Talk:Khuzestan province/Archive 1

Archive 1

Encyclopaedia Iranica

I have just finished an extensive chapter in Encyclopaedia Iranica about the history of the Arab tribes before and after the muslim conquest. It begins with the resettlement of some arab tribes in Ahvaz by Shapur II around 300 A.D., as a means to punish them since they had attacked Sassanids Empire from Bahrain. Then some Arab tribes settled in the region of Ahvaz during Ummayad and Abbassid dynasties. This follows by yet another arab tribe in 10th century during Buwayhids (Al-e-Buye in persian) dynasty. The last tribe, of course, is well known which is "Bani Ka'ab" as many of you already know. However it is important to notice that according to Encyclopaedia Iranica, it was only after 16th century that Khuzestan became extensively arabized. So probably, previous tribes did not manage to secure a big majority. ( or Arabs may have been a minority up to 16th century). However, the presence of tribes is undisputable. (from 300 AD ). The funny part is, it all started as a way to punish Arabs! It all looks like a historical joke!

I also added some links to the Siege of the Iranian Embassy in 1980 (from BBC), which according to most news sources, was a terrorist act, with some possible links to Saddam. Also some links about Human rights situation from HRW.

One more thing, The Encyclopaedia Iranica does not call the Arab/Muslim victory over Sassanids as (invasion), rather it calls it (conquest). So, Let's remain faithful to the history and don't be more Catholic than the Pope!

Heja Helweda 07:22, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Agree.--Zereshk 23:51, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Heja Helweda that may have been written by an unverifiable author, or written by an Student Encyclopedia because first of all Islamic law prohibited Arab Muslims from mixing with ``gentiles``(non-Arabs). Also, I clicked on the link you provided, it takes you to an empty page, then asks you to download an Adobe file. It may have been written by a student, but that certainly is not of encyclopedic magnitude. That seems to be the [only] source you have, and although hard to label something, but with all due respect that Adobe file could be written by anyone. Don`t you think an important thing about a culture`s race would be written in at least one Encyclopedia, like Encyclopedia Britannica or a dictionary? Zmmz 08:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Iranica is written by proper scholars, and now reached 13 vols in print, please refer to [1]. Also you should refer to The Encyclopaedia of Islam.--Kotoito 17:04, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality

If we want to be neutral on this issue then we have to explain all the historical facts. By the way, I have read all the discussions. Heja Helweda 00:57, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Good. If youve read the discussions, then you should know that we edit from top to bottom. Not the other way. Neutrality is not the issue here. Facts are. The evidence is by far overwhelming. "Arabistan" has turned into a political tool by the British (and Canada to some extent) to get back at Iran for its influence in Iraq and its nuclear issue.--Zereshk 01:55, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

The neglect of the regions in Iran are universal and not confined to Khuzistan. Very little money is spent outside of the five or six major cities in Iran. The dichotomy is not between Arab and Persian but rather the control of the resources by a clerical elite, who were imported by Shah Abbas from Jabal and Bahrain to standardise Shia Islam and are therefor of Arabic descent but through the many years of living in Iran have adopted the majority languages of Persia (eg Khatami) and Azeri (eg Khamenei) and still pride in their Arab descent by wearing their black turban of a seyyed.

The lack of rebulding in Khuzistan is appaling and Iranians owe a lot to the bravery of the Khuzistanies (not to mention the Kurds in the Western front)who have had a decisive role in saving Iran from Iraqi yoke. The fact is that Khuzistan through Elamite, Achemenian as well as Sassanid periods has often had a language other than Persian but has been the very heart of the Iranian state and culture.

The discussions about the independence for Khuzistan based on ethnic differences stems from a country that has hung onto Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales in spite of the will of the local people and smacks of hypocrisy. Gone are the days when an advanced country could divide the "natives" with publicising few choice historical "facts".

The fact is that Khuzistanies through their sacrifice throughout history have proven that they are forever Iranians and the rest of Iran because of their sacrifices should forever honour the group who are the greatest Iranians of our generation.

Other Former Names for Khuzestan

formerly known as Arabestan [2] or Arabistan [3]) Heja Helweda 00:06, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes. But before it was called "Arabistan", it was called something else. Guess.......khuzestan. See: Origin of the name Khuzestan.--Zereshk 00:10, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

neutrality?

This article seems to be written from a too pro-iran and anti-arab stance. I think it needs neutralization.

Can you mention some facts missing or is it just feeling? Pavel Vozenilek 17:21, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What's missing are periods of Babylonian, Assyrian, Greek, Roman, Arabic, Ottoman, and British rule. Also missing are the Kabide Emirate and the former name of the province, Arabistan. As are the Arab-speaking population of the province, who may be a majority (a Khuzestani Arab editor, Ahwaz, estimates that somewhere between 30-60% of the population is Arabic-speaking). Also missing is a link to the new article, Ethnic conflict in Khuzestan. The Iranian editors Vereshk and Southern Comfort are extremely active in this article, also in the Ahvaz, Iran-Iraq war, and Ethnic conflict in Khuzestan articles, trying to ensure that Wikipedia contains nothing that challenges their POV. Yes, I'm cranky <g>. I don't like being accused of being an Arab nationalist (or a Bengali!) when I try to bring back some balance. Zora 09:12, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

You are simply the most ignorant user I have ever come across on Wikipedia. It's absurd. I'm tired of responding to your racist ignorance, but I won't let you continue vandalising these pages. Go read the history books for yourself and stop relying on the racist propaganda of pan-Arabist websites. You make a lot of noise Zora, but in the end you cannot back up your claims or prove your revisionist history. SouthernComfort 11:19, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

---

1. The British? Actually, I also have access to extensive documentation about the British colonial rule, and how they instigated Arab secessionism in Khuzestan to protect their national oil interests. Great Britain has attempted to separate Khuzestan from Iran on 7 different campaigns during the past 300 years.(for our Farsi readers)
2. "Kabide Emirate"? I can also add an entire section about how the Kabide tribe emigrated to Khuzestan from Kuwait during the Zand Dynasty, and how Sheikh Khaz'al (who came from this tribe) first came up with the name "Arabistan". There's even a Goddamn district named after him and his family in Kuwait ("Khaz'aliyah").

The more Pan-Arab revisionists like Zora insist on this page being "Persian nationalist", the more we will throw in documentation illustrating the utter fallacy of their claims. (while making the page even more accurate)

No really, did you think it was that easy to claim the capital of the Persian Empire as Arab? We lost 1 million lives in a fuckin war against Saddam who made the very exact claims.--Zereshk 17:43, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Not to mention the fact that she is simply throwing around names of other empires like the Greeks, Romans, Arabs, Ottomans, ad nauseum. She simply has no education in Iranian history and doesn't seem to realise that Khuzestan has always been part of Iran as a nation. Next she will be claiming that Fars, Mazandaran, Gilan, and all the other 30 provinces have never been part of Iran. The whole thing with the Ottomons is just weird - last time I checked the Turks never ruled over any part of Iran. And as I have stated to her before, the British never ruled over Khuzestan - they did, however, try on several occasions to conquer the province, without any luck. It's funny you mention Saddam, because the butcher's uncle did promote this same sort of revisionist and racist propaganda against not only Persians, but also against Kurds and Jews.

It is clear to me that she is a hateful person with a grudge against Iranians, Shi'a, and who knows what other people. The historical facts have been presented, they are able to be verified, there are more than enough references on these subjects. When faced with all these facts, which can be referenced in any decent library, and yet she continues to attack these very same facts as being 'Persian nationalist.' Notice she is the only one making so much noise concerning this matter? This whole 'thing' of hers is just purely absurd. I've never seen such an extreme level of ignorance in all of my life. How many times will we have to deal with this insanity? SouthernComfort 18:38, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Politeness, please

Don't start a war between you. Discuss politely and try to get a solution to your argument. --Neigel von Teighen 14:34, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you, however I think you may also agree that it is extremely difficult and frustrating (and ultimately pointless) to debate with someone (Zora, in this case) who consistently denies established history and insists on pushing what is undeniably a 'pan-Arabist' agenda promoted by a fringe anti-Iranian political group which she picked up from their website. The revisionism (and blatant denial of established history) that she has attempted to promote is not accepted at all by any academic or scholarly source and I invite you, as a third-party, to research this for yourself. As far as I'm concerned the issue is closed as I do not have the time nor the inclination to entertain her denial of history in the name of furthering of a POV political agenda, which I personally and sincerely find extremely offensive. SouthernComfort 23:22, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Southern Comfort: I have tried to give a neutral account of Arab heritage in Khuzestan on the "ethnic conflict in Khuzestan" section and you and another have denied there is any Arab heritage (a revisionist standpoint), insisted that I was anti-Iranian (which I am absolutely not), deleted parts of what I wrote that did not conform to you beliefs and accused me of lying. There is absolutely no way anyone can write about the racism, forced migration, unequal access to education, healthcare and media or any other aspects of Persianisation apartheid enforced on the Ahwazi Arabs by the regime in Tehran. I think that sometimes you act as an apologist for these mullahs. No-one else is allowed to write on Iran but you and your friends.--Ahwaz 23:51, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

