trying to instigate unrest?

4. European Parliament as a source?: If the Europeans were the standards of justice and Human Rights to look up to, we wouldnt be seeing muslims (Arabs) being expelled from schools in France for wearing the Hijab, nor would we be seeing Germany and the Netherlands having such dismal records in integrating their Arab and muslim populations into their societies.--Zereshk 20:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

All the arguments you have put here are stated in the article. There is criticism of the points made by both human rights organisations (see final three paragraphs) and separatist groups. There is a section on foreign influence in Khuzestan, which wikilinks to an article you mostly authored. There is the point, that you often make, that "Critics of these parties claim that separatism has no support among Arabs, pointing to the decision by many Ahwazi Arabs to defend Iran during the Iran-Iraq War. They also contend that separatism has always been instigated by foreign governments - particularly the British - to weaken Iran in order to control the country's natural resources and extend their influence over the Middle East.[35] Many make no distinction between separatists and federalists, claiming that those seeking federalism have a separatist agenda and that the devolution of power to regional ethnic groups would lead to the break-up of Iran."[14] So, I don't understand where there is a dispute over NPOV.
View it like this. Someone reads something about ethnic unrest in Khuzestan - there are a lot of articles about it - and they come here for more information. They can judge who is saying what and the criticism against them. That is the purpose of this article. If you have any ideas, please suggest them.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 20:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually we can find many books(non-Iranian and western) that say majority of Khuzestani Arabs did not support Saddam. I think the results of the Iran-Iraq war which was a stalemate is the best proof of this. The same books also say Shi'ites in Iraq largely stayed with Iraq. . I think Zereshk's reference to Amnesty is very valid. My Reference to HRW who does not even know different groups in Iraq, and mistakes Laks with probably Bakhtiaris also shows this. --alidoostzadeh 01:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Note about Laki: [15], Note here again: [16], laki is not in Khuzestan. --alidoostzadeh 01:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
You said that the HRW report was informed by separatists, but I can see no reference to separatist organisations in its report. Now you say that HRW refers to Laks, but there is no reference to Laks in the report - the Laks were referred to by the UN Special Rapporteur Miloon Kothari after visiting Khuzestan.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 01:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes thats the report I meant. Also the name Kothari (with that pronounciation strikes me as middle-easten but not Iranian). About the HRW report, that is what I meant also. Part of the HRW report was informed by separatists. This is probably true with amnesty as well where they blatantly lie about the lack of teaching in Arabic (which personally I consider a good language to learn, but I am not sure why the separatists groups lied to amnesty). --alidoostzadeh 02:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
The UN Special Rapporteur Miloon Kothari is an Indian, not an Arab. Why do you say that Amnesty and HRW are informed by separatists when there is no reference to separatist groups as a source in their reports? I believe they would use their own experts to verify information. They are just as critical of Western governments' human rights violations, such as CIA rendition flights and Guantanamo Bay detainees. I don't think they have a bias and I think their reports meet Wikipedia's verifiability criteria. Could you also define what you mean by "Iranic"? Do you mean ethnic Persian? The Elamites were not Persians.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 02:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Iranic (Persian and Parthian and Luri/Bakhtiari speakers). As per amnesty zershk clearly showed they lied about the language issue. And HRW actually as you said too, had separatist informatns as well in their report. As per Miloon Kothari, how do you know his Indian? But more importantly where does he get the information about Laks from? --alidoostzadeh 03:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
I've never heard of the term "Iranic". If you mean Persian, then say Persian. Can you show me the proof that Amnesty and HRW have used information from separatist groups. As I have said before, there is no evidence to support your POV. Yes, Miloon Kothari is Indian and was involved in the Housing and Land Rights Network (HLRN) before he was appointed UN Special Rapporteur[17]. He made his statements on land confiscations after visiting Khuzestan in July 2005.[18]--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 13:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Iranic is well defined term used mainly for Persian and related speakers. Persian/Lur/Bakhtiari is also fine. Zereshk showed that amnesty clearly lied about the lack of Arabic language. As per the HRW report, I will quote here: 'The Ahwaz Human Rights Organization told Human Rights Watch that Sadegh Shoiki, an engineer with the government owned South Fishing Enterprise (Shilat Jonoob), was detained on April 16 and severely tortured “to a point that he cannot talk, walk or stand.” The organization said that this information came from Shoiki’s family, who had visited him in Ahmadabad prison in Abadan. As Zereshk also wrote, many of the statements from amnesty and HRW have "reportedly". Thus this part of the article needs a major write-up to reflect these facts. (Reports are given by obscure separatist organizations). BTW removing the tag about Arabic unification does not hide your bias either as it was there at one time. Thus you can not claim to be neutral on the issue. Since by default with that tag, you are trying to separate khuzestan (and its majority non-Arab speaking population). Another point should be mentioned is the how Iraqi Shi'ite Arabs (400,000) of them at least saw Iran as safe haven and fled the arabist regime of Saddam. They didn't go to Kuwait, Jordan , Saudi Arabia neither. Comparing that to few separatist Al-Ahwazi types whose human rights were violated when they openly supported Saddam's regime and commited acts of terrorism during the Iran-Iraq war, I think the fact speaks volume. Funny Iran had refugees from Arabs, Kurds, Afghans,..etc. --alidoostzadeh 05:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Also some sites like like arabistan.org ahwaz.org and etc. are not reliable sites. Thus their accusations can not be deemed reliable information. One can not create mere web-sites from one or two people, then state some statements and then source them in wikipedia as facts or semi-facts. That is OR. --alidoostzadeh 05:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


