Talk:Arabs of Khuzestan

Distinction between "Persian Arabs" and "Iranian Arabs"

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

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

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

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

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

Zora's recent edits

Problems I addressed with Zora's edits:

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 A graduate student with an unpublished PhD thesis is no more academic than a scholar with a PhD from France teaching in Tehran University for 50 years.--Zereshk 22:23, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sheikh Khaz'al as an immigrant

BTW, Zereshk, you keep asserting that Sheikh Khaz'al was an immigrant and say that it's "established" -- but it's not clear by whom. The Ansari dissertation says that the Sheikhs were leaders of the Muhaisin tribe, which he in no way distinguishes from the other tribes as immigrants. Ansari doesn't go back very far -- his emphasis is, after all, on the changes during the period of British influence -- but I should think that he would have noted it if the Muhaisin were considered newcomers. The genealogy of the family [1] just goes back to the founding of Mohammerah (now Khorramshar (sp?)) sometime in the 18th century. As I understand it, the fortunes of the tribe and the family rose because Mohammerah became a thriving port. They intermarried with the Kuwaitis, sure ... but that's because the Kuwaitis were geographically close, and of the appropriate rank. However, the Kuwaitis remained subjects of the Ottomans, and the Muhaisin subjects of the Qajars. Separate families, no immigration. So what makes you think Sheikh Khaz'al was an immigrant? Zora 21:30, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Changes to changes to changes

Slight changes I had to make:

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

Hear me out on this Zora

One last fault I spotted:

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

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

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

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

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

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

which means:

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

The article is improving, but still has minor issues.

I wonder where you keep getting these statements from:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• "few Persians still doubt Arab loyalties."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

Also, about Item No. 2 above:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Don't censor article

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

Proposal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have tried over recent days to find secondary information on the indigenous Persian groups in the context of ethnic politics, but have found very little - the largest I have found is [3]. I have even asked you for advice on where to go for this, but you have not offered help. I am not saying that the Bakhtiaris are not as oppressed or marginalised as the Arabs, just that they appear to have less political mobilisation behind their cause.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As for water, Iran has drafted a bill to export 300 million cubic metres of water to Kuwait annually. The government planned way back in 1999 to build a 330 km pipeline from the Karkheh Dam to the Gulf coast and then a 210 km pipeline along the seabed to Kuwait. There was an agreement between the two governments, but I believe construction has been postponed. It is a fact. The government is also planning to divert the waters from the Karoon hydroelectric project to Isfahan. It is a fact. See: [5] Khuzestan's Majlis members even called for the impeachment of the energy minister over the issue. I don't care about ISNA's state propaganda, or IRIB's nonsense either. But obviously, you are hell bent on representing the regime's line - to the extent that you have, in the past, plagiarised government websites.--Ahwaz 12:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Here is the reaction to your wonderful Mullah regime's plans for water diversion, from Iran Daily (which is published by the Islamic Republic News Agency): [6] It states: "Khuzestan's more than 2m hectares of fertile lands will face destruction if the Karoun River water is transferred to Rafsanjan". I suppose you are now going to argue that IRNA is the product of a pan-Arab agenda.--Ahwaz 12:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is something that scientists are investigating. Genetic similarities between Jews and Palestinians is a hot topic, as is the degree of Arab ancestry for North Africans. This link [7] is not a very good link, but it's the best I can find. It seems to be a copy of an original article I can't find. Most of these investigations do seem to be showing that there is much more genetic continuity between pre-Arab conquest and post-Arab conquest populations than one might imagine. Zora 02:32, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ali Shamkhani

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

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

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

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

The box

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please see this link to HRW [8]. That's a report from 1997 which states that the population of Arabs in the province was 70%, out of a total population of three million. That doesn't bode well for Bani Torofs figures. Mind you, I think highly of the man, but at the same time, I find this particular issue questionable due to contrast with the other sources, which are obviously identifiable. SouthernComfort 10:18, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

For your second question, see my responses to Zora above. Do you want to lower the estimate? We could also include Elton Daniel's estimate (from his book on Iran), which puts the Khuzestani Arab population at only 600,000. And I believe his book is from 2001. [9] SouthernComfort 10:20, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Beginning of Arabization

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

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

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

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

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

Arabistan

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

From the Safavid period (16th century) to the fall of the Qajar dynasty (1926) the province of Khuzestan had come to be known as 'Arabistan' [10]

I don't think there's any support for the rest of that quote, which says that the Arabization was completely due to migration. We have genetic testing results from an area like Lebanon, which show that that a population that speaks Arabic and defines itself as Arab is in fact mostly derived from the pre-Arab conquest population. There was a National Geographic article on it. I can't find that issue online -- it's probably pay only -- but here's one site that mentions the original study [11]. So it's possible for an area to be Arabized but not genetically Arab. I dunno if any such studies have been done in Khuzestan -- or what they'd show. So it could be Arabization of an older population, or migration, or any combination thereof. We don't have the DATA, just people making politically-convenient assertions -- on both sides. Zora 08:57, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Removal of POV tag

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SC: You say that you want everything sourced, but it seems you want to determine what are the most truthful and the least truthful sources. I merely changed the population statistics so that they were consistent with the statistics in the article, using Bani Torof as a source. You refused this, claiming that Bani Torof was not reliable. But he is a source, nonetheless, and he has argued his case for his estimation of 4.5 million. Why is it a problem to put in the full range? If you want to put in the Elton Daniel figure as well, then go ahead. But you cannot claim one source is superior to another. I would have thought that was POV.--Ahwaz 15:14, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

---

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

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

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

What are you talking about? It was already sourced to begin with - Iranica and Perry. I've clarified that. Funny how you never opposed this information through all these months until now. Interesting. Also, Bani Torof disagrees with your opinions. And he never explicitly identifies the Elamites. Lots of corrections. As for your last sentence, provide sources for your claims - otherwise keep your claims and opinions out of WP articles. SouthernComfort 13:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

This is all Bani Torof says about the Elamites:

"About 5000 years ago, long before the Achaemenid left Russia and headed toward the Iranian plateau, a Semitic nation by the name of Elamite lived in Khuzestan. They have left us signs of their blooming civilization in Susa, Ghagharzanbill and other parts of Khuzestan, Lurestan and Fars. The Olds Testament mentions their name for the first time. Ahmad Aghtedari, the Iranian researcher, in his book "The historical ruins and buildings of Khuzestan" writes: From what has been discovered in the city of Susa, one can say that within these hills, there are traces of Elamite civilization which belongs to the Achaemenid, Parthian, and Arab era, and there are many signs of those eras in this place." SouthernComfort 13:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Obviously he is incorrect about a couple of things (Elamites are not Semitic and since when were the Achaemenids ever in Russia?). SouthernComfort 13:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

WHO says "as a result"

You haven't referenced your quotes properly -- you should have page numbers and bibliographic info at the bottom. Also, you jump from the list of "such and such tribe moved to X in such and such year) to something that looks like a quote, but is only partially so ... You write, as a result, Khuzestan became "extensively Arabized." The "extensively Arabized" looks like a quote, though it isn't clear who from; the "as a result" seems to be your own conclusion, linking tribal migrations to Arabization.

I found some references to ethnicity in Ansari. He said that the semi-nomadic Arabs and the Persians were hostile and generally didn't intermarry. Urban Arabs and Persians, in Shustar and Dizful, had intermarried extensively (pp. 16-18).