I did not delete anything that you contributed, so please do not start making things up. You did not even add anything related to the so-called 'Arab heritage,' instead focusing your efforts on these fringe (yes, fringe - find me some evidence that any Iranian Arabs support these groups) political groups, and I did not delete that section, and instead simply pointed out that the views of these groups adheres to historical revisionism and that it is uncertain whether Iranian Arabs support these groups or not. You call me an apologist for the mullahs? Who the hell do you think you are? My family is from Khuzestan, and I still have many relatives there, most of whom have suffered through not only the barbaric atrocities of Saddam's invasion, but also through the fact that the regime has almost totally ignored the restoration of Khuzestan - which has affected EVERYONE, not just the Arab minority or any other minority. The whole province has remained stagnant since the end of the war thanks to the regime. We've gone over all this again and again and again. As to your other comments, there is nothing in these pages that is historically inaccurate or false. Khuzestan has always been a part of Iran, and it's dominant heritage has always been Iranian throughout history. I challenge anyone to prove otherwise. SouthernComfort 01:06, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Southern Comfort: You are wrong on this. You are wrong that Arabs are a minority of just 500,000, when in fact there are 4.5 million Arabs in Iran, most of them in Khuzestan. I have shown you a document to prove this, but you still believe the Mullahs' lies. Arabs suffered the most from the Iran-Iraq War. It was Ahwazi Arab children who were forced to walk to their deaths in "human wave" attacks in the war, with the Persian mullahs promising them "paradise" for their martyrdom. It was Ahwazi Arab girls who were employed to carry out mine clearance. It was cities with Ahwazi Arab majorities - Khorramshahr, Abadan, Susa, Ahwaz City, Khafajieg, Shadegan, Susangard - that were worst affected. Ahwazi Arabs were the human shield in the war between two tyrannies. Only 10-20 per cent of Arab towns have been rebuilt since 1988, while the government is busy building new towns for "loyal" non-Arabs it is bringing into the province to change its ethnic make-up. The regime is planning to divert rivers in Khuzestan, such as the Karoon, to supply cities such as Kerman and deny Arabs access to vital water sources. The current regime, like the Pahlavis, is based on ethnic supremacy. The difference between the Pahlavis and the Ayatollahs is that the latter justify their racism through religion. The denial of Iran's multi-ethnic identity and the assumption that there is only one Persian identity is an aspect of this racial supremacy that has surfaced more than once on Wikipedia.--Ahwaz 11:58, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Firstly, my opinion that Arabs are a minority in Khuzestan is just that - an opinion, and we agreed to avoid any mention of the current ethnic proportion on these pages. Why do you keep bringing up dead issues? As for your other statements, they are extremely POV and cannot be backed up. Like I said, EVERYONE suffered through the war and under this regime - regardless of their ethnicity. To say that one group suffered more than the other is POV. The way you talk, you make it seem like Arabs are the only people who exist in Khuzestan and are the only ones having a hard time, which is totally false. By the way, have you ever considered that a lot of the 'non-Arabs' who are moving to Khuzestan are actually Persian Khuzestanis returning to the province after all these years? Anyway, this discussion has nothing to do with the fact that you and Zora have declared your intentions to rewrite what already are NPOV and factually accurate articles (Khuzestan and Ahvaz). SouthernComfort 15:50, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Of course my statements can be backed up. They are backed up by every human rights organisation and independent journalist who has visited Khuzestan and covered the Iran-Iraq War. Of course the Ahwazi Arabs suffered more from war than others. The war was largely fought in Khuzestan, where the Arabs are the largest ethnic group. Anyway, this is not simply a matter of factual accuracy, but putting forward the debates surrounding ethnicity and heritage in Khuzestan. You refuse to even consider publishing alternative viewpoints, unless they are accompanied by a refutation that they are make-believe. Is this not POV? Anyway, where have I declared my intention to rewrite articles? I just want to expand articles so they have some balance. I don't want to delete anything. You are the one who is rewriting and deleting content, not me. Show me one example of where I have done anything like rewriting content. I just want balance, that's all.--Ahwaz 17:38, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

---

We didn't agree. You kept deleting any discussion of population estimates, SC, and we got tired of putting up material that was excised as soon as put up. Neither Ahwaz nor I particularly want to play revert war. We'd just like you to allow other viewpoints to be represented!

You don't seem to get the idea of NPOV. You think it means "true". It doesn't. It means taking a neutral attitude as to existing controversies. If A and B believe in diametrically opposite POVs, the article should not take sides with A or B. It should say, A believes that, and present an accurate summary of the case, and then B believes that, and present an accurate summary of the case. Clearly, there are controversies here. There is ample evidence of ethnic unrest, discord, separatism, etc. I have also put up links to material discussing current historical trends questioning nationalist history. All that should be presented -- not as the truth, but as existing POVs. Ahwaz and I don't want to erase your views, we want them represented. If all views get an adequate presentation, if there are enough links to websites and books, then the reader can ponder the arguments and make up his or her own mind. It is NOT the purpose of a Wikipedia article to decide for the reader, to tell him/her what is the "truth". Zora 16:05, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Zora's intentions: sneaky vandalism

I urge all third-parties to see Ahwaz's talk page and Zora's comments there.

These articles, despite being historically accurate and using information from academic sources, have consistently been undermined by User:Zora. Other users and I have done our best to present the established, accepted history of Khuzestan and Ahvaz in the main articles, while Zora has attempted to undermine those efforts by flagrantly deleting accepted data by accusing us of 'Persian nationalism.' Her ideas concerning Khuzestan's heritage and history come from a number of fringe anti-Iranian 'Ahwazi' political groups - the views of which are NOT accepted by any academic or scholarly source. She considers any attempt to avoid historical speculation and revisionism on these pages to be 'censorship.' I disagree. I believe revisionism and denial of established history has no place in these main articles. If she wants to create separate articles that deal with revisionist history, then that's something.

This sort of behaviour on Zora's part would never be tolerated in any other location articles that have a great many contributors who are educated in the subject. Zora appears to now have gone to her admin friends in attempt to bully us into submission to her revisionist views, and has openly declared that she will rewrite these articles to fit her conception of NPOV - which apparently requires that speculation and historical denial be entertained in the main articles. Never mind the fact that many hours of hard work and research went into these articles - now she has declared that she wants to not only delete our edits out of spite, but also to promote her own revisionist agenda. Quite frankly I wish there were more knowledgeable editors here so that people like Zora cannot get away with their nonsense.

There is established and accepted history and then there is historical revisionism/denial. She has so far proven herself to belong to the latter group. As I said, this sort of behaviour would never be tolerated in any other main articles, and it should not be tolerated here. The way she is going about things, this will never end, and I have all the time and patience in the world to ensure that the facts remain intact within these articles. SouthernComfort 16:09, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

You are the bully here. You are imposing your version of truth and denying the fact that there is an academic debate about Khuzestan's history and ethnicity. So what if you think something is revisionist? Who are you to make this judgement? Unless these intellectual debates are reflected in Wikipedia without accusations of "revisionism", there is no chance that these entries can be regarded as NPOV.--Ahwaz 17:42, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Southern Comfort wrote: "There is established and accepted history and then there is historical revisionism/denial." I don't think you understand how history is DONE if you think that historians agree on what's true and then it is true forever more, amen. All history is interpretation; it isn't cut and dried. Historians are squabbling all the time about what the facts are and how they should be interpreted. I know this; I've done actual historical research, put in my time in dusty archives, contributed to published work (as a research assistant), and read a fair bit of historical debate. These debates can be rancorous, but the participants at least put on a mask of collegiality and mutual respect. (Though anyone with an experience of academe knows just how venomous someone can sound when saying "my esteemed colleague" <g>.)

Some theories are generally believed to be fringe, or eccentric, and if they are, they disappear soon enough. However, sometimes, in science or history, views that seemed nutso have been proved right (Wegener's theory of continental drift). That's one reason why the Wikipedia NPOV stance is useful; it allows for a presentation of multiple theories, some more received than others, and can be a starting point for real research on the topic.

SC, your insistence that there is only one view that is true, and it's yours, is actually contrary to the way history is done. Zora 18:19, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

These are not 'my' views, but the views presented by historians. The views you have presented came from these fringe 'Ahwazi' groups that are promulgated on their websites. Wikipedia is not a place for 'original research' - I believe there is a 'policy' (I'm not sure what the official term is here) article concerning this. If you want to go against the status quo, that's fine, but those views are revisionist any way you look at them, since they have never even been entertained by any academics, and don't belong in the main articles. You accuse me of 'Persian nationalism' and yet I have not linked to any nationalist websites nor have I attempted to promote a political agenda, but you have linked to the Ahwazi groups (in the 'Ethnic conflict' article which is fine), and attempted to present their revisionist views in the main 'Ahvaz' article, which is not alright. Like I said, Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia and not a forum for original research or revisionist theories, which from what I understand do not belong in the main articles but rather in separate articles dealing with those specific subjects.

I believe my arguments to be rational and reasonable since I am adhering to what has been presented by the majority of historians and academics. But you dispute their views. That's fine, I have no problem with that. But to alter the main articles to include the revisionist views of a fringe minority (and whose views are probably not even accepted by most Iranian Arabs) is, IMHO, not right and an incorrect way of going about doing things. As I've said, this sort of behaviour would not be tolerated in any other major article which has a significant number of contributors and admins watching the page.

As I've related, you can accuse me all you want of 'Persian nationalism' but none of my contributions (or Zereshk's, for that matter) have involved original research, and the revisionist views you want to present would constitute original research, whether your own or from these groups. There is a status quo and a majority consensus amongst academics and historians, and it is the established historical perspective which is to be found in the books that is found here. You're not going to find any support for 'Ahwazi' claims in any history books. SouthernComfort 19:16, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

As per Zereshk's original suggestion at the top of Talk:Ahvaz, feel free to contribute to The Al-Ahwazi separatism debate if you insist on promoting these revisionist views, rather than attempting to alter the established history presented in these main articles. I think that's reasonable enough. SouthernComfort 19:40, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

No, it's not reasonable. You can't censor other POVs. Zora 19:59, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

That's not a proper response. If you attempt to deface these pages with your historical revisionism, you will be violating Wikipedia policy since you are attempting to introduce original research based upon blatant historical revisionism and denial. Invite as many admins here as you possibly can, and I will do the same. I believe everyone will be able to see for themselves that you are waging a war in the name of political propaganda (and I have no idea why you would possibly want to do so). Your inability to communicate and mount a proper, reasonable response based on factual history has been evident throughout, with your reliance upon political propaganda websites, and all you can do is accuse me of 'Persian nationalism' and 'censorship.' I will no longer tolerate this nonsense, and as far as I'm concerned, this discussion is over. SouthernComfort 20:56, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

NPOV tag

The only fact here's not discussed it's that there's a neutrality dispute between Zora and SouthernComfort. Thus, I have added the {{npov}} tag into this article. Please, don't remove it until there's no solution. --Neigel von Teighen 20:59, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

I think it's fairly obvious that there can be no proper resolution since Zora is emphatic in her insistence to include historically revisionist data in this and the Ahvaz article, despite the suggestion to her that she keep those speculative and controversial views in a separate article. I have challenged her a number of times to prove that these pages are historically inaccurate and POV, and she has not done so. I have grown tired and frustrated at having to justify the facts as they have been presented by academics and historians - all of whom Zora disputes. I have requested that another admin come here for additional help, and I believe the only ultimate solution is to take this for a 'request for comment'. SouthernComfort 21:13, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Done: I have listed Talk:Ahvaz and Talk:Khuzestan into Requests for Comment. Notice that these are not RfC against any user, but for making people come here and express their opinions. --Neigel von Teighen 21:32, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. SouthernComfort 21:44, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

In my mind, there is no need for a dispute. Whatever is currently written on all the sections disputed - Ahvaz, Khuzestan and Ethnic Conflict in Khuzestan - can more or less remain, with a few changes to ensure NPOV. What I - and I think Zora - are disputing is that the full range of historical argument is being suppressed. Whether you think it is revisionist to mention Arab claims of sovereignty and independence in Khuzestan is beside the point. The fact is that the claims exist and there are scholars who back this thinking. So why not give people the chance to decide for themselves the full spectrum of opinion, rather than just giving one school of thought? I can't see what Southern Comfort's problem is. There is an argument over Khuzestan, there have been wars fought over this argument. Why not lay the argument out in a neutral fashion?--Ahwaz 23:21, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

How many times have I said that I have no problem with you including these ideas you have listed above, but that they do not belong in the main articles. If you read my recent comments further above I made the suggestion that Zereshk made awhile back, that a separate article be created dealing with these political issues and 'Ahwazi' claims. But they don't belong in the main articles. My dispute is not with you, since you have not attempted to promote any revisionist ideas in the main articles, nor have you declared your intention to rewrite or reword the articles as Zora has done. Zora has rejected my suggestion for the separate article, which again, I have no problem with. I am done dealing with her since it is absolutely pointless and frustrating.

