Talk:Khuzestan Province

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Iran (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iran, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Iran on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project where you can contribute to the discussions and help with our open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Former good article nominee Khuzestan Province was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
August 25, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed

Vandalism 11 Nov 2010[edit]

This article appears to have been vandalized back on 11 Nov. (Etymology section) Not quite sure how to clean it up. The prior text seems to have malformed footnotes. Larry (talk) 07:17, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Comments by[edit]

This article is extremely biased Anti-Arab POV. If no one fixes it soon, i will be forced to NPOV tag it. 08:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Please be more specific and explain which parts needs improvement. Thank you. Arash the Archer 12:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
It gives little to no regard to the strong Arab ties of the Indigenous inhabitants of the area while over-stressing Farsi ones. this also applies to the redirect of Arabistan. a casual reader would be tempted to think that it's just a province that happens to contain some arab "minorities". looks like anti-arab POV in my book.
Khuzestan is a very important province. It has many historical, natural, cultural and economic aspects. The article should cover all of them. Of course an important part is the Iranian Arabs that should be mentioned in the article with a reasonable weight. Arash the Archer 17:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Redirect from Arabistan[edit]

A Google search for Suudi arabistan brings 1,190,000 results while a search for khuzestan arabistan brings 1,280 and for ahwaz arabistanbrings 11,700 results. It means it does not even require a disambiguation and Arabistan should be redirected to Arabian Peninsula. Arash the Archer 16:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

The fact that KSA's name in german uses the word 'arabistan' means nothing towards the english use of that name. a search for "arabistan" in english only brings arabistan-related results (when filtering german and turkish ones). it is true that not many webpages use the topic. nonetheless, in english context, arabistan is NOT saudi arabia. give me one link where it is thus referred. 17:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Arabistan was the official English name for the region before 1935 and is still used by some. Arabistan has never been used in relation to Saudi Arabia in the English language, unless you have verifiable evidence to proove otherwise.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 17:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Just a quick one Columbia Electronic redirects Arabistan to Arabia. In todays English usage Arabistan has no relation to Khuzestan and redirecting Arabistan to Khuzestan is misleading Arash the Archer 17:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
I favour a disambiguation page rather than a redirect, because the province was commonly known as Arabistan in history. If one is researching history and wanted to find out more about Arabistan, they would be directed to the wrong page. It is best to give the reader a choice between the two.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 17:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, no, the province was known as Khuzestan mostly, Khuzestan is also the much older name. The name Khuzestan goes back Parthian times and has been used continously till modern times. Arabistan on the hand goes back to Safavid times and is not used anymore. In Persian, Arabistan actually refers to Saudi Arabia. The Khuzestan article already covers the name Arabistan.Hajji Piruz 01:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I am against a disambiguation until i find a proper link. the one shown by Arash seems likely to be a parsing of wikipedia's redirects, than by own creation. i want to find a single article or source that actually refers to Saudi Arabia or the entire arab peninsula by the name "Arabistan" before i agree to disambiguation. The fact that it is so used by Farsi is meaningless for two reasons: first because it's a governmental decision to try and hide the fact and second because this is the english wikipedia and not the farsi one. 05:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
This discussion has appeared on this article before many times. "Arabistan" is a fairly recent name that was used simultaneously with Khuzestan during the late Safavid and Qajar eras. "Khuzestan" has always been the proper name of the land. See Origin of the name Khuzestan for more detail.--Zereshk 14:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
It may well be and it may not be, but in the event of confusion, it would be helpful for the reader to be directed to Khuzestan if they type in Arabistan, particularly as you say Arabistan has been used in history. I have the memoirs of Arnold Wilson in front of me and he only uses Arabistan, never Khuzestan. If one were to read it and then type in Arabistan into Wikipedia, one would be erroneously directed to the Arabian peninsula. The title of this article is not being disputed.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 14:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
I think it is OK to redirect, as long as the article explains that the name is not currently used, and was only prominent during the Qajar era. Imnot sure if others will agree with me though. But Ipersonally prefer a disambig page, because they are right: "Arabistan", even in Khuzestan itself today, refers to Saudi Arabia.--Zereshk 14:53, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Disambiguation is a good compromise, although I agree with the anon that Arabistan is not actually commonly used in the English language. Arabistan is still used by some Arabs, although it is uncommon in the English language and I agree it is not the name Iran officially uses for the province. The disambiguation page could make this point, if you'd prefer, but it would be good to have it as concise as possible, eg "Arabistan was used to refer to the province of Khuzestan before the Pahlavi dynasty and is still controversially used by some Arabs, although this is uncommon in contemporary English."--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 15:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
How's this?--Zereshk 15:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that's a good improvement, although some Arabs still use Arabistan and I think the name dates back further than the Qajars. Also, it referred to the Arab-populated area, distinct from the area occupied by the Bakhtiari khans, which crosses into contemporary Khuzestan.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 15:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
The name Arabistan is used for Saudi Arabia even in Khuzestan. Nobody uses it for Khuzestan today, except for separatists. You forget that Khuzestan has a large major non-Arab population. Trust me, Ive lived in the south of Iran. As for the chronology, I used the word "mainly during the Qajar era", which is accurate. During the late Safavid era, the name was not prominent. It only had concurrent usage.--Zereshk 23:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Forgive me for jumping in… this might be nitpicking, but this part [(the suffix "-istan" is the Persian and Turkish equivalent of the English suffix "-ia")] specifically that "istan" is the Persian equivalent … is not totally accurate. It should be clarified that "estan" in this context could be considered as the equivalent of "ia" in English and that the name in Persian is "Arabestan" instead of "Arabistan". Regards ObserverToSee 18:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
I've seen both Arabistan and Arabestan in English, but the former is far more common. This is a matter of transliteration from Farsi and Arabic, rather than the correct spelling used in these languages.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 22:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not Important what Brits called the land during the very recent colonization time (comparing the long Iranian history). The Fact is the land has already had a name (Khuzestan). The immigrant arabs to the land are better to respect historical facts as many civilized people do. and another thing for the guy using the nick "Al-Ahwaz"(writing it in arabic fonts), to your disappointment, the word Ahwaz itself refers to the word Khuzestan, not your favoured word, Arabistan!, Ahwaz = hawzes= khuzes, so I think you'd better have review of the objectivity of your ideas and never call Iranian lands, as "Arabic Heritage", though Iranian arabs are always welcomed as citizens, we should learn not to make up things. thanx. Sasan 12:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Redirect again[edit]