As for the Achaemenids and Russia, I think Bani-Torof is referring to the movement of the supposed proto-Indo-Europeans (now generally believed to be the Kurgan culture, from an area north of the Caspian Sea, in what is now Russia, out towards Iran, India, and Europe. It's not the best way to say it. He's not a great source, but it's likely that he represents a current of opinion among the Arab Khuzestanis. Zora 14:34, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

(see J.R. Perry, "The Banu Ka'b: An Amphibious Brigand State in Khuzestan", Le Monde Iranien et L'Islam I, 1971, p133) That's the source for "extensively Arabized". Everything else is from Iranica. Those were provided by Heja helweda (and maybe Zereshk) and the main article provides page numbers. If you have other problems, go talk to her and stop wasting my time. SouthernComfort 14:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

BTW, this is not grade school and as an adult you are capable of investigating these issues yourself by reading the articles and talking to other editors who are also involved in these articles (and who provided those sources). I shouldn't have to explain every little thing to you as if you are a little child - this is borderline harassment. Again, stop wasting my time. SouthernComfort 14:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

And you are one to talk - your edits are flagrant opinions. Give me a break. You never source any of your fringe claims. Stop harassing me. SouthernComfort 14:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Evidence of Zora's blatant injection of opinions [12]. Need I say more? SouthernComfort 14:55, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

SC, if you have access to a copy of the Perry article, could you send it to me? Post on my talk page, or email me. The article is not available online for free, and it would take some time and money to order the book in which it was published, or to get it through interlibrary loan. C'mon, an act of generosity to an opponent will do wonders for your karma :)

Without a copy, I'm going to suspect that the link between the EI migrations and the Perry "extensively Arabized" has been supplied by you, not by Perry. Zora 01:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Ask Zereshk or Heja helweda. I didn't add that source. SouthernComfort 07:37, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Question

Why does the article use the phrase "Arab-descended" to identify these people? Is there even such thing as an Arab race? I think Arab people in Iran and Iraq (and other places like Syria, lebanon, Jordan, and Palestine) can be linked to pre-Islamic native populations who adopted Arabic as their native language and hence became Arab. To somehow suggest that anyone who speaks Arabic is of the same ascent is simply absurd. I suggest we drop this phrase. Aucaman^Talk 16:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

The Arab article has four ways of defining Arab: Ethnic identity, Linguistic, Genealogical and Political (ie nationality). It is true to say that Arabs are not a race, as the term Arab also includes some Muslim African groups. Moreover, the Arabs of Khuzestan are certainly inter-mixed with Persians, which means that genealogy is insufficient to determine them racially as Arab, if such a term can ever be considered. Also, they are not simply defined linguistically as many Persians also speak Arabic. It is fair to say that most of the Arabs of Khuzestan are not pan-Arabist in their political outlook nor has Arab identity been invented by outside forces, so this identity is not politically inspired. This leaves ethnic identity, which is mostly although not exclusive derived from tribal origins through self-identification. It is a culture, rather than a race or language, that is unique to that area of Iran - although not one that Iranians appreciate enough. As Khuzestan's Arabs were up until modern times nomadic and as they occupied an area where the territorial boundaries of the Persian Empire were constantly changing, I think it would be hard to insist that Arab tribes in Khuzestan are "immigrants" or non-native. It is an interesting discussion, but whenever it is raised it arouses nationalist passions with all these accusations of separatism that are grossly unfair. This is what I faced at one point, to the point that I was accused of being a terrorist for using the Arabic instead of the Farsi spelling of Ahwaz.--Ahwaz 17:09, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Well we basically agree on this, which makes me wonder why you wrote such a long response. My point was that the phrase "Arab-descended" has a racial tone to it that is not exactly accurate when talking about Arabs of Iran. But I have no reservations against calling them Arabs (as you said, they share various aspects of the Arab culture). Just not "Arab-descended". I'm proposing that we take out this phrase. If anyone oppososes this they have the burden of proving that Iranian Arabs are somehow descendants of other Arab groups. Aucaman^Talk 23:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Who are the "other" Arab groups? Iranian Arabs ARE descendants of Arab groups that migrated to the region over the centuries. --ManiF 05:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Not necessarily! Groups intermarry and blend into each other. There may be cultural continuity without genetic continuity. Zora 07:44, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Provide evidence in the form of genetic studies. SouthernComfort 08:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

---

I thought you were the one who proclaimed that genetic studies were prima facie racism?

The current distribution of the M17 haplotype is likely to represent traces of an ancient population migration originating in southern Russia/Ukraine, where M17 is found at high frequency (>50%). It is possible that the domestication of the horse in this region around 3,000 B.C. may have driven the migration (27). The distribution and age of M17 in Europe (17) and Central/Southern Asia is consistent with the inferred movements of these people, who left a clear pattern of archaeological remains known as the Kurgan culture, and are thought to have spoken an early Indo-European language (27, 28, 29). The decrease in frequency eastward across Siberia to the Altai-Sayan mountains (represented by the Tuvinian population) and Mongolia, and southward into India, overlaps exactly with the inferred migrations of the Indo-Iranians during the period 3,000 to 1,000 B.C. (27). It is worth noting that the Indo-European-speaking Sourashtrans, a population from Tamil Nadu in southern India, have a much higher frequency of M17 than their Dravidian-speaking neighbors, the Yadhavas and Kallars (39% vs. 13% and 4%, respectively), adding to the evidence that M17 is a diagnostic Indo-Iranian marker. The exceptionally high frequencies of this marker in the Kyrgyz, Tajik/Khojant, and Ishkashim populations are likely to be due to drift, as these populations are less diverse, and are characterized by relatively small numbers of individuals living in isolated mountain valleys.

Intriguingly, the population of present-day Iran, speaking a major Indo-European language (Farsi), appears to have had little genetic influence from the M17-carrying Indo-Iranians. It is possible that the pre-Indo-European population of Iran---effectively an eastern extension of the great civilizations of Mesopotamia---may have reached sufficient population densities to have swamped any genetic contribution from a small number of immigrating Indo-Iranians. If so, this may have been a case of language replacement through the "elite-dominance" model (29). Alternatively, an Indo-Iranian language may have been the lingua franca of the steppe nomads and the surrounding settled populations, facilitating communication between the two. Over time, this language could have become the predominant language in Persia, reinforced and standardized by rulers such as Cyrus the Great and Darius in the mid-first millennium B.C. Whichever model is correct, the Iranians sampled here (from the western part of the country) appear to be more similar genetically to Afro-Asiatic-speaking Middle Eastern populations than they are to Central Asians or Indians. This finding contrasts with a recent analysis of Eastern Iranian populations, which have high frequencies of Y-chromosome haplogroup 3, defined by the M17 analogue SRY-1532A (30). It is likely that the Dasht-e Kavir and Dasht-e Lut deserts in the center of the country have acted as significant barriers to gene flow. [13]

I also found this comment on Arabization, which refers to articles to which I have no access:

It is still a matter of some debate to what extent Arabs replaced previous populations in the Middle East, and to what extent those populations merely adopted the Arabic language. However, the prevailing view of historians is that most of the population remained the same; the significant number of loanwords from earlier languages (Aramaic in the Fertile Crescent, Coptic in Egypt, Berber in the Maghreb), the retention of earlier cultural customs (especially well-documented for Egypt among the fellahin, but notably including sizable Christian communities throughout the area), and the relatively small population of Arabia all point to a continuity with the earlier population. The medieval North African sociologist Ibn Khaldun strongly argued for continuity, considering the Arabization of these populations to be a result of their imitating their rulers. Interestingly, in his time, the word "Arab" referred only to Bedouin and their direct descendants, and was not applied to city dwellers and farmers even if they had come to speak Arabic. [14]

I found this Iranian article, but the authors do not explicate their results -- probably because they would be controversial if explained. [15]

So it seems that Iranians speak an Indo-European language, but don't have the gene that seems to correlate with Indo-European ancestry -- at least to the west of the central desert. The results seem to show that that the western Iranian population is not sharply differentiated from the population of Mesopotamia to the west. We also have a cite saying that most of the supposed "Arab" populations of the Middle East are in fact culturally Arab but genetically not.