As I stated before, I never attempted to delete any of your edits regarding 'Ethnic conflict in Khuzestan' (instead pointing out that the Ahwazi political groups promote a revisionist history which does not conform with the accepted history) and I accepted your idea that any mention of ethnic census be excluded, since this would be impossible to determine realistically, and I'm not sure why you brought that up before, but I'd like to leave it as a misunderstanding.

And I'm not the only one who believes the history that these political groups promote is revisionist. Their ideas just do not fit in with what historians (most of them non-Persian) have set forth. On this issue, we will never agree. But as I've said, I have no problem with a separate article setting forth this controversial 'Al-Ahwaz' POV of history. I would suggest to any neutral observer who is interested to visit the 'Ahwazi' websites listed in 'Ethnic conflict in Khuzestan' and compare their historical ideas with the established histories set forth by virtually all academics and historians if there is any doubt that those ideas are revisionist or not - they are simply not accepted by the academic community, whether in Western countries or in Iran itself. I simply do not believe that politics and revisionist histories should enter into the main articles.

Furthermore, there is no evidence that there ever has been any widespread support amongst Iranian Arabs for these 'Ahwazi' groups, all of which (as far as I know) are based in the U.K. and Europe. Their claims of sovereignty and revisionism aside, I do agree that the Iranian Arab community has to deal with a lot of problems, and that there is great poverty in their areas, but that this is not a result of 'Persian chauvinism' but due to the regime of the Islamic Republic, which has oppressed all Iranians. You will remember that Shamkani (Defence Minister) is an Iranian Arab, and most of the Khuzestan government is made up of Iranian Arabs as well. So I do not believe that 'ethnic conflict' is the primary cause of Iranian Arabs' problems, but that their problems stem from the regime. That's my opinion. At any rate, I think that dealing with issues in a separate article specifically pertaining to Iranian Arabs is a good idea since there are no articles in Wikipedia (as far as I know) that deal with the Iranian Arab community.

So there could be two articles - one dealing with the 'Ahwazi' revisionism, and another dealing with the current realities of the Iranian Arab community (leaving out the politics of 'Ahwazi' groups) as I had originally suggested. What do you think? SouthernComfort 00:20, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

"there is no evidence that there ever has been any widespread support amongst Iranian Arabs for these 'Ahwazi' groups, all of which (as far as I know) are based in the U.K. and Europe."

... apart from the fact that there are frequent riots in Khuzestan by Ahwazi Arabs. You really know little of the situation of Arabs in Iran if you think that they do not have sympathy for groups advocating self-determination of various forms and claim there is no presence of separatism in Khuzestan. This is delusion. Anyway, no genuine opposition to the regime can exist in Iran. All opposition groups are in exile, no matter their ideology: communist, separatist, monarchist or others. The fact that they are living abroad does not mean that their opinions are invalid. You are a Khuzestani Persian living outside Iran, but I do not doubt that your opinions have some following among members of your community within Iran. So why doubt the validity of separatists and their following? They did not appear from thin air.

It is also not true that most of the Khuzestan government is Arab. Only two or three of the 25 ministers are Arab. This number falls to around 5% at a provincial level. None of the Friday imams in Ahwaz City are Arab, although Arabs are the largest ethnic group there.

Perhaps ethnic conflict is rooted in economic disparities in Khuzestan and the repression of the regime in power, but it exists all the same. This does not mean that other parts of Iran are not faced with problems. Evidently, the regime is a problem for everyone. But in the context of Khuzestan, the Arabs are the most downtrodden and the other ethnic groups are given pivileges and land - I do not blame them, I blame the government. The government's own statistics and quotes from Majlis members and government ministers confirm these facts. It is a situation peculiar to Khuzestan because of its unique contemporary history, its ethnic make-up and the effects of the war.

Ali Shamkani is a butcher, a man conscripted because of his penchant for murder and torture. He has little interest in Arabs or any other ethnic group in Iran. He is the worst of the worst. Please, don't make him the representative of Iranian Arabs.

I don't see how you can separate the poverty of the Ahwazi Arabs from their political situation. The problems are being politicised and this is the reason why the April riots occurred. No-one riots in Iran unless they have good reason to, because of the implications to one's life, liberty and well-being.

I would like your assurance that if I post anything to "Ethnic Conflict in Khuzestan" that we can discuss any points of disagreement and come to an amicable agreement, instead of finding that things disappear or get radically changed. I cannot claim to be a scholar of history or all the arcane debates over etymology, but I know something of the situation there as I am interested in the human rights of Ahwazi Arabs. I am not, however, a separatist. I cannot see how separatism can be constructive, progressive or a viable strategy.--Ahwaz 01:38, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Firstly, I think there has been a great misunderstanding between us. If I understand correctly, you are not against the Iranian heritage and history of Khuzestan - that is, you are not disputing this. But, what you do want is further mention of the Arab history of Iran - for example, the Arab secessionist movements which began in the 1800's under Sheikh Kha'zal - am I right so far? I'm not against this either, and I think a separate article linked to the history section of 'Khuzestan' dealing specifically with the details (since it would be much too long for the main article) of Sheikh Kha'zal and his background and his political situation with the British and so forth, that this would be a good idea.

Aside from Sheikh Kha'zal and the British-backed secessionist movements, which honestly, I don't find to be representative of Khuzestani Arabs heritage, since their heritage (Iranian Arabs) is closely tied in with the overall Iranian heritage, just as with Iranian Persians, Kurds and Azeris. Iran has always had a multiethnic character, after all. I have no issues with these points at all. My issues are with the modern 'Ahwazi' groups (which are a recent phenomenon) that promote a revisionist history. Sheikh Kha'zal himself, for example, was never an Iranian in the first place, whereas Iranian Arabs themselves have been in Iran since Islamic times (similar to those Arabs in Iraq and Bahrain who were of Persian descent but became assimilated into the Arab culture there, and then returned to Iran after many years and retained the Arabic character - but this is only making things more complex). Again, I have no issues with that.

I don't like Shamkhani either - I was only pointing him out in this discussion as an example (a bad one, I admit) of an Iranian Arab in a very high post. As for Khuzestani Arabs and their attitudes towards the 'Ahwazi' groups - obviously this is difficult to determine. For example, I know many Arabs in Khuzestan and I have never heard any of them say anything positive about these groups. But this is my personal experience and obviously cannot enter it into the article. So this is something that I think will not be settled, similar to how a real ethnic census cannot be determined.

Actually, Ahwaz, I disagree that you think I have no understanding of Iranian Arabs' realities. I know exactly what they are going through, since my family is from Khuzestan and I have visited the province many, many times and have seen the massive poverty amongst both Persians and Arabs - though it is true that the Arabs have to deal with other issues as well such as a certain level of prejudice and suspicion. How much racism there is, and whether racism is prevalent and so forth - again these are all based upon personal experiences, and I'm not sure it's a good idea to go too far in delving into these matters. Even human rights groups have a difficult time determining what is going on exactly in Khuzestan, amongst both Persians and Arabs and their day-to-day realities.

Anyway, as to your last point, you do have my assurance and as I said before, I never radically changed anything in that article ('Ethnic conflict') to begin with. I only pointed out that these groups promote a view that is not in accordance with accepted history (which is revisionism - and that's fine, so long as it's recognised as such). It's obvious that we are never going to agree on many things, but I will say that in addition to 'Ethnic conflict,' an additional article dealing with Iranian Arabs (without the 'Ahwazi' baggage) would be a good idea, and again another one dealing with Sheikh Kha'zal. The Sheikh Kha'zal one might end up being a problem since we have such different viewpoints, but I'm sure there are some NPOV sources out there that can be referenced.

So, we are agreed that the main articles (Khuzestan and Ahvaz) are fine as they are, and that two additional articles should be started, linked with the main articles? If not, what are the points of contention as far as the main articles are concerned? SouthernComfort 02:31, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

SC, you are trying to talk to Ahwaz only and ignore me. As far as I'm concerned, the article is not NPOV unless I sign off on it too. I have enough of a history on Wikipedia at this point that many people know that I am not needlessly obstructive. I have worked on some of the most disputed, most vandalized articles in Wikipedia and helped come up with compromises that have quieted disputes. I have been offline for a while, hence couldn't respond immediately. I am waiting for one book, a pre-Islamic list of towns and cities, to arrive, and then I'll try yet another rewrite. Who knows, maybe the book will prove you right ... Zora 02:29, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Sheikh Khaz'al

I have started the Sheikh Khaz'al article, which is currently a stub. Feel free to expand. SouthernComfort 07:35, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Ethnic conflict and Iran-Iraq war

I have also removed the 'See also' links to Ethnic conflict in Khuzestan and Iran-Iraq war from the Ahvaz article (since they are already linked elsewhere in that article), and placed them here in the main Khuzestan article (though Iran-Iraq war is also linked elsewhere in this article). SouthernComfort 08:09, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

I have made many minor edits in order to further achieve NPOV, which I believe it already was to begin with, but nevertheless. Most especially references to which group has constituted a majority in recent decades have been removed. In the meantime I will attempt to find official ethnic demographics from the pre-revolutionary era if they exist for the history section, but I suspect they didn't exist back then either since I have a number of books from the Pahlavi era, none of which mention this sort of information. Some further information concerning the illustrious Sheikh Khaz'al (and his Kuwaiti origins) has also been added, which is also given on his page. The 'History of Iran' table has also been added to the history section to aid the user in the chronological navigation of Iranian history, which is necessary in order to understand Khuzestan's place in Iran. Information possibly considered trivial like the referemce to the Persian Khuzestani diaspora in Texas has also been removed for now. Though I will be going over the history section again, which I don't mind since I love going over the source material, I think it's safe to say that this article is as NPOV as it's going to get.