Why do some editors keep removing the world Iranic from the article? It is a fact that Iranian people were living in Khuzestan before Arab migration, whenever that migration took palace be it Qajar period or Sasanid period or anytime in between. And zora why do you think it implies that Arabs should not have the same rights? It dose not imply or suggest such a thing; it just states the facts.Gol 06:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

There are too many silly things in this article, making claims without proof and loads of unsourced materials. Ahwaz is clearly not toning down since he is again making claims of Arabs being majority and that this political groups have connection to Khuzestan. I suggest alot of cleanup and spot every single unsourced and bogus claim. Khorshid 00:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Emad Baghi, Director of Organization for the Defense of Prisoners' Rights, in a letter to Judiciary Chief Hashemi Shahroudi on executions of Ahwazi Arabs: "this kind of ethnic issue is rooted in the poverty, socio-economic deprivation and accumulated repressed complexes ... While the people of Khuzestan sit on Iran’s most valuable resources, they are amongst the poorest in the country ..."[19]--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 01:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Green MEP Dr Caroline Lucas: "These executions seem to be part of a deliberate campaign of ethnic cleansing of the Ahwazi Arabs, who make up three per cent of Iran 's population, and the international community must intervene to stop them ... The international community must act now to prevent the escalation of yet another campaign of persecution against an ethnic minority. The UN and EU must send a clear message to Tehran that the world is watching – and is not prepared to stand by and find itself saying ‘Never Again' again."[20]--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 01:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Miloon Kothari, UN Special Rapporteur on Adequate Housing: "when you visit Ahwaz [in the western Iranian province of Khuzestan bordering Iraq] in terms of the very adverse conditions in the neighbourhoods, there are thousands of people living with open sewers, no sanitation, no regular access to water, electricity and no gas connections. I think that the kind of question that arises is, why is that? Why have certain groups not benefited? In addition to this there are a couple of other problems that come up. Again in Khuzestan, you notice that we drove outside the city about 20 km and we visited the areas where large development projects are coming up - sugar cane plantations and other projects along the river - and the estimate we received is that between 200,000 - 250,000 Arab people are being displaced from their villages because of these projects. And the question that comes up in my mind is, why is it that these projects are placed directly on the lands that have been homes for these people for generations? I asked the officials, I asked the people we were with. And there is other land in Khuzestan where projects could have been placed which would have minimised the displacement.
"The third issue in Khuzestan, which is very disturbing, is that there is an attempt being made by the government to build new towns and bring in new people from other provinces. For example, there is the new town of Shirinshah where most of the people being brought into that town are people from Yazd province [in central Iran] - non-Arabs. So the question then is that these people who are being brought there, perhaps for work and lots of incentives, why is it that those jobs are not going to the locals?"[21]--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 01:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Amnesty International: "Members of Iran’s Arab community have a long-standing grievance against successive governments, claiming that Arabs have been overlooked in terms of the distribution of resources aimed at social development. Frustration and economic deprivation has spilled over in recent months into a cycle of violent protest and repression which seems likely to continue unless the Iranian authorities take the measures necessary to address the social, economic and other grievances that gave rise to the unrest."[22]--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 01:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
These western sources you bring up are omitting a large part of the reality, the reality that most of Iran is in horrible condition, from Tabriz, to Tehran, to Isfahan, to Shiraz. When I went to Isfahan, half the city looked as if it was a war zone! These western sources are very selective and omit large parts of the equation. Khouzestan province is infact richer than many others. Secondly, Iran is a developing country with a centralized government, not a federal government, therefore, no one should ever expect that the regime would spend its money on the provinces. Why do you think everyone goes to Tehran from all over Iran? Because Tehran is the capital and in a centralized country, its the capital that mostly gets the investment. These sources are selective and not representative of the real situation in Iran. These same quotes can be applied to any country, such as China, India, Russia, etc... because they are biased and do not represent the reality.Azerbaijani 02:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removing all mention of the concerns of the Khuzestani Arabs