The Arabistan page was a dismb page without any sources and hence WP:OR. Ive redirected here as the source in the lead and the history indicates it as notw beign Khuzestan(Lihaas (talk) 13:42, 22 December 2010 (UTC)).

The Article is so anti-Arab. It's funny how the persians go write about areas inside of Iraq and claim that those areas belong to Iran and stress out some "Persian" links (like shatt al-arab and others).. but at the same time they keep trying to eliminate any links of AlAhwaz to Arabs..... One simple fact will eliminate all doubts.... THe people who live in Ahwaz are Arabs... how come this is not emphasized at all — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:19, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


you should add this pic

I thnik whoever designed this map, was high on something! what made an arab separatist think, Provinces like Bousher, Hormozgan, Kohkilooye and BoyerAhmad, Ilam, ........... are arabic regions and should be called Ahwaz (which is a persian name itself!)! I'm myself from Boushehr, and I'm a Persian, I have never seen arabs in whole my province, except those few families escaped from Khuzestan during Saddam's aggression! maybe it's a thank you to our hospitality! even Khuzestan Provnice has the majority of non arabic people ( Persians, Kurds, Ghashghaghi, Lors, Kamaris) regarding the fact most arabs (if not all) call reproduction and having many children their devine duty ( they believe Prophet Mohammed has ordered arabs to reproduce to make their "holy race" grow faster in new lands!) !!!!! Sasan 12:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This article isn't quite at the Good Article level quite yet. I'd probably put it in the early B range currently, as there is still quite a bit of work to do. It's starting to look good in some areas, though. The lead section looks reasonably good, although it could be tightened up a bit to make it a more concise summary of the article, per WP:LEAD. There are also two 'citation needed' templates here as well that must be addressed prior to GA status.

The 'etymology' section looks good, although some details on pronunciation could be added to aid non-native speakers on the proper pronunciation, unless it's clearly phonetic.

The 'geography and climate' section is completely unreferenced. The 'history' section should be moved above the geography section.

The 'people and culture' section is a good start, but could be weaved together a bit better. It also seems to contain several small subsections with little text, that could probably be combined and/or reorganized. It might make more sense to have a separate 'demographics' section, covering the general population makeup of the province, and change the name of this section to 'arts and culture', and deal more with the arts and various purely cultural aspects.

The economy section could be tied together a bit better. Consider eliminating the separate subsections, and work on rephrasing the introductory paragraph here. The first sentence, "Khuzestan is the major oil-producing region of Iran, and as such is one of the wealthiest province in Iran, though it is claimed that this wealth does not benefit the average citizen." seems to run-on a bit.