And once Ahwaz has started the articles concerning Iranian Arabs and their culture and current realities/problems (and any other articles related to Iranian Arabs), those should be linked in the 'See also' section here. SouthernComfort 10:23, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Ethnic conflict in Khuzestan

Ahwaz, I have made major changes to Ethnic conflict in Khuzestan. Let me know what your thoughts are. SouthernComfort 02:54, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

I feel that the article on ethnic conflict is fuller and better written now, although I would argue that Arab autonomy in Khuzestan goes back further than Sheikh Khaz'al and that Iran as a nation state, rather than an empire, was a relatively recent phenomenon in itself. You are right to state that Iranian Arabs had no concept of Arabistan as a nation, but likewise they had no allegiance to an Iranian state. I don't believe that Arabs ever considered themselves a part of any nation - Iranian, Ottoman or anything else - prior to Reza Shah; their loyalties were to their tribe, blood bonds that continue today. These bonds cross national boundaries and were the reason why Sheikh Khaz'al was able to use tribal loyalty to shore up his rule. OK, he was from what is now Kuwait, but the reason why he was important in Khuzestan lies in the complex tribal bonds in that region. The British could not have just planted an Arab leader without some acceptance by the tribes.

Nationalism originates in 19th century European liberalism and tied ethnicity to an understanding of nationhood, which defined territorial borders. Empires have rarely been based on ethnicity and tend to operate through influencing local elites. In the case of Khuzestan, I would argue that the Arab tribal leaders always had some de facto autonomy and were distinctive from Persian identity, even when they were happy to act under the auspices of Persian rulers. Persian rulers never felt the need to repress other cultures under their rule. This is the case with almost all empires, perhaps with the exception of the Japanese empire.

The imposition of modern European concepts of nationhood on the Middle East - including Reza Shah's rule - and the desire of Europeans to control the strategic territories and resources of the Middle East led to the creation of exclusive national identities and arbitrary territorial borders. Added to this is urbanisation and the creation of national economies, which undermined the importance of traditional tribal economies. This is my understanding of the issues surrounding the debate on identity and nationhood and the grievances that have arisen, both political and economic. When nationhood is equated with ethnicity, naturally some Iranian Arabs will seek a separate nation state as a solution for the problems they perceive. This is why Arab unrest and ethnic tension (perhaps ethnic conflict is too strong) are a phenomenon of modern Iran that were not seen in the past. Such an analysis can be applied to other areas in the Middle East and parts of Africa where ethnic politics is a contemporary phenomenon. -- (I believe this is by Ahwaz) Zora 01:04, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, to answer your first points, one problem is in the definition of 'Arab'. You see, while I agree with you that none of the Iranian tribes (Arab, Bakhtiari, Luri, Qashqai, Baluchi, etc) had any particular allegiance to a 'state' - and I believe this is reflected well enough in the paragraph throuh their conflict with Reza Shah - nevertheless, they were Iranian and considered themselves as part of Iran as a 'nation' ('nation' as distinct from the Eurocentric/European idea of 'nation-state').

The thing is, you had these Arab tribes (non-nomadic) who began entering Khuzestan as part of the British colonial campaigns - but you also had Arab tribes (nomadic) in Iran who had been living in the 'Arab areas,' so to speak, for many hundreds of years and had a distinctly different Arab identity (which I will refer to as Iranian Arab) from these foreign tribes. On top of that, you have those Iranian Arabs who are descended from the Abbasids and thus have both Arab/Persian ancestry, though retaining the Arabic language and 'Iranian Arab culture'.

Now, I can't prove any of this in an encyclopedia article, since I think this would go too far in constituting original research, I think you will agree that there is indeed a Iranian Arab culture and ethnicity which is distinct from the wider culture of the Arab world. We don't have to put this into the article, but what I'm saying is that the situation of Arabs in Iran is far more complex than simply reducing them to being the same as Arabs from Kuwait or Saudia Arabia, for example. These issues of Iranian Arabs also goes in line with Bahraini Arabs - when Bahrain separated from Iran (again due to British pressure and Pahlavi's flawed policies), many, many Iranian Arabs (who were mostly wealthy elites) left there and settled in Khuzestan, most of whom were originally from Khuzestan anyway. You see where I am going with this? That (most) Iranian Arabs are a distinct Iranian ethnic group like Lurs, Bakhtiaris, Azeris, etc. But like the Azeris, they speak a non-Indo-European language - in this case, Arabic. But as with Azeris who speak a Turkic tongue (and who are themselves related to Persians and Kurds and other Iranians despite their language) that doesn't make them any less Iranian. I'm not saying every single Arab in Iran is like that since you have the tribes of Kuwaiti origin that came in during the 1800's, but that most of them are.

As for Sheikh Khaz'al, that itself is a very complex story and I agree that tribal issues played a huge part in that. I will give you my personal opinion on the man. I don't see him as necessarily a bad guy, but just very severely misguided. And though of Kuwaiti origin, he did end up becoming 'Iranianised' somewhat (the fact that he was always referred to as 'Khaz'al Khan' even by other Arab leaders speaks volumes), and with his royal lineage IMHO, he could have become a major figurehead and advocate for Iranian Arab tribes and do for them what major Luri and Bakhtiari tribal heads for their people and struggle against the central government not out of secessionism, but for justice. Instead, he allies with the British (who had manipulated the Qajars into incompetence and malaise), and decides to take out a small chunk of Khuzestan and create an 'emirate'. IMHO, this activity hurt Iranian Arabs more than anything else, as it was used to justify Reza Shah's racist policies. This Khaz'al unfortunately had delusions of grandeur and wanted to become the ruler of all 'Arabia' (all Arab lands from Mesopotamia to north Africa, I'm presuming). My great-great-grandfather actually the knew the man very well, believe it or not. But that's another story which I will not get into at this time. ;)

Anyway, utimately I agree with you that there were no conflicts until European colonialists (IMHO if it wasn't for the British and the Russians and Qajar incompetence, Iran would be in a much better state today) and the Iranian central governments began fomenting unrest through the suppression of the various Iranian tribes in the name of national unity, which had always existed since ancient times anyway. You have to remember that there is a reason Iran, as a nation (distinct from racist Eurocentric ideas), has survived despite all the invasions and attempts to ethnically cleanse all of us from the planet. I added an article to the links section - you may find it interesting as it delves into these ideas further, separating the idea of 'Iranian nationalism' from the nationalism of the Western world (which is a modern idea and based on racist ideas). SouthernComfort 21:49, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

---

Bravo! Well stated! let's put this in the article! Zora 18:24, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Um, I didn't mean SC's version, and its mythical national unity, I meant Ahwaz's edition, which he didn't sign. I'll do it for him. Zora 01:04, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

I like to see you discussing civilly. --Neigel von Teighen 23:56, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Neigel, you have to realise that Zora emphatically denies Iranian history (which Ahwaz has not disputed) due to her political views. I don't want to start levelling accusations again, but her viewpoints reflect a specifically racist Eurocentric view which sees everything from a racial/ethnic standpoint and she wishes to impose her POV revisionist ideas on the 'Khuzestan' article which is totally out of line.

Huh? I fail to see where I'm either a racist or Eurocentric. I am skeptical of nationalism, but that is NOT an uncommon viewpoint in academia. Here's a link I posted previously, to the syllabus of a graduate course in history at the University of Oregon, [4], where a list or readings on nationalism and historiography is given.

I'm objecting to two strands in your versions of history:

• • An attempt to suppress or rewrite anything having to do with an Arab heritage in Khuzestan. Refusal to allow posting of Arab population estimates, etc. It seems like suppression of politically inconvenient material to me.

When have I attempted to suppress the history and heritage of Iranian Arabs in Khuzestan? The main article summarizes the ancient and modern history. I originally suggested a separate article dealing with the Iranian Arab history which would be too long for the main article. You seem to think I have a problem with Iranian Arabs. I don't, and I think my recent contibutions display my willingness to show the larger picture.

• • An insistence on projecting nationalism far back into the past, and seeing everything that happened in the territory now called Iran as necessarily Iranian. As the readings from the graduate seminar suggest, there has been a strong tendency for historians to do this without even consciously realizing the choices that they're making, which is why you have found so many citations for this "nation triumphant" version of history. But this is not the only possible way to write history, and there are a great many historians now attempting to address history on its own terms, without anachronism. This view should be offered as well. This is not directed at you, or Iran, or Persia; it's directed at ANY nationalist history. Zora 03:03, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

These are your opinions and that's fine. However, this is an encylopedia and the main article should adhere to established history and data provided by historians. Why do you have a problem with this? To delve into 'historical revisionist' speculation and theories would require separate articles which deal specifically with those ideas - which, by the way, are not accepted by any historians anywhere. Like I said, the main article should provide the established history, in summary. There is plenty of history dealing with various Khuzestani groups such as the Bakhtiaris, Luris, Shushtaris, Behbahanis, nomadic Arabs, urban Arabs, etc etc. Those don't belong in the main article.

I won't allow her to do that. She also seems to have a problem with Iranians (and especially Persians) in general. I honestly don't care.

That is also just plain wrong. Ask my friend Monir, who taught me how to cook rice properly. Just because I argue with you and Zereshk doesn't mean I don't like Persians. Zora 03:03, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, I think it's safe to say that you are ambivalent towards Iranian history and civilisation. Zora, you seem to forget that Iran is not just Persians, but many groups who share a common history - and this includes the Arabs of Iran! Why is this so hard for you to accept?

I and other users have done our best to present history as it is, as reflected by the historians themselves. Zora, on the other hand, condemns the historians and labels this history as being solely derived from my own opinions, which is nonsense. She wants to introduce her own 'original research' which not only goes against Wikipedia policy, but is also historically incorrect and blatantly revisionist. That sort of thing doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. If she insists on continuing this nonsense, I will continue to fight her every single step of the way. People look to Wikipedia for the facts, not personal opinions and political propaganda. SouthernComfort 01:45, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

There is no ONE history. There are various interpretations of history. Please tolerate ambiguity and multiple POVs. Zora 03:03, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Oh, come on. Why don't you go around to other location articles and impose this view on them as well, and see how far you get. For example, go to the History of California article and provide the viewpoint of Mexican nationalists and see if that's acceptable. This is a location article for heavens sakes, not a forum for politics and speculative history. Not even Ahwaz wants to impose this view here. First your problem was only with the etymology of the name 'Ahvaz.' Now you want to completely rewrite history! Where does this absurdity end? People come to Wikipedia to get the facts, separate from the speculation and revisionism. If I am a student in university and needed historical data on Khuzestan, I would want the established viewpoint of the status quo, NOT the viewpoint of political groups or fringe historians.