Iranian editors, even if you don't agree with the dissatisfied Khuzestani Arabs, removing all traces of a prominent POV and all reference to websites presenting that POV is against the spirit of WP. Using claims that these groups aren't reliable or that their works are original research to censor WP is a gross distortion of the rules. Are you afraid that a non-Iranian might read these things and decide against you? That suggests a lingering ill-ease with the morality of your position. Only those who have something to fear from free speech try to suppress it. Shame on you. Zora 05:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Removing OR is not again Wikipedia rules and freedom of speech does not apply when OR is present. Bani-Torof speech is OR as he is not a doctor nor an academically qualified historian and has claimed before that elamites are related to Arabs. Anyone can make up website and refer to it and wikipedia requires higher quality materials. And please do not make yourself representative of Khuzestani Arabs (unless you are one) and neither can some small groups claim with $5 per month website do so. If we want an academic article, then it must be referenced by academic level material. And you should be ashamed of yourself actually for lying about different issues (from classical/standard arabic to trying to historical manipulations and lack of knowledge of many Iranian pre-Arab dialects still continuing in Khuzestan(Shushtari is a good example) and at least admit you were wrong. --alidoostzadeh 05:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't care if you don't like his views. His views are NOTABLE. They represent the views of a considerable number of people. His views should not be presented as the truth, but then neither should yours. The original research rule applies to editors, not to people who are cited in WP. Everything we cite is OR; it's someone's opinion. The only question is whether that opinion is widespread, and whether or not the source represents that opinion adequately. Zora 06:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