That's what I can find. I don't know if anyone has done more fine-tuned studies relating Arab-speaking Iraqis, Arab-speaking Khuzestanis, Persian-speaking Khuzestanis, and Persian speakers from the central plateau. I rather suspect that they haven't, yet. Geneticists are still working on the broad outlines of population movements. Most of the local research is biomedical. Population migrations is controversial, but figuring out if your child is more likely to have a lethal recessive gene is OK.

IMHO, the most sensible approach to take to the population history of Khuzestan is that we don't know. Zora 09:23, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I find the idea of genetic studies to be racist, especially since they are almost always limited in scope. If one is using a genetic study that has only sampled a couple of hundred people or a few hundred people to make assumptions about the rest of the population, which numbers in the millions, then that is a racist conclusion. Furthermore, genetic studies can only reveal details about the racial makeup of a modern population - they do not necessarily reveal anything about populations inhabiting the area hundreds of years ago or thousands of years ago. Certainly the majority of Persians or Arabs of today are not the same exact peoples as the Persians or Arabs of a thousand years ago. The same applies to any population anywhere in the world. In addition, geneticists seem to focus their efforts mostly on southern and Eastern European, Mediterrean, and Asian populations more so than northern European populations. And again, as others have stated, there is no such thing as a "pure" race or ethnic group of peoples - not even the Japanese, who are often considered to be one of the most "homogenous" groups in the world.

And plus, for whatever reason many of these studies do not clearly elaborate which populations they sampled, other than say, western Iranians. Western Iran is a pretty big place and many different groups inhabit it. If they were Persian-speakers, which Persian-speaking group(s) exactly?

Sources state that Persians are descended from Aryan tribes and indigenous peoples of the Iranian plateau, while the Arabs are descended from the original Semitic tribes. So yes, we do know the history. What we do not know is the genetic makeup of these peoples today, and if they are related or not. Just because genetic studies do not exist does not mean you can ignore the history, or claim that historians don't know anything, or that they are wrong. If you oppose the history, then present counter-evidence. The problem is, with the way you are viewing things, you would need a genetic study of very broad scope to prove your point, and even then, that does not necessarily prove your point either since populations change and evolve and intermarry over time. It's called human nature. This is why I find your points to be essentially racist, because you are assuming that perhaps the Aryans were more "pure" or that they were Nordic (of which there is no evidence that they were) or whatever.

So, considering you have no sources to backup your theories concerning the history of the Khuzestani Arabs, and you have not provided any sources to challenge what is already in the article, then I am assuming you are going to insist that the tag be up there permanently. Is that correct? SouthernComfort 10:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Also see this genetic study [16] which, though principally about Macedonians also mentions the relationship with Iranians (and Turks and Kurds and Armenians and Lebanese, etc - who are all classed as "Mediterranean" peoples). However, no specific populations are mentioned, i.e. which Iranian groups did they sample? From the study, "Macedonians are related to other Mediterraneans and do not show a close relationship with Greeks." (pg. 125) So the issue of genetics is far more complex than you might think. SouthernComfort 10:41, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Dispute

You asked for it. I tried to remove the false and racialist information, but you put it back in. Now you need to provide the evidence to back it up. Where's the evidence that Arabs of Khuzestan are "Arab-descended". This is shameful. You'd guess that in the 21st century people are sophisticated and intelligent enough to think beyond homogeneous categorizing of people into "races", but I guess there will always be exceptions. To somehow suggest that the Arabs of Iran are of the same race as the Arabs of other countries such as Mauritania or Sudan is simply absurd. Some people here don't seem to understand the difference between a linguistic group and a racial group. Just because people speak the same language, it does not mean they're of the same race. That hold for both Iranians and Arabs. There's also no scientific way of categorizing people into races, so I suggest you drop this kind of language. Aucaman^Talk 11:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you calm down? Sources have been provided. The burden of proof is on you to counter the sources that have already been provided. No one is saying that they all Arabs are the same - different Arab groups are descended from many different tribes. Why don't you do some research instead of politicking the way you have been doing here and elsewhere? As I said, you want to "prove" that Arabs of Iran are only a linguistic group, then please provide a source to counter the sources already in the article which state that Arabs of Iran are also ethnically Arab. SouthernComfort 11:41, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

BTW, you're the one who is also insisting that Persians are mixed with Arabs, Turkic people, and Mongols. So don't accuse others of racialism when you are far more obsessed with this sort of thing. Provide counter sources or give it up. You're already in deep enough waters - don't make things worse for yourself. SouthernComfort 11:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Those who want to add new information are responsible for proving their addition. I'm just questioning the information in the article (they're not sourced). Stop removing the dispute tag. This is not going to look good on you. Aucaman^Talk 11:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? They are sourced. See the Origins section and stop adding the tag unless you have counter sources to provide. And if so, then provide them and stop wasting my time! SouthernComfort 11:51, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

BTW, the term you object to has been in the article a very, very long time, so it was not "new information." Do a little research before you start shouting at people for no reason at all. Give it up. SouthernComfort 11:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Decided to change the intro paragraph, which was originally Zora's edit, since the sources already clarify everything to the reader. Now Aucaman, leave me alone. SouthernComfort 12:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Provide a source for adding Persians. And the article is sourced. Are you asking for an ArbCom or what? Provide counter sources but DO NOT claim that the article is factually inaccurate when it has been sourced. SouthernComfort 12:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

No I just had a problem with the phrase "Arab-descended". The rest of the article seems well-sourced to me. As for the Persian addition, well the Arab of Khuzestan are constantly interacting with other Iranians. Does related mean "racially related"?? Why does everything here have a race factor to it? I'm going to take it out I guess. Aucaman^Talk 12:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

You know, the only reason Zora originally put both "Arabic-speakers" and "Arab-descended" was for NPOV. And you have created an argument for nothing. Anyway, it's either we leave both out or keep both in. Both are POV by themeselves. SouthernComfort 12:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

And yes, the related box refers to ethnic/racial ties. That's why Azeris cannot be considered an Iranian people. SouthernComfort 12:14, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I rewrote again

I organized the various reports re Arab immigration chronologically, and added a section stating that it's not clear whether the current population is mainly descended from Elamites (as Bani-Torof claims), mainly descended from Arabian tribes, or a mixture. Really, we don't know FOR SURE.