Your thinking is flawed, Zora. To give an extreme example, if you were to attempt to impose such speculative history on the Jewish holocaust, you would immediately be condemned as an anti-Semite. The established history states that six million died - period. To debate otherwise is not only to enter into historical revisionism, but also verges on the denial of history.

If you still disagree, you can take this to some sort of arbitration and I think they will agree with what I'm saying, since my arguments (that only established history be referenced in the main articles) are applied to just about every single article here. Iranian history has not been ambiguous or vague - it has been thoroughly documented and recorded and is a major field of study amongst academics. Not even Ahwaz is disputing any of this - his original contentions were that there were no articles dealing with the current realities of Iranian Arabs, as well as the history of important Arab figures in Iran such as Sheikh Khaz'al. I have been working to help solve that dilemma and I hope he continues as well. But to deny Iranian history? That makes no sense.

Furthermore, you seem to think that the issue of Iranian Arabs is all very cut and dry. It's not. They are a diverse group. Most of them do not adhere to these 'Ahwazi' groups, just as most Iranians do not adhere to any of the 'opposition' groups operating in exile. So to lump everyone in a single convenient category (which is typical of Western 'Orientalist' attitudes towards the Middle East) is tantamount to racism and prejudice.

As for census figures, Ahwaz and I agreed that to speculate who is the majority and who is not is pointless since there are no official ethnic census figures. Why do you insist on bringing this issue up again and again? Speculation has no place in these articles. I even removed all references to ethnic proportions in this article! What the hell else do you want? SouthernComfort 03:34, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Eureka! the mother lode

Ferocious googling and work with my Questia account (my online access to a somewhat spotty scholarly e-library) has turned up a gold mine of references to nationalism and historiography, in particular, this article [http://www.cas.ilstu.edu/history/mtavakol/academic/courses/272/matriotic-matriotism.htm} by a history professor who might be Iranian, Mohamad Tavakoli-Targhi. In the linked article, he discusses the birth of modern Iranian nationalism in the Qajar period. He says:

A shift towards historical epistemology has altered the nature of scholarship on modernity, nation-state, and nationalism.[2] Departing from the objectivist, eurocentric, and nationalist historiographies, postcolonial scholars have began to explicate “the nation” not as a concrete and observable reality but as a modernist style of collective imagination, societal organization, and self disciplining.[3] Rather than narrating the natural history of a nation, epistemological approaches historicize the nation as a category that structures thought-ways, patterns of identity, and the remembrance of the past.

Perhaps it will be convincing if an Iranian male says it. He's a director of the Society for Iranian Studies, and a professor at the University of Illinois and the University of Toronto. Is that eminent enough?

Here's the syllabus for one of his older courses: [5]

This is a trendy view among historians, but not necessarily the dominant view. Here's a quote re nations before nationalism:

Duara makes two important claims about history and nations that have significant implications for the study of China's history. The first is that historical actors and historians incorrectly assume that nations are cohesive and self-conscious collective subjects. The second is that nationalist consciousness is emphatically not anew or modern form of consciousness, unique and without precedent in history. The twin assumptions of cohesive subjectivity and historical uniqueness have gained wide currency in studies of nationalism through the work of Karl Deutsch, in the 1960s, and in more recent studies by Ernest Gellner and Benedict Anderson who, for all their skepticism on other matters, assume that the nation is a novel and cohesive subject in their studies of the social, cultural, and economic institutions held to be responsible for its creation. <a few sentences snipped> By taking the nation as a site of contested subjectivities, and not a subject in itself, Duara opens the way to the study of earlier forms of community as constituent elements of the modern nation.

This is from A Symposium on Prasenjit Duara's Rescuing History from the Nation, journal article by Uradyn E. Bulag, Prasenjit Duara, John Fitzgerald, John Lie; Bulletin of Concerned Asian Scholars, Vol. 29, 1997

I can see why I didn't come across this material earlier -- I don't like the whole pomo, subaltern theory schtick and I avoid it. But it seems that pomos are the ones who have taken Gellner and Anderson and run with their ideas. Well, there it is, proof that I'm not doing "original research" -- I'm just an imitator <g>. Zora 05:32, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

And exactly what, pray tell, does any of this have to do with the history of Khuzestan exactly? SouthernComfort 06:33, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

You are writing nationalist history. That is not the only way to do history. There are Iranians who say so. Zora 07:01, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Zora, you just vandalised the Ahvaz article by deleting the whole section and rewriting it to basically the same thing as was presented before. Also the bit about 'Ahwazi separatists' is POV in that article, as well as mention of 'forced Persianisation.' That's why Ethnic conflict in Khuzestan exists. SouthernComfort 06:41, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Editing is not vandalism. Nor it is wrong to mention an alternate theory of the name's origin in the etymology section. I'm willing to present both theories; that's NPOV. Your insistence that one theory be suppressed, because you don't like it, is contrary to NPOV.

I edited the section drastically because it was too long and confusing, and way out of balance with the rest of the article. I just looked at it again and it still seems clunky. We've given the history twice, which doesn't seem necessary. I'll go at it again. Zora 07:01, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

"... the rude tribes of the Iranian plateau"? That's what you added to the Ancient History section. So much for NPOV. What the hell was up with that anyway? The rest that you added to that section is already contained in the Elamite Empire article. The Ancient History section of Ahvaz should only contain information pertinent to that city. I would not object to shortening the etymology section of Ahvaz, since it is already given treatment in the main Khuzestan article - or simply removing the section altogether if it bothers you that much, again, since it is already given treatment in the main article. I do object to the mention of 'Ahwazi separatists.' SouthernComfort 07:11, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

The way Ahvaz looks now with your recent edits, we might as well just get rid of the history section completely, as well as any mention of etymology. I'll have to get to this again later. SouthernComfort 07:16, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

I can list 16 other Iranian historians that say the version that me and SouthernComfort put up is the standard accepted History. zora cannot be allowed to revise history. Revising history should be a crime.--Zereshk 01:51, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Ethnic: conflict vs tension vs unrest vs ...

I feel that the 'ethnic conflict' in Ethnic conflict in Khuzestan is too strong, and it is somewhat misleading considering the conflict happens to be with the central government (and it's policies since the Pahlavi era), rather than with other ethnic groups. When I think about it, it's actually very misleading. Iran is not Yugoslavia, nor do Iranian Arabs have any conflicts with Lurs, Bakhtiaris, Behbahanis, Shushtaris, etc. As such, I propose the article be renamed. Any suggestions? SouthernComfort 12:07, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the problems relating to ethnicity in Khuzestan are not communal, as they are in Pakistan or India, and that they are about the grievances of an ethnic minority towards the central government. Also, the Arabs are not engaged in conflict but a civil rights movement equivalent to the American blacks. Would anyone term Martin Luther King a leader of an ethnic conflict or someone struggling for equality of races?

However, I would not want a change of name that would result in the loss of information on the economic and political marginalisation of Arabs in Khuzestan. We have agreed that such issues - autonomy, economic equality, land confiscations, etc - should not feature in the Khuzestan and Ahvaz entries and that there should be an entry covering them. I don't want to see the work that has been put into the Ethnic conflict in Khuzestan entry deleted because it is viewed as too "political".--Ahwaz 21:28, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

I think the article is actually very neutral and cannot be construed as being 'political' at all since there is no endorsement of any political groups. The only issue is the term 'conflict' in the title. Ethnic minorities in Iran also needs to be greatly expanded to include issues related to tribal groups (of which it must be said that there is much ignorance about) and also the historical background of foreign agitation of minorities (including Kurds and Azeris) which ultimately resulted in separatist movements and the subsequent Pahlavi imposition of Western ideas of the 'nation-state' (as opposed to Iranian concepts of nationhood which are distinct to our country) upon Iran. There is still a lot of work that needs to be done and I'm currently focusing my efforts in this area. SouthernComfort 23:11, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Also, in regards to autonomy, all tribal groups were autonomous, since obviously most of them were nomadic and could not be controlled by any central authority, nor were they settled in just one particular area. So this is different from the modern concept of provincial autonomy (which would require inclusiveness of all groups in that particular area), and also separate from cultural autonomy (i.e. the right of groups to retain their lingustic, religious, and cultural heritage which are supposed to be guaranteed by the constitution). SouthernComfort 23:22, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Changing the title would be an attempt to whitewash the issue. If there are riots, if there are separatist groups, there is conflict. Conflict can be minor or major, sporadic or widespread. If you feel that the conflicts are minor and isolated, that should be one of the POVs in the article. Also, ethnic conflict in X is a commonly-used Wikipedia title format. Zora 01:25, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Nobody is trying to 'whitewash' anything. As both Ahwaz and I have pointed out, this is a civil rights issue between minority groups and the central government, not an 'ethnic conflict' between various groups. The riots that have occurred were against the central government, not unlike the recent student protests against the regime in 1999 and 2002 (and which continue to occur from time to time on a smaller scale). The so-called 'conflicts' in question are not minor or isolated, but part of a larger issue pertaining to the rights of indigenous groups to retain their identity and heritage in the face of cultural and linguistic assimilation imposed upon them by the regime (many of the regime's leaders aren't even ethnic Persians - the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, for example, is of Azeri descent and Head of the Judiciary Ayatollah Mahmoud Hashemi Shahroudi is a native Arabic-speaker, of Persian Arab (Iraqi) background), not by the Persian majority (most of whom, like most of the rest of the population, were born after the revolution and have no political power). SouthernComfort 02:16, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

The central government, and the "establishment", is primarily composed of ethnic Persians. A few people here or there doesn't change that, any more than Condoleeza Rice means that there's no ethnic conflict in the U.S. If most people in the government were Azeri, don't you think that Azeri would be the national language?