No they don't Show me one considerable person that claims Elamites are Arabs! Elamite is a language isolate. So such opinions are not notable since they are not in academic journals or present in peer reviewed academic journals or books. Since you sound like a know-it-all, please go help scholars decipher old elamite. If a major full Professor of a university who has published in peer reviewed academic journals presents historical facts, then it is valid. If it is in a major Encyclopedia like Britannica or Iranica or Encyclopedia of Islam, then great. But if some guy comes up and claims that the term "Aghlim-e-Al-Ahwaz" predates Khuzestan, Elamite is Arab and etc. and he does not have valid academic credentials of a Professor, then that is simply wrong. Show me one Full Professor that claims the name Aghlim-eAl-Ahwaz" predates Khuzestan in just one respectable western university. It doesn't even have to be a NOTABLE professor! Khuzestan is a term from Parthian era and derives from an Achaemenid era term. So the article fell under OR. The sites having such articles are full of OR material. I do not mind academically valid sources.. Even Amnesty and HRW despite being fed reports by some groups, are vonsidered valid by Wikipedia (even though full of mistakes). But a normal lay person with no doctorate in history can not make baseless claims. --alidoostzadeh 06:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the history part of his talk is very reliable myself. I think he overstates his case and makes some major mistakes. However, he's all we've got for the Khuzestani Arab viewpoint and so should be there, labeled as his opinion and not the truth. It's too bad that I can't read Arabic, as I think it might be possible to find some more reliable material in that language, and then translate it into English. Citations from foreign languages are OK as long as the original is presented with the translation, so that anyone competent can check the reliability of the translation. Zora 06:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

First your assuming tht no other Iranian Arab from Khuzestan has written about history that agrees with mainstream. This is a big assumption that needs to be proved. Not that it is relavent here. There has been a good deal of Western sources talking about Khuzestan and its history. It's pre-Islamic history indeed is well known relative to many regions of the world up to almost 3000 B.C. and so is its post-Islamic one. Note there is not really an Iranian viewpoint either. It is based on western histography which has had success in deciphering ancient languages (Sumerian, Middle and New Elamite, Old Persian..) etc. Thus unless it is academic viewpoint, then it is considered OR and by wikipedia policy it can be removed. If we are going to take Armenian, Turkic, Arabic, Iranian, Georgian, Abkhazian, Ossetian... viewpoints from history by their respective nationalists, then there is no reason to create Wikipedia. --alidoostzadeh 06:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we include the viewpoints of everyone, including you and the people you don't like. It just has to be presented as one view among many, and not the truth. Also, I think you're wrong about the history of Khuzestan. The history up to Cyrus is spottily documented, but there are still lots of blank areas. See The Archaeology of Elam, by D. T. Potts. From Cyrus to the present, there's not very much at all. Historians tend to concentrate on the histories of states, on rulers and their capitals, and remote provinces don't get much attention. Khuzestan has had some periods of independence, but those states, like the [Msha'sha'iya], have been small and short-lived. So there's very little on Khuzestan in English. Relevant works in Persian or Arabic haven't been translated. I have one dissertation on the later history of Khuzestan, in English, from an Iranian scholar who submitted it to the University of Chicago, but every time I try to quote from Mostafa Ansari, someone deletes it claiming that he can't be right. Heh. Good university, Iranian scholar, but if someone don't like what he says ... throw it out. Censorship. Just like the Shah. and the IRI. Zora 07:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Zora, in checking on the history of such articles here I have seen that you campaigned for Arab separatist causes since early 2005. I was not aware of this before and it is disappointing to me that you would support groups that makes bogus claims and promotes genocide of non-Arabs and mixed race peoples (such as myself!!!) and promotes a bogus history. Your claims are bogus too in that regard because there is alot about Khuzestan in English, and virtually all of it puts down your claims which are obviously derived from nonsense websites promoting genocide and hatred of non-Arabs. I suggest to you that you learn Arabic and actually read their material. And then maybe you will stop your campaigning of hatred and genocide and changing of real history. It is not an acceptable way on Wikipedia. BTW, in reading comments about your dissertation, it seems obvious that there are other more established scholars (like in Iranica!!!!) who have a clear view instead of a bogus one. Of course I am sure you will call Iranica "nationalist"! LOL What a joke this has become here. Genocide genocide genocide - you support it, you are part of it, you are promoting hatred. Just admit it and be true. You never lived in Iran, you never lived in Khuzestan, you nvever lived with Arab families, you never lived with Arabs you will hate yiour fucvkiung guts just because you are mixed. Give me a break. I hate racists, and I hate people who support those and those groups who support the genocides. nazi germany is gone, and WE WILL NOT HAVE A NAZI IRAN WHERE ALL NON-ARABS AND MIXED RACE PEOPLES ARE KILLED!!! IF YOU THINK KHUZESTANI ARABS SUPPORT THIS GROUPS, YOU ARE INSANE Khorshid 08:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