I also bulleted all the estimates for the current population and arranged them in order, from lowest to highest. I think that this makes it easier to compare them and see just where the estimates cluster.

I hope that this rewrite will be acceptable to all. Instead of stating the one theory of origins is true, or that one population estimate is best, it gives the whole range. Zora 11:44, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

That's fine by me.--Ahwaz 11:50, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Bani-Torof makes no such claims about the Elamites. Furthermore adding your speculations and personal opinions to articles, as you have done many times before, is totally improper. SouthernComfort 20:21, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

SC, the only things I added that could be considered "opinions" were summaries saying basically "we don't know" and "estimates vary". Both of which I think are fair, given the ongoing disputes. You changed back to your choppy, badly written versions on both the origins and the population estimates, and so far as I can see, the only reason to do so is that you dislike me and are unwilling to allow me to rewrite your prose.

I think the version of the population estimates with the bulleted list, arranged in order of size, is a clear improvement on a version that combines several estimates in one paragraph and is somewhat disorganized.

Your origins section is not arranged chronologically and contains too much irrelevant quotation from Bani-Torof. As for the Elamites -- no, he didn't mention them specifically. But they were the population before the Persians, and if he's saying that Arabs = Arabized descendents of people before the Persians, then that's what he means. Must mean. I'm willing to rewrite so as to make it clear that the "Elamites" are a deduction.

The problem with relying too heavily on the English translation of the Bani-Torof article is that it IS a translation, by someone else, and someone who was both shaky on English and apparently not at all acquainted with the relevant literature. So I'm not sure that the multiple strangenesses in the Bani-Torof article (from an academic POV) are due to Bani-Torof being unfamiliar with the academic discourse, or just being badly translated.

I removed the Perry article because you haven't read it, and neither have I. Apparently the only person who has is Zereshk, and he says he doesn't have a copy available now. It's a mistake to quote two words from a work you haven't read in the belief that it supports your position re a recent immigrant origin for the Khuzestani Arabs. You could be misrepresenting Perry and I'd have no way of knowing that you were. Best to leave it out.

Zereshk and I had actually fought each other to a draw on this article, and come up with something that was acceptable to both. It's rather discouraging that you should throw away all that work and try to wrench the article to your "Arabs are recent immigrants and there aren't very many of them anyway" version. Zora 22:56, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Population estimates

I wrote to Elton Daniel at Hawaii University regarding the issue of population statistics asking what his sources were for justifying the 500,000 figure for the Arabs of Al-Ahwaz. He says that he no longer has the notes that he used from the book he wrote, which he says was "for a popular series instead of an academic one with full documentation." So he had to rely in his memory regarding his data sources. He states that he "relied on the U.S. Congress Area Handbook for Iran for most statistical data ... The edition then available stated that the estimated Arab population in Iran was 530,000 in 1986." But he adds that there are a number of factors to bear in mind, including "a lack of any really relilable official statistics since around 1956 (which could conceivably be what the Area Handbook actually used), exactly how one defines "Arabs" in this context, whether those numbers were affected by population displacement because of the Iran-Iraq war, etc." He is not certain himself and is fully aware of the difficulties involved in estimating figures.

Given that Elton Daniel admits the problems with prooving the 500,000 figure, I request a second source to ensure that the 500,000 figure - the lower estimate for the Al-Ahwaz population - can be verified by academic source material. If it cannot, then I suggest the two to four million range stays.--Ahwaz 17:14, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Protected

This page has seen enough edit warring for a while, so I've protected it. Feel free to notify me (or another admin) when it looks like some kind of consensus has been reached on talk. William M. Connolley 20:36, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

On whose orders? Some anonymous person yesterday repeatedly vandalised the page. Everyone else is having an above-board discussion and no matter how heated there has been some movement towards compromise. All I have done is raise a point based on an email from someone who is being quoted as a source. I have not even made the change I suggested but opened it up for discussion. So why move to bar anyone from making a change? This is idiotic behaviour by someone who has not been involved in any editing or writing here.--Ahwaz 20:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

CIA Statistics

According to the official and most updated CIA resources, the total population of Iran that speaks Arabic is only 3%. The people who speak Arabic in Iran are not racially Arabs. Their culture and ethnicity is Persian.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ir.html

This should be included in the article.--Dariush4444

And according to a US State Department report published this month, the Arab population is "two to four million or more". It is a matter of which US agency you choose to believe: CIA or State Department.

The CIA does not define Arab as racial, cultural or ethnic. This is the problem. Only Bani Toruf is making an effort to define what Arab means in the context of Iran. If you disagree with him, then come up with other points.

As for your nonsense about Iran's Arab population not being ethnically or culturally Arab, I think you know little about Iran. When Arabs march in their thousands through the streets of Ahwaz chanting in Arabic, wearing dishdasha and keffiyeh and getting shot by Basiji fanatics, they are the reviled Arab enemy and reviled. The ultra-nationalists hate them and the supporters of the shah-in-exile cheer on the mullahs.

If anyone had any doubt about the anti-Arab racism of the ultra-nationalists, take a look at their websites and their insults. See the Persian Journal, for example:

This one calls for Islam and Arabs to be abolished in Iran: http://www.iranian.ws/iran_news/publish/article_13089.shtml

This one also calls for Arabs to be expelled from Iran: http://www.iranian.ws/cgi-bin/iran_news/exec/view.cgi/3/7527

These ultra-nationalists' agenda is very similar to the mullahs. Like the mullahs, they want to portray Arabs as backward, ignorant, the enemy within, etc. Added to this is their hatred of Islam. They have huge hang-ups over their own identity and their tend to be rich people living abroad. Only marginal sections of the Iranian diaspora have these kind of anti-Arab feelings.--Ahwaz 06:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

No one with an education beleives your lies and propoganda.

I have been told that such accusations are uncivil and will lead to blocking.

Why didn't you provide the link to the US state department to support your ridiculous claims about the population of Arabs in Khuzestan?

You can see the link in the article, if you had read it. It is here if you are interested: [17]

Just because a few thousand people decided to protest does not mean that there are "4 million" Arabs in Khuzestan".

I did not say that. I said that the fact thousands of Arabs are dressing in Arab clothing, shouting slogans in Arabic and even waving the Ahwazi flag shows there are many that believe they have a culture distinct from the Persian culture.

The CIA website clearly states that the total population of Arabs in Iran is 3%...You do the math, the figure is closer to 2 million, most of whom also speak Persian.

Yes, the CIA is one source. I have said that the population estimate should be between 2 and 4 million, to cover the range of estimates available. It is accepted that the majority of Ahwazi Arabs are Farsi speakers, as well as speaking their own dialect of Arabic.

Over the years these people have mixed heavily with the local Persian and other Iranian populations. I know many familys from Ahwaz, they speak ONLY Persian..and they dont even know Arabic.

There are many Persians who are indigenous to Khuzestan, including one user who has contributed to Khuzestan-related articles on Wikipedia. They may not know Arabic. But one user disputed the claim that Arabic was not taught in schools, which is a grievance of Ahwazi Arabs. There is an article in today's Washington Times that says just this. The author went to an Arab village near Ahwaz City and interview people. He wrote: "The men said that only Farsi is taught in their village school, although all the students are Arab, and that no Arabic-language newspapers are allowed to be published in the province. They said they also suffer much higher levels of unemployment and poverty than do Persians."[18] The Wikipedia user stated that, as an Iranian of Persian ethnicity, he was forced to learn Arabic at school, although Classical Arabic not the Mesopotamian dialect common among Ahwazi Arabs. So, there are probably more Arabic speakers in Iran than there are Arabs.