Many theorists of nationalism differentiate between civic nationalism and ethnic nationalism. Civic nationalism bases community on shared ideals, and allows for multi-culturalism. Ethnic nationalism stresses shared bonds of language and culture. Seems to me that of late, Iranian nationalism tilts heavily towards the "ethnic", with Persian language and culture being seen as the unifying element of the state. This means strained relations with groups who see their language and culture as devalued. (Based on what I've been reading, different versions of Iranian nationalism were current at different times; it's not a monolith.) Zora 07:26, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

What are you talking about? This is where your severe lack of education in this subject is most revealing. Two of the most important Iranian dynasties have been 100% Azeri - the Safavids and the Qajars. And yet they never imposed the Azeri-Turkish language on anyone. Your argument is baseless. Azeris are almost a majority in Iran today and they form a significant percentage of Tehran's overall population (ask anyone from Tehran and they will tell you that just about every single grocery store is run by Azeris, to cite a minor example). Azeris are a majority in Iran's army as well as a dominant element in the national police force. I could go on and on. They are the second largest ethnic group after Persians and are more linguistically amd culturally homogenous. And yet they have never attempted to impose their language or culture on anyone. 'A few people here or there'? Azeris in high positions are far, far more than a few people. After all, the highest and most powerful position in the regime is held by an Azeri. Though the regime is a very ethnically diverse organization, if one wanted to speculate as to which group is the most politically dominant, it would be the Azeris, not the Persians. But wait a minute - according to your thesis, if Azeris dominate the government, then every single Persian would be speaking Turkish! And yet somehow Persian remains the dominant language of the land.

There has never been any 'ethnic conflict' between Azeris and Persians, nor between any other Iranian groups. You are obsessed with this idea of 'conflict' (like many other Westerners who are obsessed with the idea of racial and ethnic conflict) but of all Iran's problems, this is not one of them. Iran is not the West, and it's certainly not the East either. Zereshk is correct. You don't know our country and considering your political opinions and orientation, you never will. SouthernComfort 09:39, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

It might interest you to note that the letter written by Abtahi, which caused the riots in April, outlined a plan to move Arabs from Khuzestan and move Azeris into the province in order to change the ethnic mix. Most Azeris don't have a grievance because they are considered to be loyal by the regime and benefit from its patronage. They are more integrated into Iranian society, perhaps because their main population concentrations are close to Tehran. The problems with ethnic unrest are occurring on the country's periphery: Kurdistan, Khuzestan, Baluchistan. As has been stated, there is no conflict between ethnic groups. Iran is not going to Balkanise and many opposition groups representing minorities have begun to realise that they are not going to achieve anything through secession. That's why earlier this year formerly irredentist groups formed the Congreh Meliathai-e-Iran-e-Federal (Congress of Iranian Nationalities for a Federal Iran), which includes the leading Kurdish, Ahwazi, Balochi, Azeri and Turkmen parties and recognises the need for national unity and territorial integrity. The Congress' manifesto states: "we desire a federal system of government, on the basis of national ethnicity and geography, in a united and an integral Iran." If there was conflict between ethnic groups, these groups would not have been able to converge and put forward an agreed manifesto. Instead, there is an overall desire for ethnic groups to have equality not separatism, although separatist sentiment does exist.--Ahwaz 10:18, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I read the letter. It wouldn't surprise me if it turned out to be true (i.e. not a hoax), as nothing that this joke of a regime does surprises me. After all, Rafsanjani is about to become the next president. If you ask me though, Iranian Arabs have no real representation, within Iran or without. These self-styled Ahwazi groups in the West are just like any exile Iranian opposition group - empty rhetoric and factionalist tendencies, each with their own skewed version of history. Khuzestan is a special case compared to all the other provinces due to it's diversity. Khuzestanis need a united front, taking into account both native Arab and Persian (Lurs, Bakhtiaris, Shushtaris, etc) groups in order to protect the province's heritage and legacy. That's why I don't like these Ahwazi groups, nor I do like any of the Persian nationalist groups - all of them ignore the indigenous Persian culture of Khuzestan. When I visit Khuzestan it's different, people there are basically together in trying to improve the situation in spite of the regime, especially in Khorramshahr and Abadan. The problem is that the post-war political and economic elite of Khuzestan are not even native to the province and have no interest in preserving Khuzestani culture, and in the diaspora most Khuzestanis seem to be completely apathetic and have given up on doing anything. This is contrary to the spirit of Khuzestan, which has a hot-blooded, hot-tempered southern culture. SouthernComfort 11:39, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Also, interestingly enough, Bahraini Khuzestanis (Arab/Persian), and even Khaz'als descendants (also Arab/Persian) are ignored by everyone, as they do not fit conveniently into the standard categories, except only as Khuzestanis. SouthernComfort 12:02, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't think the Ahwazi Arab groups that have formed recently can be seen as being in the same mould as the Ba'athist-influenced separatists that emerged in the Iran-Iraq War, whose territorial claims were blatantly absurd to the point of surreal. The Democratic Solidarity Party of Ahwaz and the Ahwaz Human Rights Organisation are both groups seeking Arab political integration and economic equality in Iran and appear to be led by a younger group of exiled intellectuals - none of them have touched an AK47 in their lives. I've met some of them and they are distinctly more pragmatic and liberal than the old pan-Arab nationalists. They also seem to have greater lines of communication with Khuzestan, making good use of email and faxes, and they have some degree of support from within the province.

I think the fall of Saddam has benefitted the Arabs of Khuzestan as it forces them to engage with Iranian society in order to maintain their relevance, instead of falling back on foreign funding. They also realise that in order to win international acceptance, they have to respect Iran's territorial integrity. Hence, the emphasis on their status as a minority group, rather than a nation. There is also a repudiation of armed resistance and a distancing from the NCRI and the other Rajavi-led groups. I believe the ethnic Persian dominated exiled Iranian opposition is living in the past if it thinks that the new generation of Khuzestani/Ahwazi Arabs are just acolytes of the Ba'athists or are conducting operations under the directions of shady men in Tikrit or the even shadier men in Washington. The monarchists seem to be the ones most keen on resurrecting ethnic rivalries and I have seen a lot of anti-Arab racism from these types - perhaps more than from Tehran itself.--Ahwaz 13:39, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm not saying all the Ahwazi groups in exile were (or are) connected to the Baathists or Nasserite pan-Arabist groups, but IMHO they are 'alien' to the Arabs of Khuzestan. I've just never seen any sympathy for such groups in Khuzestan. Most of my Arab friends are from Khorramshahr/Muhammerah, Abadan, and Ahvaz, and the main complaints I hear from them is that they want Khuzestan to have two official languages, both Arabic and Persian, and of course all the other complaints everyone has against the regime. Arabs in Khuzestan always speak Arabic with each other, and I don't think I've ever heard anyone use the term Ahwazi as an ethnic term (Arabs from Ahvaz call themselves Ahwazi, like Persians from the city calling themselves Ahvazi). I don't know what your background is in regards to Khuzestan and whether you speak only Arabic or both languages - I'm assuming you were born and raised there judging from previous comments - but you have to admit there is a great level of discrepancy between the exile groups and Khuzestanis and the history they present (particularly in regards to Sheikh Khaz'al). Sheikh Khaz'al, for example, married several Behbahani (and I think Dezfuli as well) women, and his family lives in Tehran. They speak Arabic as their first language, but also obviously speak Persian very well and I've never heard them say anything positive about these Ahwazi groups. These groups, they want to draw a line in the sand where such lines have never existed (considering intermingling of both Arabs and Persians in the cities, as well as Arab tribes with other tribes), and even Sheikh Khaz'al never attempted any radical changes over the area he ruled and maintained close relations with the rest of the province and with Tehran (before he was kidnapped and arrested, of course).

Anyway, our discussion is very interesting and I'd like to continue it, but what do you suggest concerning the title? SouthernComfort 03:44, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

I suggest something like "Politics of Identity in Khuzestan" or something like that, which can bring together all aspects of Arab separatism, autonomy, tribalism, language, repression, poverty and ethnic grievances in the province, without the danger of framing the debate as a communal issue between ethnic groups.

The Arabs in Khuzestan may not have much knowledge of Arab groups abroad, beyond the propaganda fed to them from Tehran's newspapers. I believe the main grievances are felt among the poorest Arabs. Ethnicity delineates social class in Khuzestan and that is why there is Arab political mobilisation among the poor, as witnessed in last month's riots. There are high rates of unemployment and illiteracy in Arab-dominated urban slums and these Arabs feel powerless under a political system that will only allow them representation if they do not complain. Arab farmers are also being squeezed with land confiscations for industrial-scale intensive agriculture - particularly sugar - as well as the constant threat of landmines left in the aftermath of the war.

Those educated Arabs who have raised a voice against this oppressive development have been condemned as Saddam loyalists (all Arabs are treated as potential enemies), arrested, tortured, etc. Following the recent uprising, many Arab journalists, intellectuals and tribal leaders were arrested and are still being held in prison, even though they had nothing to do with the violence; they simply condemned the brutality of Iranian security forces who shot at unarmed civilians. Note that Arab intellectuals were targetted, not those of other ethnic groups, such as Shirin Ebadi, who also spoke out against government violence in Khuzestan.

Arabs in Khuzestan feel separate from Iranian society because of their political and economic marginalisation. I don't know which Arabs you have spoken to, but there are a lot of problems with those in the lowest social strata.

As for my own background, I am part Khuzestani Arab. My family are communists, so we are enemies of the governments of both Iran and, until recently, Iraq!--Ahwaz 13:50, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

I think I am in favour of 'ethnic unrest' since I've seen this used in news reports as opposed to 'conflict,' and also would not seem to presume that there is a conflict between ethnic groups. Or perhaps 'Ethnic politics of Khuzestan.'

I don't know any Arabs who are that poor, living in slums and shanty towns and villages, but I have spoken with such people, passed through their areas. I don't want to generalize, but many of them don't even speak Persian very well or at all, nor do they necessarily have access to televisions, radios, etc. I mean, if we're talking about the poorest of the poor (and there are many), they are totally cut off from society at large (even from the urban Arab society), and this includes being even cut off from the regime's 'propaganda.' I don't think the youths who rioted were that poor - certainly from the lower economic strata, but well off enough to own a simple television or radio, as opposed to villagers and nomads who have no access to anything modern.

This level of poverty is not unusual outside of the urban centres, however. In southern Tehran, for example, the regime went around for years bulldozing the poor areas, which technically no longer exist. I have no idea where they sent the people of those areas. Sistan and Baluchistan is the most economically deprived and desolate province in Iran - the Baluch have it far, far worse than the Arabs and Kurds.

Fact is, all people from the lowest social classes feel separate from Iranian society, no matter their ethnic background - whether they are Persian, Azari, Kurdish, Arab, Baluch, etc. - since they have it worse than everyone else, and are ignored completely by the regime, which only oppresses them further. So yes, I agree that if you are in such a horrible position you are not going to care much about politics or opposition groups or whatever. All you are going to be concerned about is getting the hell out of the doldrums.