To Zora: Since you have been wrong on different issues, I think you are wrong again. If the scholar is a full professor in a university that is one issue. PhD thesis by themselves do not qualify a person as a reliable scholar. A full professor at a major university who publishes in major peer-reviewed journals in the relavent field of history is the standard for high scholarship these days. As per [Msha'sha'iya], it has nothing to do with pre-Islamic Khuzestan. Don't mix up issues. As per Potts, obviously you have not read him. I'll quote directly: Parthian text uses the term Hwzstn, obviously the forerunner of modern Khuzistan. Indeed just transformation of H->Kh in Sassanid Pahlavid (Hordad, Khordad..). As for the rest of your claims, it is not relavent to the article. If any viewpoint is OR from a non-scholar, it can easily be excised. And note wikipedia is not all inclusive, and should not include non-scholar viewpoints, including your viewpoint. If I see your viewpoint without any scholarly basis in any entry, I will immediately ask for deletion of the article. It is about creating Encyclopedia, and if your viewpoint is different, then that is not the viewpoint taken by the OR statements. As per Shah or IRI, trust me we Iranians have never commited genocides like you anglos on native people in Australia, America, or what is happening in Sudan or what Saddam did and etc or how Bush really liberated the people of Iraq. Iranians were victims in the Iran-Iraq war, attacked by chemicals weapons, and some of the groups whose websites are here as mentioned in this article. Note there is sufficient enough English sources on Khuzestan, specially during Achaemenid, Parthian, Sassanid, and post-Islamic era in scholarly sources. They could be in different books as they, journal articles and etc. If you have a problem finding them, it is not the fault of readers. ALSO it is very funny you delete the Shi'i viewpoint from many articles. (check the person's history)!! What a hypocrite. (and please no execuse that this is that and that is this and that will be this and that.)[23]. [24]. Note the user is obsessed with removing Shi'i POV on Islam. Where Islam is a faith(an abstract idea by nature) and not as concrete as history of Khuzestan or mathematics..which just depends on evidence and proof. BTW a logical comment needs to be made. 400,000+ Arab shi'ites left Iraq and came to Iran instead of Jordan, Saudia Arabia, and etc. The way this article states the situation of Iran, one wonders why they did. --alidoostzadeh 09:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
I want some people to have their say and that makes me a Nazi who supports genoicide? Korshid, you just [Godwin's Law|Godwinated] the discussion. I think you might want to edit the above. Zora 08:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dispute

Guys, we really need to settle the dispute on the talk page.

My notes: Section Arvand Free Zone looks like a piece based on unattributed hearsay. As we already have the article Arvand Free Zone we better avoid a POV fork. I propose just say {{main|Arvand Free Zone}} and a neutral uncontroversial sentence like: Arab groups are concerned that the planned Arvand Free Zone may have a negative impact on the ethnic mix of Khuzestan. The details of the plan and its possible effect is better to have in the Arvand Free Zone article.

Section:Political stability is indeed poorly referenced (only to the website of ahwaz group that is not a WP:RS). A simple googling shows that a similar story is told in the report of the United Nation High Commission on Refugees (UNHCR) see ([25], p19-20) and a report of the Committee for Protection of Journalists ([26]). I understand that they might be somehow manipulated by the Al-Ahwaz group, but I think they have some fact checking. A couple of references supporting the official Iranian government view of the events might help too. If no English sources are available, I am sure we could use Persian-language or Arabic-language sources. Alex Bakharev