Your other claims and propoganda are irrelevent to the argument. We are not discussing politics here. It is obvious that you know nothing about the Middle-East.

I was demonstrating how Iranian ultra-nationalists wish to expel Arabs from Iran. If there is no distinct Arab group in Iran, then why would they argue for the expulsion of that group?

These "arabs" came to Iran as refugess during the Safavid era when the Ottoman Turks were killing them in Iraq, Iran accepted to take them in...

Some did, but there have long been an Arab population in Iran. Iran is a multi-ethnic country of many nations and Arabs are a part of Iran's identity, whether you like it or not.

Dont ever think that Iran will even give 1 inch of land to these people. IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN!! Dariush4444 18:08, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I am sure the present regime does not want to give anything to anyone apart from itself. But you said 'we are not discussing politics here', so perhaps this discussion is best left alone.--Ahwaz 19:08, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

First off, it is important to acknowledge the fact that there are Arabs in Iran. This is an indisputable fact. On the other hand, the notion that the majority of Arabs who reside in the province of Khuzestan were accommodated by the Aryan population is also true. As such, it is important to accept the cultural sustenance of Iran’s Arab population, as well as respecting the land as originally belonging to ethnic Iranians. That being said, separatists should not be given clemency under any circumstances. Systematic expulsion of these instigators should be seen as a viable option, but Arabs who are loyal to the country but who indeed want to retain their cultural autonomy, should not be harassed with. Again, there are limits to even the latter point. Because cultural autonomy, once taken to extreme levels, can be viewed as Arab nationalism. I’d like to hear your thoughts on this Ahwaz.--QajarCoffee

I think a lot of the problems in Khuzestan are due to the social exclusion of Arabs compounded by political oppression and high rates of poverty. Another issue is the regime's land grab. Arabs should have as much right to own property as anyone else, but you will see places like Shirinshahr and the Ramin township which are being built on land taken by the regime from Arab land-owners - mostly small farmers and herders - to build houses for others moved in from outside the province. There is so much oil wealth in Khuzestan, far more than in the UAE or Kuwait. Arabs look at other Arabs in the Gulf and feel great resentment. Obviously, Arabs will feel apart from others.

Take a look at this article published this week in the Washington Times - [[19]] - which interviews Arabs in Khuzestan. It says:

Although many Iranian Arabs in border towns openly backed Iraq, the majority elsewhere did not, perhaps because they were mostly Shi'ite Muslims, persecuted under Saddam's rule. Saddam's rhetoric ultimately backfired. Rather than divide Iran, he helped unify it ... Ethnic Arabs complain that, as a result of their divided loyalties during the Iran-Iraq war, they are viewed more than ever by the clerical regime in Tehran as a potential fifth column, and suffer from a policy of discrimination ... "The government says we are traitors," said a man who said that, like most members of his family, he is unemployed. "But we are Iranians. It is the government in Tehran that is treacherous, because it refuses us equal rights."

I personally do not think that separatism is popular in Khuzestan nor do I think it is desirable. I am definitely against any union with Iraq. I think what many Arabs are demanding is an equitable distribution of resources, control over their own affairs, employment, an end to racism and social marginalisation and an end to forced displacement. This should be done within a broader drive for change within Iran, but the problem is the attitude towards Arabs that tends to exist in some opposition movements. Khuzestan is seen as remote and unimportant with Tehran the focus of activity, although in fact it is the motor of the Iranian economy. Arabs are seen as backward and reactionary, but they are among the poor and crushed and no revolution can be won by the middle-class alone. If anything, the protests among Arabs are bigger and more sustained than anywhere else outside Tehran. If Iran is to stay unified in the future and if separatism is to remain a small force, the Arabs' concerned must be heeded.

Nevertheless, any separatist who chooses non-violent means and abhors racism should not be maltreated. If Iran becomes a democracy in future, it is better that any separatists are involved in that democracy just as Scottish and most Basque nationalists are involved in British and Spanish democracies. You cannot justify expulsion or the imprisonment of anyone just because of their peaceful views or their culture. Let people worship the god they choose, let people celebrate the culture they want to celebrate and let people have the right to peaceful democratic expression.--Ahwaz 11:37, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Make the government of Iran so wise, so good, so fair that no one wants to leave. So that Turkmenistan and Azerbaijan clamor for unification, the same way nations try to join the EU :) Zora 11:57, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Ahwaz, I agree with you on a few points. The general sense of collective disparity amongst the Arabs of Khuzestan must be addressed, no doubt about it. I consider myself a hardcore nationalist but that shouldn’t blind me from reality. I myself live in a society where there is uneven distribution of both wealth and income, so I can relate to the Arabs in a way. That being said, your conception of a “separatist who chooses non-violent means and abhors racism” is in my view, acceptable under present day conditions. Quite simply, this is their only way of voicing their most earnest issues, which are otherwise deemed irrelevant in the Islamic regime’s parliamentary system. An apparatus which is impotent in addressing the needs of frontier populations of Khuzestan in particular.

Now, let us set up a scenario where all the people of Khuzestan had an equal share of representation in a future Iranian government. Let us also imagine a general equilibrium in terms of both provincial and national revenue distribution. In short, let us imagine an ideal Iran. Would it be fair to say in this case that Arabs who persist in causing unrest, furthering secessionist agendas, and purporting the superiority of regional Arabism, should in fact not be met with the prospect of expulsion? I am trying to meet you half-way here. Under the circumstances I have just stated, I believe banishment should be viewed as a legitimate option. There would simply be no need to consider separation when a national government is serving the needs of all provincial jurisdictions in an equal capacity. In an Iran based on equality, any separatist rhetoric under any circumstances should not be tolerated. Quite simply, there would be no need to raise the secessionist flag when you indeed have an equal share of the national podium. It is simply illogical to think otherwise. That’s my personal opinion. What do you think? --QajarCoffee 19:30, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Of course, if Arabs and other minorities had fair and democratic representation (rather than co-option and tokenism), a fairer distribution of resources and an end to discrimination and land confiscation, then the political and economic arguments for secession are fairly baseless. There is like you say no logic. I oppose all political violence, whatever the motives, so I would oppose anyone carrying out violent acts. Terror - state or opposition - cannot be tolerated. But if someone wanted to advocate a separate state in a peaceful manner, then they should be allowed to do so within the context of democracy. They can stand for parliament and make their case. I don't think it would be a threat to Iran since I don't think the separatist agenda has support even under the present circumstances. If you notice, in Europe and in Canada there are many groups wanting regional autonomy and separatism but they have been unable to win their case even in a democracy. You have Scotland, Basque country, Lombardy, Catalonia, Corsica, Quebec - all these places have democratic separatist groups and none have succeeded in a democracy. In Basque, the extreme separatists are frustrated because they have little public support. If Iran was democratic, a similar situation would occur. The immediate demands of the Arabs could be easily fulfilled and separatism would wither. The actions of the current regime are feeding separatist sentiment. Repression, expulsion and all these things have not worked.--Ahwaz 07:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Let us continue our discussion as if we were referring to the ideal Iran I brought up earlier. It’s interesting how you bring up the issue of Quebec. I’m not too familiar with the other secessionist movements you have mentioned so I will touch upon a brief juxtaposition of both Khuzestan and Quebec. In Canada, European colonization has fully subjugated the aboriginal population. The natives here have virtually no significant political power, in terms of proportional representation or even status. With that said, there is an intrinsic difference between the case of Quebec with that of Khuzestan. Iran’s Aryan population has never been fully put into submission by a foreign force. That being said, Iranians made no discernable attempt to expel newly arriving Arab populations in any particular epoch. There was a certain sense of accommodating these displaced peoples. This is something the Arab secessionists do not acknowledge. They simply do not respect that notion. From where I stand, I see the separatists as dishonouring this seemingly humanitarian policy. When I see Arabs of Khuzestan who relate more to peninsular culture rather than regional trends, it disheartens me. When I see Arabs who try to adopt universal Arabic rather than a Khuzestani dialect, it enrages me. To see a group of people ready to splinter an already ideologically fragmented populous, I believe something radical must be done. So in this ideal Iran we have pictured, where equality transcends ethnic and cultural lines, I believe expulsion and the dissolving of all separatist entities, be they individual or factional, should be seen as a viable option, under specific circumstances that would arise with each instance. Remember, I am referring to the seperatist movement after a revolutionary change in systemic governance. --QajarCoffee 23:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