Speaking of Shirin Ebadi (who is also Azari if anyone is curious, and the official 'liberal bleeding heart' spokeswoman of the regime), the article lacks any mention of Iranian Arab journalists (like Yusef Bani Torof, whom you have mentioned before) and intellectuals who were arrested. The article also lacks any details as to what happened to the rioters (I believe most were eventually released, yes?) and so forth. SouthernComfort 00:11, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

I think "Ethnic politics of Khuzestan" would enable us to talk more broadly, rather than focus on violence. I have a problem with just looking at the issue of Arabs in terms of security rather than the deeper socio-economic problems and discrimination, which, in fact, many Majlis members have highlighted in the weeks following the riots.

The Kuwaiti press have recently reported that hundreds of Arabs - including detained journalists and intellectuals such as Youssef Azizi Banitoruf - arrested in the recent disturbances are holding a hunger strike in Karoon prison and other prisons. They also quote a regime spokesperson as saying that 400 Arabs were still having their cases examined, which contradicts earlier statements that said only 10 Arabs remained in custody. The regime's failure to be consistent when speaking of Khuzestan's uprising makes it very difficult to write anything for the article.--Ahwaz 12:11, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Alright, 'Ethnic politics' it shall be. I'll try to make the necessary changes soon. As for the regime's consistency, I'm afraid that not much can be said about that since there is literally zero consistency. What I'm guessing is that they released the majority of protesters out on bail, i.e. their cases are still pending. So they're not exactly in the clear yet, so to speak. Those who cannot afford bail obviously remain in jail. They might be lying about the exact numbers, but my instinct tells me that it's all more or less true, because at this very moment in time, it is not in the regime's interest to provoke the Khuzestani Arabs, and I'll tell you why. Rafsanjani's son is a major player in the Iranian oil industry (second only to his father who literally controls the whole industry), and the new Yadavaran oil fields have displaced the Arab tribes people who were living there. So after all these years, with all the regime's neglect and oppression, the Arabs have had it and they are slowly reaching the boiling point in their anger towards the mullahs.

What's most dangerous for the regime is if the Khuzestani Arabs begin uniting (i.e. not just youth, but oil workers and labourers and so forth) and protesting more loudly. The oil industry is centred in Khuzestan, and if the oil industry is halted due to strikes, then the regime collapses. If other Khuzestanis were to join with the Arabs, and if the protests were to take a more overtly anti-regime stance (rather than just focusing on provincial issues) this would lead to an even more emphatic domino effect which will most definitely be felt in Tehran, as oil workers going on strike will give more than enough certainty to other workers around the country to go on strike. The regime wants to do to the Arabs of Khuzestan what they have done to other groups affected by poverty (including Persian groups) in the past. They regime needs to prevent the Arabs from communicating with the rest of country, particularly with Tehran, since if Arab youth were able to easily communicate with the student movement in Tehran, then this would only add to the anti-regime resistance. Notice how the regime has no interest in imcreasing the literacy rate amongst Khuzestani Arabs, and they want to prevent them from being able to learn Persian. If the vast majority of Khuzestani Arabs could speak Persian, then their ties to other student and worker movements around the country would be much stronger. Without proper lines of communication, resistance literally becomes futile when faced with the foreign mercenary forces of the regime (mostly Hezbollah from Lebanon, and Palestinian recruits).

Check out this link [6]. Notice how Khuzestan is not included in their new development plans to ease poverty. Believe me, this level of oppression will not go on for much longer. Saddam the cowardly butcher is gone and totally humiliated now (with the recent photos), and the mullahs are not so far behind. SouthernComfort 05:01, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Actually, Human Rights Watch recently reported that 400 Arabs are still being held in jails over the riots. The authorities are placing absurdly large cash bonds on the release of prisoners, something like 15 million rials. A similar amount is being demanded for the release of bodies of those killed in the violence, with HRW claiming at least 50 Arab citizens, including two children and a pregnant woman, were killed in the disturbances. How Islamic is this? The regime is about as Islamic as Adolf Hitler. You are totally right about Rafsanjani's role in oil exploitation in Khuzestan. This man is being seen as a great liberal reformist, but past experience tells us he is just going to give rhetoric. It would be wonderful if ethnic Persians would unite with Khuzestan's Arabs, but this is not happening. The students movement recently denounced the riots in Khuzestan as separatist violence and took the regime's line that this was some kind of Western conspiracy.

You have touched on an important point. There is a linguistic gap between Khuzestan's Arabs and the opposition movement in Tehran. Moreover, it seems that the opposition is infected with some of the regime's racist assumptions about Arabs. You are totally right about the use of Hezbollah against Arabs in Khuzestan. I read that demonstrators heard those attacking them speaking in Arabic with a Lebanese accent. So much for pan-Arab solidarity! The fact is that the Arabs of Khuzestan have never had respect from foreign Arabs or other Iranians. That's why they distrust and oppose all powers that are alien to their culture. It would be wonderful if everyone could unite, but I fear that there is too much prejudice and indoctrination against Arabs.--Ahwaz 23:16, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I think you might be right about the opposition in Tehran. I have personally never understood this myself. And it's true that Iranian Arabs have never had any respect from the Arab world - they were simply viewed as being pawns to use somehow against the state from the sixties to during the war (of course most Arabs in Khuzestan never bothered with these pan-Arabist attempts at insurrection). And since the end of the war, the Arab world doesn't care, maybe because they're viewed as being "too Iranian." I've been reading reports of mercenaries from Lebanon (and to a lesser extent Palestine) for some time now. I think the nuclear facilities in southern Iran might be guarded by some of these guys. I don't know, at some point people in Iran are either going to have to work together or otherwise suffer the consequences of total collapse of all that ever has been. I blame Pahlavi for starting all of this up in the first place.

And hopefully Zora will stop vandalizing these articles (the main articles in particular) so that we will be able to concentrate on these issues and expand data about Iranian Arabs in their respective pages (which are still severely lacking). I'm sorry that you had to get involved with her in the first place. At the time, I had absolutely no idea she had arrived here purely through stalking Zereshk from the Shi'a articles, and that she had no connection to you whatsoever (the way she talked, she made it appear as if you were together or something). I greatly regret that I made this equation in the first place, and hopefully she will cease her vandalism and absurdity and leave these articles alone. You're a good man, Ahwaz, and I hate to see people attempt to hijack others' causes and histories for their own obscure motives and agendas (the lack of education and understanding not withstanding). I wish I had been able to realise this from the very start, rather than to assume automatic association. We live and learn. SouthernComfort 08:12, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Ahwaz, please see discussion at Talk:Ethnic politics of Khuzestan and your input would be appreciated. SouthernComfort 10:20, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Arabs of Khuzestan

Started article and linked with 'Iranian Arabs' in the Khuzestan-related articles. SouthernComfort 12:13, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

I stated an objection there, and you ignored me. You make a distinction between Arabic-speaking of Arabic descent and customs, and Arabic-speaking Persians of Persian descent. I have never seen this anywhere, and it strikes me as anthropologically indefensible, without genetic studies to demonstrate differences in descent. Otherwise you're left with Arabic-speakers who follow what I presume are Iraqi/Kuwaiti/Marsh Arab customs, and Arabic-speakers who have assimilated follow Persian cultural norms. If you can't come up with some genetic studies, I would mark that article as disputed as well. Zora 05:42, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

You also apparently had never heard that Iran has had Azeri dynasties and rulers, and that Azeris are currently a dominant force in the political, military and intellectual spheres. I'll let Ahwaz answer your racialist nonsense if he cares to, since I've long since grown tired of every single objection you make to every single contribution I make. The only reason you are even 'interested' in these articles is because you literally 'stalked' Zereshk here from the Islam articles. Iranian Arabs (those of tribal background) find it extremely offensive to be labelled as 'Arabic-speakers,' since this implies they were (or are) Persian, and this is what both Reza Shah and his son labelled them as (Reza Shah's son also labelled them as gypsies because of their refusal to assimilate into Persian culture). They don't consider themselves Persian, they don't want to be Persian, and they have no reason to want to be because they are an indigenous Iranian group with the right to retain their culture and heritage, which are distinct to their group as Iranian Arabs. If you had any education and understanding (and sensitivity) in these matters you would know this.

Persian Arabs, however, are different since they are of dual Arab/Persian (the term 'Persian' in this context itself not only refers to all Persian-speaking ethnic groups, but also includes Persian-speaking Azeris/Kurds and other Iranians, which are many, which you are also ignorant about) ancestry. They are not the same as Iranian Arabs in terms of history and culture, since Iranian Arabs are a tribal group. No Iranian Arab tribe has ever claimed Persian descent. The Pahlavi governments promoted the racist idea, however, that Iranian Arab tribes were originally of Persian descent.

Most Persian Arabs are NOT connected with Khuzestan, with the exception of Persian Arabs of Bahraini origin, since these people are originally came from Khuzestan and settled in Bahrain, which always had Semitic tribal groups since even before the rise of 'Arab/Islamic' culture and from where Iranian Arab tribes may have originated. Also, Persian Arabs descended from both Persian and Arab Khuzestanis would also obviously be connected to Khuzestan - Sheikh Khaz'als family are Persian Arab (or Persian/Kuwaiti if you prefer), for example.

Iranian Arabs are NOT immigrants. They ARE Iranian. They ARE indigenous. I have no idea if they have Persian origins - they emphatically deny this and find this idea so extremely offensive because of Pahlavi's policies. Maybe they are descended from the Elamites - but the Elamites were not Semitic, and Iranian Arabs consider themselves ethnically Semitic. I am not going to speculate from where Iranian Arabs originate from in an encyclopedia article. The only reason historians state that they 'settled in Khuzestan in the early centuries of the common era' is because there is no evidence of any 'Arab' or Semitic tribes in Khuzestan prior to that point. They may have descended from another Semitic group (Persian Jews, perhaps) and became Arabs, or maybe they were descended from the Elamites and became Semites. I have no idea. To speculate this in an encylopedia article is not right. I have too much respect for Iranian Arabs to engage in such speculations which you seem so ardent in imposing.