Also, can we please keep this discussion on the article at hand, without having to label other editors as separatists, propagandists, etc.? Khoikhoi 04:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Note the funny statement inserted by Ahwaz from conference that promotes separatism: The Arabs of Khuzistan/al-Ahwaz have been in the area before the Persians arrived. !! So there was no Elamites! Can someone give me the name of their empire and settlements or one elamite or achaermenid scholar (not some Arab scholar who has not written one journal article on Iranian history and Achaemenids and Elamites) that has made such claims! oops I forgot none exist except in the imaginations of pan-arabist! And where is the source of this statements? If I recall the Al-tai guy long time claimed elamites were Arabs. Now that this statement has been put, I have every right to put the migration of Arabs in every Khuzestan related article. Also I do not consider the sites given by Hamid to be neutral. Either way I believe this article needs to be unlocked and all statements from sites with full of POV and non-neutral removed. Sites such as arabistan.org ahwaz.org and etc. They are not neutral. They are not factual. Yet they are linked as if they speak the fact and represent all Arabs of Khuzestan. What is wrong with giving links to sites which are written by Academics who have published papers in major journals and universities?
It is good that Saddam Hussein who supported separatist groups is gone. I checked some of the ahwaz sort of sites the next day and they were all mourning for their former boss. None of these sites are sorry that 1 million Iranians were killed and none of them condemn saddam's agression. How can one claim they are neutral? Either way, with the current situation of Iraq, pan-arabist ideology has no chance as their main ideological backer Saddam is gone. There are more than enough proud Iranian Lurs/Bakhtiaris/Persians and even Arabs to defend khuzestan. If Arabs (except the Christian ones who are really Greco-Romans) are doing bad economically in Khuzestan (which there is no citation for), they are doing bad economically in London, Paris, Spain, Brussel and the other parts of Eurabia relative to the average Britian, French.. For example Jews, Armenians, Azeris in Iran are amongst the most that are successful in business and the economy. Yet we know there is actually religious inequality in Iran, yet Armenians and Jews do well (and good for them). BTW there are more Arabs in France than Iran . That is Iran has about 1-2 million ( about 2%) and France has at least 6 million (10%). Yet Arabic is mandatory in Iran, not in France. There are government Arabic TV's. There are Arabs in Irans government, not in France. Until OR statements from saddam supporter sites such as arabistan.org are removed, I do not think there will be any compromise. --alidoostzadeh 05:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV

The nonsense that Arabs predate Iranians and Achaemenids is not supported by even one reliable historical source. This shows that the user ahwaz has no credibility. Quoting AIE, Ahwaz.org and etc. is not the standard for wikipedia. There should not be single compromise on any OR. --alidoostzadeh 04:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Thats not the only problem here. Almost none of the groups that is listed here meet the WP policy criterian: WP:RS and WP:V, and WP:N <- multiple third-party coverage from reliable sources. There is no exceptions here. The only groups that are listed in newspaper reports are the ones that claimed terrorist attacks (not part of Khuzestan politics!) and the "British Ahwazi Friendship Society" (BAFS) (again not in Khuzestan politics!), and how much do we know about them and do they have multiple third-party coverage?? The terrorists and the BAFS all make the same claims about Khuzestan which Ali just says above, and they all claim that Reza Shah "occupied" Khuzestan in 1925, which is not a true history but a propaganda. And on top of this, they are obviously promoting separatist agenda. The article needs to be cleaned up to meet the WP policy. The terrorist groups definitely should go into an article called Acts of terrorism against Iran - no accusations, just facts. They don't belong in this article, and I challenge anyone to bring evidence showing that Khuzestan Arabs support these groups or support the BAFS. Also it is important to note that most of the groups listed only have a website - how do we know these are real groups? Anyone can make a website and there are a bunch of "Arabistan" and "Al-Ahwaz" websites, 99.9% don't meet WP policy for inclusion. And most of them make genocidal propaganda, promoting ethnic cleansing of the province, which is even more of a problem with WP policy. Khorshid 03:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Trying to remove all evidence of dissent is not what WP is about. Some of the Arab Khuzestanis feel that the only way OUT of racism and bad government is independence. Even if you hate and abhor those folks, they have a notable POV and it should be represented, in neutral fashion. However, there are other Arab Khuzestanis, probably more numerous, who don't want independence, but just want an end to contempt and oppression at the hands of the Azeri-Persian establishment. By lumping them all together and accusing them of terrorism and genoicide, you don't heal matters, you exacerbate them. Trying to censor them from WP is wrong. Zora 05:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Stop saying we hate or abhor where-as it is you that hates and abhors shi'ites and Iranby ians. It is you that is obsessed when a Parsi actor calls himself half Iranian![27] There is no oppression by any oazeri-persian establishment as such a thing does not exist. The theocracy in Iran is a religious regime. I believe there is much more racism and oppression in France against Arabs. Jews and Armenians suffer from religious inequality yet they do very well economically. Thus economic oppression is out and Arabs in Iran have a nomadic tribalistic tradition that will take some generations, it is not the fault of the Iranian government who has many Arabs amongst its rank considering Arabs are 2-3%, the head of the judicary in Iran and the former defense minister were Arabs. Either way, your censor argument does not hold against OR and these sites can not be used as telling facts. So called Persian-Azeri establishment is a joke as well, and the majority of Persians/Azeris do not get any benefits from the government. Indeed if we get realistic, the majorty of top notch people are all seyyeds (who have some Arab ascendants). For example Southern Khorasan or Sistan or Bushehr (all Persian) or Bam are much poorer than Khuzestan in every aspect. In France Arabs make up 10%, how many Arabs are in the govrnment? Also in France Arabs are at the bottom of the economic scale, yet there is not even 1/100th of reports on Arabs from weired organizations that get fed by weirder organizations. Is Arabic (standard and classic which you did not know about, but try to falsify facts for) mandatory in France? How many government sponsered TV channels and newspapers are in Arabic in France? Iranians are smarter than you think, and they won't buy all the don't censor , freedom of speech and stuff which you do not believe in (by deleting and blanking portion sof many articles with Shi'i POV's) , but want to use it to sow ethnic strife in Iran. Saddam is gone, some remnants of groups he supported are now used by other countries (including MKO) to settle scores with Iran's government and Iranian people become the victim. Note none of these groups(like arabistan.org) talk about the genocide commited by their master Saddam against Shi'ite, Kurds and Iranians, and yet Zora who has brought several false statements does not object and thinks these groups are peaceful! Arab countries who oppress their minorities (Iranians and Shi'ites) are in the game as well as they see an oppurtuniy to implement their anti-Iranian design. It is obvious as day light. Knowing these facts, I will use wikipedia policy against OR to make sure at least statements fromm separatist sites are not represented as facts, that much Iranians can do. --alidoostzadeh 05:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Again Zora makes unreferenced, unsourced claims, and if we investigate her previous contribs and discussions here she has been doing this from the very beginning. I have read everything from 2005 forward. This is a person who clearly has no understanding or education in this area, and yet continues to make unreferences, unsourced claims. Before she was claiming "Persian chauvinism" and now she is saying "Persian-Azeri establishment"! ROFLMAO Yes, this is very funny, but it is sad, because it is so ignorant. If you look at some of her comments from long ago, she makes claims that Persians were oppressing Azeris, but now Azeris are part of the problem! LOL Zora, read these policies and guidelines: WP:RS, WP:WEB, WP:N, and most importantly WP:V READ THEM AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN UNTIL YOU UNDERSTAND THEM CLEARLY. And remember Zora, as far as WP is concerned, YOU ARE NOT A SCHOLAR OF IRAN OR ARABS OR MIDDLE EAST OR RELATED SUBJECTS. In fact, if you DO NOT have a PhD, you are NOT a scholar and cannot make statements as facts without backing. Even if someone on WP has a PhD, ORIGINAL RESEARCH AND PERSONAL OPINION IS NOT ALLOWED. We are ALL TIRED of this nonsense. From the history, THIS HAS BEEN GOING ON FOR OVER 2 YEARS. Alot of editors have complained about Zora (including Indians!) and Ahwaz and their attempts to promote revisionism and false histories and personal opinions and so many other things, that I think we should alert WP authorities and have them sanctioned. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a propaganda tool. The fact that Zora ignores the gist of my comments, as a half-Kurd, half-Arab who has been prejudiced and attacked by both Arab and Kurdish chauvinists, and continue to insist upon including fringe viewpoint of racist websites (none being compatible with WP policy and guideline) is more than enough reason for me to seek arbitration. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH. Khorshid 10:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
This edit from Ahwaz should be reversed [28] - there is plenty of sources in this article and others that show that Elamites and Persians predate Arabs! Yet this guy is promoting the propaganda of a separatist professor in Canada? Alex should not protect this article, especially after Ahwaz, who is disruptive and has been blocked so many times, edits the article with his own POV. This is sickening. Again I suggest a arbitration to have these two (Ahwaz and Zora) sanctioned and so we can finally begin working on these articles without dealing with this propagandistic and racialistic mess. This single edit from Ahwaz proves beyond a doubt that Zora and Ahwaz are a joke, since they are promoting the most ridiculous ideas that is laughed at by any educated, literate person. If these edits remain in the article, then Wikipedia is also a joke. I suggest we petition Jimbo, because I think he should know that WP is being used as a propaganda tool, and that its credibility as such is useless. Alex, I suggest you reverse yourself and unprotect the article, because this is disgusting. Khorshid 10:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
This edit summary from Zora also shows her contempt and bad faith [29]. Edit summaries are not here to be abused in this fashion. This is one more to be added for the arbitration. I suggest we create a subpage somewhere (on one of our userpages) and list all infractions and belive me there are plenty! Khorshid 11:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Zora,