QajarCoffee: I am not sure this political dialogue is appropriate here, but I can only reiterate my position that it is not the state's business to dictate what people should believe or how they live, so long as this is done peacefully. The expulsion of anyone for their beliefs on the basis of nationalism is a dangerous path to tred. Moreover, it is a breach of the UN Convention on Human Rights. If someone wishes to evangelise Christianity in Iran, there are some who would argue this is a threat to Iran's Islamic character. Even Sunni Islam is viewed as a threat to the state by some hard-liners. There are extremists who believe that Islam itself is alien to Iran and must be expunged - along with the "alien" beliefs of Christianity, Judaism and even Bahá'i! Anyone can define the character of a nation to exclude people, but this is not inclusive nation-building that you and I would like to see. There are, however, restrictions on any democracy. Many democratic states have banned those organising political movements based on religious and racial hatred and I think this would be necessary in any future democratic Iran, which would make it hard for separatist groups to use enmity with other ethnicities to argue their case.--Ahwaz 06:34, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

You're right, this is not an appropriate place to discuss these matters. I guess I am still used the whole discussion board format.Anyways, thanks for the quick response. --QajarCoffee 17:27, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

when the lock is lifted

To dos:

1. In the article, it should read "Isfahan University of Technology", not "Industial University of Isfahan".
2. The references that are used in the article (e.g. J. Lorentz, E. Daniel, et al) should be added to the References section at the bottom of the article. Having an unpublished dissertation as the only source of reference reflects poorly on the article.
3. Add or make mention of the following relevant Articles from the Constitution of Iran to the article:

Article 15:

"The Official Language and script of Iran, the lingua franca of its people, is Persian. Official documents, correspondence, and texts, as well as text-books, must be in this language and script. However, the use of regional and tribal languages in the press and mass media, as well as for teaching of their literature in schools, is allowed in addition to Persian."

Article 19:

"All people of Iran, whatever the ethnic group or tribe to which they belong, enjoy equal rights; color, race, language, and the like, do not bestow any privilege."

Article 48:

"There must be no discrimination among the various provinces with regard to the exploitation of natural resources, utilization of public revenues, and distribution of economic activities among the various provinces and regions of the country, thereby ensuring that every region has access to the necessary capital and facilities in accordance with its needs and capacity for growth."

These must be somehow incorporated into the article.--Zereshk 20:19, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure the Constitutional issue is relevant to this article, as it is more of a political issue best placed in the context of [Ethnic politics of Khuzestan], as you have done already. I think it is best to put the political matters in relevant sections and leave this article to deal with purely historical and ethnographical information. Otherwise, it will end up becoming indistinct from other articles.

As it is, I think the article could do with extension, particularly on the tribes of Khuzestan as well as traditions. The tribal system is more complex than portrayed here, with many sub-clans.--Ahwaz 10:53, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Population stats

Where's the low estimate of 500,000 coming from? Aucaman^Talk 22:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

The article gives Daniel Elton's book on Iran, p14 as reference.--Zereshk 05:44, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

What is the academic reasoning or knowledge you have to call it a low estimate. It always seems Acuman you want to have the heighest estimates for non-Persian ethnic groups in Iran? Why? How are you an expert on this field to boss others around? 69.196.139.250 17:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Please read what I wrote regarding a response I got from Elton Daniel himself - [[20]] - even he has some reservations and admits that his book is not academic but for a general readership.--Ahwaz 18:15, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, can we see some evidence of his response? Secondly, Britannica also mentions the "half a million" estimate. Thirdly, other sources that have been provided estimate the population at around 1 million. Personally, I find any number above 2 million to be absurd because it is extremely doubtful that Khuzestan's general population is even above 3 or 4 million, and this also conflicts with the CIA figures. The 1996 census (from the Iranian government) gives an estimate of 3.7 million for the general population. Also, this is from the State Department report:

Foreign representatives of the Ahwazi Arabs of Khuzestan, whose numbers could range from two to four million or higher, claimed their community in the southwest section of the country suffered from persecution and discrimination, including the right to study and speak Arabic. Violence also broke out during the year throughout Khuzestan, a sensitive region, given that most of the country's crude oil reserves are located in local onshore fields.

The report does not identify the source for the statement "whose numbers could range from two to four million or higher" which could have been provided by those UK-based organizations, rather than the State Department itself. At any rate, for these reasons, if the inflated range is to be included, then "500,000" should be included as well. My original intent was to provide a reasonable range between 1 to 2 million which adhered to two reliable sources, but apparently this wasn't good enough and now we have these revert wars.

Due to these circumstances, I suggest that the ethnobox be removed entirely, while keeping the picture of the Arab girl. SouthernComfort 19:43, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the deletion of the ethnobox. I don't know what "proof" I can give of Dr Daniel's statement apart from relaying you the contents of the email here.

You say that the US State Department's figures are not sourced, but the CIA's statistics are similarly not sourced. I don't understand why the CIA is necessarily more believable than the US State Department on this matter.