The 'higher education' section is just a list of universities. This should be changed to simply 'education', and written as prose. Cover information about higher education of course, as well as some other elements of the general school system (public schools? private schools? demographics of the student population? literacy rate? libraries?).

Move 'attractions of Khuzestan' to the 'arts and culture' section. It's largely just listing major attractions, and this could be better addressed if converted to a more prose-like structure (without the bullets).

Consider moving the long list of Khuzestan celebrities to a separate article, like List of famous people from Khuzestan, Iran, or something similar. Link to it under 'see also'. Lists such as this are rather trivial and easily abused by anonymous editors that add a lot of non-notable people to them. But if they're just eliminated, people will complain, so it's best to keep it out of the article, but linked.

There is no information on the government of the province, and nothing about the transportation infrastructure. Some info on healthcare might be nice as well.

References should be formatted in accordinace with WP:CITE. At a minimum, references to content that is available online should not only contain the link to the content, but also full author, title, publisher, date of publication, and date when it was last retrieved online. This is so that, should the link ever become inaccessible (404 not found), the reference is not rendered useless, and the information could be used to verify the information, should someone want to do so.

Move the 'see also' section above 'references'. References and external links should be the last two main sections in an article.

That's the major things I can find. Hopefully that will help to get editors started. Once the cycle of editing and review goes on, and editors find more information from sources, the article will develop rapidly. Hope this helps! Good luck! Dr. Cash 21:53, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Biased Article[edit]

In short, this is a biased article that deliberately tries to diminish the strong Arab identity of Arabestan/Khuzestan.

I wish the writer had the courage and moral conviction to state the truth. This proves that Wikipedia is a failure when it comes to articles that relate to politics, history, religion, etc.

Shame on you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

If anything, Khuzistan is more Bakhtiari than anything! I doubt you have ever been to that region, so keep your BS to yourself please! Thank you in advance! (talk) 02:54, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Khuzestan, Arabs, and the Elamites[edit]

The original Elamites were not Semetic or IE, in terms of language, genes or anthropology. The Semite-Elamite association is an unfortunate consequence of biblical literilism. Because, it is most probable (considering genetic evidence), that the Medes and Persians are the genetic descendants of the ancient Elamites, the Elamites should be considered proto-IE, firstly. However, it also appears that the pre-Elamites (at ~10kybp), after expanding into the middle east, gave rise to (after mixing with paleolithic dwellers) semetic peoples.

What is interesting, with regards to the biblical passage about Elamites, is that the modern inhabitants of the Khuzestan province are in fact, predominately, ethnically Arab (semetic). —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Khuzistan is not "predominately ethnically Arab". Bakhtiari/Lor people has been living in the eastern and northern parts of the province for thousands of years. Don't forget the Persians and Turks (Afshars) in the other half of the province! It's ridiculous to call the whole province "ethnically Arab" and it is an insult to millions of non-Arabs living in that region. (talk) 03:02, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Struggle over the province[edit]

I am currently working on a research paper over the Iran-Iraq War. In the section about the struggle over Khuzestan, this article says that domination of Khuzestan was Saddam's primary objective in the Iran-Iraq War. From the research I've done, this statement would have at least hundreds of scholars up in arms. Saddam's primary objective is highly contested, and very few (actually I'm not sure if any) of the books and articles I've come across have argued that this was Saddam's primary objective. I'm proposing that this statement, in the very least, be reworded so the reader knows that this is largely debated. On top of that, because very few scholars seem to argue that this was Saddam's primary objective, I think it would be fitting for at least one citation to be added as well. Crushti (talk) 22:04, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Since there was no discussion, I took the liberty of editing the statement to say that Saddam attempted to capture Khuzestan without calling it his primary objective. Crushti (talk) 22:50, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Concerning Lions of Khuzestan[edit]

Perhaps someone wishes to expand on Lions of Khuzestan, as described here (in Persian). --BF 18:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

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

The result of the move request was: Moved Timrollpickering (talk) 16:45, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Khūzestān ProvinceKhuzestan Province – per WP:COMMONNAME and Wikipedia:USEENGLISH

-- Takabeg (talk) 11:46, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

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

Why don't you create the detailed colored provincial map as in Azerbaycanca(Azerbaijani) in English? Did this article originally appear in Azerbaijani? If not, then fix the map problem and tell me why you didn't do it at first before me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:40, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Area in square kilometers[edit]

In the first paragraph, this article says: "it covers an area of 63,238 km2". In the infobox, it says: "Area Total 64,055 km2 (24,732 sq mi)". I don't know if this is very important, but it's not consistent. If someone wants to make it right, they could put in a source, and reference the source on both instances. Laurier (talk) 07:59, 3 December 2014 (UTC)