Likewise, some of the native Hawaians "feel that the only way OUT of racism and bad government is independence". I suggest you move out of Hawaii, which is an occupied territory according to these folks, and well documented here. Be consistent and non selective, if you wish to support secessionist arguments.--Zereshk 03:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

As soon as I say that various Khuzestani Arab voices should be heard, you start accusing me of being a secessionist. I have a feeling that that you've never heard the quote attributed to Voltaire, "I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it." WP doesn't shut out notable views. It doesn't present them as the truth, either. That's NPOV, and I don't see much understanding of it here. Zora 04:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
And how is it that you accuse everyone of "nationalism" and "Arab haters" as soon as we say that this whole Arabs in Khuzestan thing has been blown way out of proportion? What you call a "notable view" is what we call exaggerated propaganda. Why can't you orientalists just leave us alone? Why do we have to see Americans and Europeans telling Iranians all the time what Iran is, and what it means to be Iranian?Zereshk 07:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
You are incorrect Zora. WP doesn't allow views that are not in line with WP:OR, WP:RS, WP:N, and WP:V. Most of Ahwaz's sources (like al-Taie claiming Elamites as Arabs or whatever stupid idea he comes up with) violate WP policy and guideline 100%. There is nothing notable about that idea and it has no multiple third-party coverage to back it up. You always ignore these points, but fortunately WP has rules, and you must abide by them. You obviously don't understand those rules and again I suggest you read them again and again and again. Websites that claim to represent political groups and have no independent sources validating their existence are also not in line with WP policy. Stop creating problems. Some of us here are interested in building an encyclopedia, not a fringe propaganda resource. Khorshid 05:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Also where is the independent, neutral, unbiased coverage of what real Khuzestan Arabs are all about and how they feel, how they live, etc??? If you think that BAFS or this User:Ahwaz or Al-Taie represent Khuzestan Arabs, you know nothing. I am half-Arab (Khuzestan) and they don't represent me or the Arab side of my family or any of my Arab relatives! Again WP policy is clear about what is notable, reliable, etc. Read the rules. Khorshid 05:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arab politics

The section on "Political organisations" should be made into two: one about real Arab politics in Khuzestan, and the other about separatist groups (who are obviously not in Iranian political circus). Khorshid 01:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)