Can you honestly state that, in Khuzestan province, only around 10-15 per cent of the population is Arab, as implied by the 500,000 figure?--Ahwaz 07:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, This can help you: Population of the province in 2006. Diyako Talk + 22:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but that is simply a general population estimate from the government census. That estimate further makes the inflated figures more absurd and unlikely. SouthernComfort 22:21, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Contradiction:

• Total population: c. 500,000 to 4 million (estimates vary)
• Significant populations in: Khuzestan Province:
• 1,200,000 [1]
• (other estimates vary)

How total population is less than significant population?!Diyako Talk + 09:08, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Diyako: There is no dispute that there are Arabs outside Khuzestan, so the figure for all Arabs in Iran will be higher than the figure for Khuzestan. This is where the confusion is occurring, since most population estimates are related to the proportion of Arabs in the national population not in Khuzestan itself. There is a difficulty in extrapolating from the data what proportion of the Arab population in Iran lives in Khuzestan. But I agree that the 1.2 million does not fit well with the range given.--Ahwaz 10:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree wïth you. I wanted to ask that how total population can be smaller than population in Khuzestan. We all know that Arabs in Khuzestan are in majoiry and according to various sources their population in the province is between 60% and 70% (and may more). Then since population of the province is more than 4 million so the number of Arabs living in the province is definitely more than 2,5 millions. Diyako Talk + 10:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

It is not a fact that Arabs are a majority in Khuzestan, just as it is not a fact that Persians or any other group are a majority there. SouthernComfort 15:02, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

It is a fact, Britannica clearly says: More than half the population are Arabs i.e more than 2 millions Arabs live in the province. Other neutral non-Arab non-Iranian sources say 60%, 70% or even higher. I just want to clarify that the number of Arabs in the province is much higher than what is claimed in the article. Diyako Talk + 15:26, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but it is not a fact. That is your POV, and you ignore that other sources, which are far more neutral and reliable such as CIA and Ethnologue, conflict with those sources you call more "neutral." And Britannica only states that Arabs form "more than half" the population - how much more? And how old is that information? Diyako, when will you ever understand the meanings of "NPOV," "consensus" and "compromise"? Sigh. SouthernComfort 18:13, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

You came up with the solution. Take out the ethnobox and put in the full range of estimates in the text. Let others judge for themselves.--Ahwaz 19:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

An Amnesty International report puts the number of Arabs in Iran at between 3 and 8 per cent: [21] Amnesty states that the Iranian population is 70 million, which would put the Arab population at between 2.1 million and 5.6 million. This is, in fact, higher than the Bani Torouf figure! I favour the 2-4 million, as 5.6 million and 530,000 seem way off the broad range of estimates.--Ahwaz 10:20, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, other sources disagree with you. Again, I suggest that the ethnobox be removed since there will be no consensus as regards this issue. All the sources should be listed in the appropriate section with no preferential treatment given to any of them. SouthernComfort 15:02, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, I am fine with removing the box, if it means removing the protection status on the article. In fact, this is what User:Zora actually did, but an anon kept repeatedly re-inserting the box without discussion. Does anyone have any objection to the removal?--Ahwaz 16:07, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, she only took it once (I put it back in) [22] due to the image of Shamkhani and because you disagreed with the range I provided - "1 to 2 million," which again I felt was reasonable considering both CIA (2 million for Iran as a whole) and Ethnologue (1.2 million). The official government census for the general population which is estimated at 4.3 million as of 2004 - this would make sense, considering the general idea that the population is split fairly evenly between Arabs and non-Arabs. So 2 million to me seems the most accurate estimate. One thing you have to realize about the Ethnologue figure is that it's figure is limited to those who speak Khuzestani Arabic natively - there are many Khuzestani Arabs who are not "Arabic-speakers," especially those who grew up in Tehran or Isfahan, cities which have sizeable Khuzestani communities (both Arab and non-Arab). But anyway, it is best to remove the box since even if we both come to agreements, others may not agree and quite frankly, I want to see an end to this endless "factionalism."

One thing that is immensely disheartening to me through my experience on WP is this idea that Khuzestanis are all separated and alienated from each other, lines drawn in the sand according to ethnic and linguistic origins. Nothing could be farther from the truth. In Tehran, when we speak of the "Khuzestani community," we don't mean the "Persian Khuzestani" community or the "Arab Khuzestani" community or the "Lur Khuzestani" community and so on and so forth - we mean the "Khuzestani community" as in everyone who is from Khuzestan. Khuzestani gatherings in Tehran and Isfahan are not just Persians or Arabs, but everyone - you hear both languages spoken, and of course the prevalent Persian dialects are those from Ahwaz/Abadan/Khorramshahr. It's the same situation in Texas, which has a huge Khuzestani community. Some editors like to make it seem like Persians think about Arabs this way and that way - whatever the case might be elsewhere, in Khuzestan no one buys into that crap. History is history, and who came from where and when ultimately is irrelevant - if Arab tribes settled in Khuzestan hundreds or thousands of years ago, so what? Does that make them recent immigrants? What the hell? After hundreds or thousands of years, how the hell can one be a "recent immigrant"?

And that's one reason why, Ahwaz, I don't like those political groups in the UK, because they ignore the reality in Khuzestan, that it is diverse, that it is a great province because of the diversity, that both Arabs and Persians have so heavily contributed to the provincial culture together that they can never be separated. I'm not saying those groups are separatist, mind you, as we've already discussed that so long ago. But only that I find it depressing when they want to separate everything and everyone according to ethnicity. In Khuzestan people don't think that way. Not for a very, very long time. Why are there no groups representing the interests of all Khuzestanis? How come in Iran and here in the States Khuzestanis don't hold gatherings and festivals along ethnically exclusive lines? Perhaps it is because such lines of reasoning are alien to people in Khuzestan and they thus feel no need for such groups.

Enough of my ranting. I just wanted to clear the air here and make it known due to recent situations with the Iranian articles and the accusations being thrown around constantly after so long that I am tired of all this. This factionalism, bickering, arguments, racism, everything. SouthernComfort 17:17, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

What bugs me is that anyone who mentions Arab rights in Iran is dubbed separatist, when in fact there is a legitimate problem. I agree, there is no communal tension between Arabs and Persians in Khuzestan, but Arabs do have an issue with the central government - they demonstrate against the government not against the Persians. If there was no issue, Amnesty, HRW, UNCHR and others wouldn't be writing reports on land confiscation, human rights abuse and large demonstrations by Arabs in Khuzestan. It irritates me when even mentioning these problems is seen as "separatist" and this has happened to me on Wikipedia, despite the fact I have never even suggested it.--Ahwaz 19:12, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

No, you're not a "separatist." You're actually one of the more reasonable editors here on WP since you're willing to communicate and reach some level of consensus, so I certainly cannot agree with those who would lambast you in such a way. SouthernComfort 20:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I hope that we can work together on a consensual basis to improve the Khuzestan-related articles and overcome any differences in opinion. I don't know how long this locking lasts, but when it is lifted we should go about removing the ethnobox and including [User:Zereshk]'s suggestions.--Ahwaz 10:46, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Your welcome. It should be unlocked soon enough. Well, Zereshk has already incorporated that information in the "ethnic politics" article, so I think only a brief mention here might be in order. Also, the "ethnic politics" article has become far too large - the absolute first thing that needs to be done (and should have been done a long time ago) is to get the political groups out of there and into their own separate articles since there is enough material concerning each group. What are your thoughts? SouthernComfort 20:08, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that might be a good idea. I was thinking of adding more information as there has been more media coverage since the recent bomb attacks, which will make the article even longer. I have come across a lot of mention of the "National Liberation Movement of Ahwaz"[23], which has claimed responsibility for bomb attacks. These guys are based in Canada and California and run the Ahwaz TV[24], which is presented by people with accents that I don't think are from Khuzestan - perhaps Iraqi. The Khuzestan accent is softer. I am not sure whether they are the same as the Canada-based Ahwaz Arab Renaissance Party (which has also claimed responsibility) or are linked in some way. It seems there are three or four different groups putting their names to attacks, so most if not all are lying to get publicity.--Ahwaz 08:25, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

This website advertising the "Iran Freedom Concert" states that the Arab population is 5%: [[25]] - it's not an academic source and I don't know who is behind the website, but it shows the confusion surrounding ethnic statistics in Iran.--Ahwaz 18:16, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's because the government doesn't conduct any ethnic census, for political reasons or whatever. SouthernComfort 20:08, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

It seems that this article is permanently blocked by the administrators, despite the fact that there is agreement here.--Ahwaz 20:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Although not a native of Khuzestan, I know quite amount from just talking to people from there. I think the total population of the province is around 4 million. The majority of Khuzestan is inhabited by Iranic speaking groups (Lurs, Persians, Bakhtiaris, Kurds). I think we should do an area by area analysis although the mixed areas are where the census goes wrong. Okay we know Dezhful, Andishmak, Shushtar, Izeh, Masjed-e-Soleyman, Ramhormuz, Behbahaan, Aghaajari, Haftgel (some Kashkai tribes here), Dehdoz, laali, Baaghmak, Hendijan, Haft tepeh, and Bandar Imam are virtually Persian/Lur/Bakhtiari speaking. On the other hand in Shadegaan, Soosangard and Khorramshahr and some of the other areas in SW, there are more Arabic speakers or virtually all Arab speakers. Abaadaan and Ahvaz have people from all over Iran and it is impossible to estimate percentages here. Now what we need is a provincial population distribution. Also a good amount of Iraqi Arabic speaking refugees have entered the area, but they will probably move back if the situation of Iraq stabilizes. --Ali doostzadeh 08:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Every source I have come across states that the majority of the Khuzestan population is Arab, about 60-70 per cent. There is no source I have found that says that Arabs are a minority in Khuzestan. I disagree that some of the districts you mention are "virtually all" speakers of Persian tongues. There are also thousands of Ahwazi Arabs in Iraq, registered with the UNHCR. --Ahwaz 09:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

There is not any population statistics and if for example an Arab separatist claim that Khuzestan is predominately Arab, some internet sources might state it without examining it. You see other Iranians do not go around and say Khuzestan is that or this. The thousands of Khuzestani (and not Ahwazi) Arab speakers in Iraq do not count since then we would have to count all the people displaced from Khuzestan during the war and the overwhelming majority of them were non-Arabic speakers who moved to other cities. What counts right now is the current population. I think Lur/Persians are the largest group and you might think otherwise. I think a first step would be to get a district by district population of Khuzestan. Also it depends on the season as well, since large number of Bakhtiaris visit Khuzestan during one season or another. And I do not mean thousands but hundreds of thousands..I think by examining district by district we can get a good idea. At least in terms of Land mass, the majority of the land in Khuzestan is inhabited by Persians/Lurs except the SW part of it. Although again we may disagree. Also I think it should be mentioned in this article that Khuzestani Arab speakers are predominanetly Shia Muslims. --Ali doostzadeh

Some bare facts

Zora is living out of Asia, out of Iran, She\He have not enough information about Iran and Iranians, apprantly She\He hate Persians, and I think Zora is a racist.

User "Ahwaz" is Arab, so naturally, he believes that the Persian gulf + Kish & Gheshm Island + Little and Big Tonb Islands + Abomosa Islands + Khouzestan province + Bushehr province and even further more Spain are the Arabs' property.

The fact is that Khouzestan is the most important province of Iran.
because:

• contains 84% of oil and 70% of gas resources of Iran.
• providing 2/3 of Iran's electricity power.
• contains 3/4 useful water of Iran.
• providing near 3/10 players of national teams(such as football, golf, volleyball, etc).
• historically is the oldest part of Iran.
• Daniel, the Jew prophet 's tomb is in khouzestan.
• the first and the oldest university city was built in khouzestan.
• first dams were built by Persians 25 cen. ago in khouzestan.
• Susa(shoosh) was Achamanids' capital for more than 200 years, and also was the capital of some other empires before and after Achamanids.

and and and

Today Khouzestan have near 6 millions of Iran's population and Arabs and Iranian-Arabs are less than 2 millions.

There's no any effect of construction by the Arabs, since 1400 years ago Arabs always destroyed all things.

in Sassanid empire Ahvaz(Hormoz-Ardeshir in that times) was one the most prosperous cities of Iran, but what about present Ahvaz?

Arabs of Khouzestan do not like to respect anything, anybody, but they believe all the world must respect them.

Every Arab family have at least 7 children in order to outbreeding Iranians from Khouzestan.

About 83% of female Arabs are illitrated and this is because of that Arab men are too zealous about their wives.

1/4 of Arab men prevent their wives from delivering baby in hospital, they believe that male doctor are "na mahram" (see Islamic laws) to their wives. and this causes high death rate among female Arabs.

More than 18% of male Arabs have 2 or more wives.

55% of Arabs of Khouzestan are vilagers.

Khouzestan state TV plays Arabic programs 2 hours a day (=1/5 of daily programs).

Since 1000 A.D. Arabic is teaching in all the Iranian schools.

Six-most popular names in Iran are > Mohamad. Ali. Reza. MohamadReza. Hussein. Hasan. which are all Arabic(Semetic) names

more than 500,000 of Iranians died in war with an Arabic country(Eraq) and God know how many died in 600 a.d. invasion.

Arabs of khouzestan believe that Zoroastrians worship fire.

Arabs of khouzestan believe that all the languages (not 99%! they believe in 100%) are derived from Arabic.

They also believe that Hafez, Ebne Sina, and lots of other Iranian scientist were absolutely Arabs, even they believe that Prof. Hessabi was Arab.

Vahabi Arabs believe that killing 6 shi'it can bring them to heaven.

They also call Persian gulf, "al-khalij al-arabi" and also call Aravand river, "al-shat al-arabi".

You can even see "be'roh be'dam saddam..." grafittis in khozestan, which is means they support saddam by their lifes by their bloods. They have also hanged the pictures of saddam hussein in their houses to show their loyality to saddam. I saw even some of Arabs have saddam's photos in their wallets!

They also talking about Regaining Spain and even outbreeding Frenchs from france.

more than 90% of thieves and 70% of murders in Khouzestan are doing by the Arabs.

After Arab's terrorist attacks last year, State ministry[vezarate keshvar] and Security ministry[vezarate etelat] of Iran decided to renew their policies about non-Arabs of khouzestan and let non-Arabs to get more power and control Arabs, for example they want to encourage khouzestani peolpe who migrated to out of khouzestan during war to back to khouzestan. They also started a series of sudden home-to-home searchs and they found more than 300,000 illegal weapons (of any kind pistol, klashinkov, M3, RPG7, Bazooka, shotgun ... )

Arabs of khouzestan also provide weapons for smugglers in east of Iran

at first look they seems very happy, friendly and warm.

But, unfortunately, Arabs of Khouzestan are one of the most dangerous ethnic\language minorities.

at top of this page Zora mentioned that Persians and Arabs are one only their culture and language is different, but the fact is very far from her\his beliefs. Most of khouzestanis can recognize Arabs from non-Arabs in one look.

I think the subject of talk is not important for Zora; Zora only want to be a premenant anti-Persian.

That's all, "becharkh ta becharkhim... haghighat taghir napazireh" "You wanna play? so we play too ... the facts are not changeable" Sasanjan 05:33, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Please sign

Please Sign in your name when contributing so we can know who is saying what.--Zereshk 22:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)