As for your request for 'genetic studies,' I find that not only racist and offensive, but stupid. You are obsessed with this idea of genetic heritage and ancestry. Iranians have a common heritage which trancends Western 'racial' ideas. That's the difference between our viewpoints. I view things from a cultural/historical background (which most Iranians adhere to), while you are obsessed with race. No thanks. SouthernComfort 07:27, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Furthermore, and I forgot to add this to the above, it is false to assume that most or all Persian Arabs have assimilated into Persian culture. The Arabs of the Ebne Sina district in Isfahan are Persian Arabs of Iraqi origin and yet they speak Arabic as their mother tongue and their culture is predominantly Arabic, though they also retain some Persian cultural characteristics. There are also Persian Arabs of linguistic background like Ayatollah Sistani in Iraq who are 100% ethnic Persian (he is Mashadi/Sistani), and yet chose to immigrate to Iraq permanently and take on Arabic culture and language 100%. There are Persian Arabs who are of both ethnic Arab and Persian descent, and are culturally and linguistically 100% Persian. They are a diverse group not to be equated with Iranian Arabs (Khuzestani Arabs) who are a distinct, indigenous ethnic group in their own right. Now please stop pestering me with these trivial objections. SouthernComfort 11:29, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm not obsessed with race, I'm obsessed with accuracy. It's a scholarly characteristic <g>. In this case, you're making assertions about descent that you haven't backed up. Language and culture can be observed right now, and presumably you're operating on personal knowledge in making them (since you haven't given any sources). I'm on the fence about this -- you haven't conducted yourself in a manner that makes me trust your objectivity or accuracy, but you do have more first-hand knowledge than I do.

Descent is something that can be claimed by the individual, imputed by the surrounding society, and to some extent verified scientifically. Claims and imputations are again, observable in the present, but they should not be presented as fact. They can be the result of myth-making. I very much distrust the generalizations you're making about the origins of the Arabic-speaking groups of Iran. They seem to be me to be extremely confused, and apparently unfounded. Not only that, you seem to be mixing claims that these groups make for their ancestry, and outsider perceptions of their ancestry. It's a muddle.

As for your assertions about an Iranian heritage that transcends race ... did I ever say that culture and race were the same thing? I don't think I could have; that's the basic principle of cultural anthropology. Culture is transmitted by learning, not blood. The ability of a "high" culture to absorb and convert invaders is well-known; China is the usual example, but Iran is one too. A mixed example, since the invaders' traces remain in language, writing system, literature, and religion -- in this the Arabs achieved more than the Khitan, Mongols, Manchus, etc. -- but an example still. Zora 12:38, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

If I may ...

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

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

Thank you for your input. As you can see, Zora here is desperately trying to delete parts of the article that she does not find suiting to her opinions.

This has constantly been her policy, deleting information and "dropping sections", instead of adding to it. I am truly sorry that wikipedia is afflicted by such revisionist plagues.--Zereshk 03:37, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Why the fuss about the etymology?

Given that the Encyclopedia Iranica online (see Ahvaz article there) confirms that the province was known as Arabestan/Arabistan under the Safavids and Qajars (that is, for more than 500 years), and that the name was only changed in 1936 after Sheikh Khazal died, the whole section on etymology is quite beside the point. What was going through the minds of the people who were chosing the province's new name? That's the etymology. Since we don't know for sure where they got the name (presumably someone was going through a reference book, looking for a pre-Arab name), surely this is a section that could be dropped.

I'll be restoring the previous version daily until I get some dialogue, and some willingness to change. Zora 01:36, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

The Encyclopedia in fact says that the name Arabistan was coined by foreign Arabs who settled in Khuzestan. Khuzestan clearly comes from Uvja, as we have well documented. It was the name of the province, like it or not.

Very simply put, debating this issue with someone who is in denial of this fact is utterly in vain.

History cannot be changed no matter how hard you try.--Zereshk 03:33, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

How can the name Arabistan have been coined by Arabs, when "istan" is a Persian word ending, meaning "land"? Please give an exact quote from your paper copy of the encyclopedia -- I don't think the online revision has gotten as far as Khuzestan. The Ahvaz entry in the online version reads (page 690)

Under the Qajars, the province was known, as in Safavid times, as 'Arabestan, and during the Qajar period, was administratively a governor-generalate.

Now tell me why you think that entry is unreliable, please.

According to worldstatesmen.org [7], the province was called Arabistan and was renamed in 1936.

Tell me why you believe that this is unreliable ...

I'm willing to rewrite the article to say that "X denies that the province was ever called Arabestan". Should the X be the current Persian government? Just saying "Zereshk says" isn't an allowable source <g>. Zora 06:38, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Zora, please heed SR's advice and do not delete anything that you do not agree with. The etymology section is important as the name Khuzestan is a modernisation of the old name itself, and this is important for the reader to see. Just because it may have been known as 'Arabestan' (whether a region of the province or the whole province itself) does not change anything, IMHO. SouthernComfort 09:09, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

BTW, worldstatemen.org is not exactly a reliable source for information. I've checked it out and the whole thing is a mess. If you really insist, I would suggest adding a link to the page in question to the links section. SouthernComfort 09:10, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

I heard that Arabistan was a term used by Persians to refer to the region populated by Arabs, but was not a country in the modern sense of the term. Arabistan covered more than just the modern-day Khuzestan, which is why some separatist groups lay claim to neighbouring provinces. This is a case where the vagueries of imperial dominion over the hunterlands cannot be used to delineate the borders of modern states. I also believe that it is commonly understood that Khuzestan's name is derived from the word for sugar, the province's traditional cash crop, rather than any people or language. I don't know about etymology, but this is how Khuzestan is often believed to have got its name.--Ahwaz 16:16, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Further discussion

It seems to me that Southern Comfort and Zereshk do not distinguish well between having their views represented, and having their precious prose edited. Many of the edits I make have nothing to do with their views, and everything to do with their PROSE.

Blanking out entire paragraphs and sections is NOT "editing our prose". Stop lying.--Zereshk 17:59, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

I am of course willing to have sourced POVs represented on a page, even if I don't agree with them. (If only SC and Zereshk would agree to that!) But I don't agree that representing a POV means preserving every last word and detail of an editor's presentation. SC can write well when he choses, but will NOT be edited, even when it doesn't alter the POV at all. Zereshk copies garbled prose written by non-English speakers and resists any change. Look, guys, when I make a change, don't say to yourself "That's not what I wrote, must revert" -- ask yourself if the changes make the article more readable, more useful, clearer, etc. Let go of a little ego! Perhaps I can express your POV in a way that makes it MORE persuasive.

Look at the difference between these snippets from my version of the travelogue section and Zereshk's version.

I wrote: Abadan, home to a shrine that some say is the tomb of the Hebrew prophet Elias.

Zereshk wrote: Abadan, has a shrine which some say is the tomb of Elias, the long lived Hebrew prophet along the Bahmanshir river.

Zereshk's version (if he wrote it, rather than just copying it from a site written by someone who spoke English as a second language) is just plain bad English. "Has a shrine" is not the best wording. The details re the river and the age of the prophet distract from the main thrust of the sentence. Above all, "the long lived Hebrew prophet along the Bahmanshir river" makes it sound as if Elias lived in Khuzestan, which is confusing.

I don't like having to be so blunt, but I do not like being accused of vandalism when I make edits that any professional copyeditor would make.

Blanking out entire paragraphs and sections is NOT what professional copyeditors do. It's what people with an agenda do.--Zereshk 17:59, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

If you look at my work on other pages (especially the costume, Bollywood, and Islamic pages), I've done a lot of writing and accepted a lot of editing. Someone makes a change and I say, "That's better!", and leave it. I'll object when I don't think the change is for the better, true. But I don't think that I'm unduly attached to my prose. I'm especially grateful for editing from people I respect, like IFaqeer. He has a great English style and points to real problems in my writing. Of course, he's a professional <g>. Zora 09:49, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

There is a consensus against you. It is totally inappropriate to blatantly delete huge chunks of an article when other users do not agree with this, and when you have not even approached them for discussion. That is vandalism. Please stop. SouthernComfort 09:52, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

You guys aren't engaging in discussion. I've tried to have discussions. You just ignore me. Frex, you've completely IGNORED my argument (complete with example) re prose and presentation. The "consensus", BTW, is two Persian guys against one firang female. Not much of a consensus. Zora 10:09, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Discussion on your terms; to have the etymology section "dropped"?

There is in fact consensus. If you read thru the Ahvaz and Khuzestan pages, you will see that User:Emilyzilch , User:Aytakin , User:Amir85 have also tried to understand why Zora is insisting on this Pan-Arab childish campaign of deleting information, in fact supporting us. In fact Zora, also made deletions to the edits of EmilyZilch, not just me and SC.--Zereshk 17:59, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Au contraire, you have ignored every attempt at reasonable discussion, instead choosing to pre-emptively delete huge chunks of valid data. If you don't appreciate Jguk's actions against articles you have worked on - he is simply changing or removing dating conventions, not deleting huge chunks of information (as far as I can tell) = then it blows my mind that you can justify such behaviour here. That's not right. Also, the fact does remain that you did follow Zereshk here from the Shi'a articles - doing exactly to Zereshk what Jguk has been doing to you (and me). Ahwaz no longer has any contentions with the main articles, and you have gone so far as to request RfC, go to an admin/advocate, go to Wikiquette alert. Other users have taken a look and have found no problems, or corrected them when they saw them. Zereshk himself is one of the most significant and extensive contributors to Iranian articles and he has worked on articles with far more editors than this one, and has never had to deal with the sort of problems that you have posed which at times have verged on absurdity. I would just like you to see how your actions have affected things, and how unreasonable they have been considering the consensus, which is not just two 'Persian' guys - what this even has to do with anything I don't understand. Yes, we are both Persian and have extensive knowledge about our heritage and history - so what? Anyway, please stop these actions which do nothing but frustrate and confuse and anger, and all for nothing. SouthernComfort 10:26, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I checked out what Zereshk was doing and found extremely POV edits and copyvios -- which is what he was doing in the Shi'a-related articles. I don't see that this is at all different from what I do when I revert vandals; I check their contributions and see what else they've edited. I don't regard Zereshk as a vandal, but I do regard him as an untrustworthy editor. As for the lack of interest by other people -- that just shows that there's a very small community of editors here. Very often, the larger the community, the better the article. (Not always, alas!)

Zora in fact made mass deletions on the Shi'a pages claiming that:

1. Allameh Tabatabaei "is extremely partisan" as a Shi'a source, which is so absurd, I didnt know what to reply for a while. In fact, I specifically chose Allameh Tabatabaei as a source to be used for Shi'a pages because he was non-political. (or less so than others such as Khomeini).
2. Deleted Hadith-i Thaqalayn, Hadith-i Qadir-i Khumm, and other Hadiths which Shi'as consider central to their beliefs (madh-hab), from the Shi'a pages, because she said: "hadiths are unreliable", which is a very stupid thing to say, because both Sunnis and Shi'as believe in Hadith. Zora doesnt.
3. Zora did not recognize anything written by any Grand Ayatollahs about their own faith. I even proposed that she pick an Ayatollah, and we use it as a source. She refused.
4. She did not recognize Qom as the leading center of Shi'a scholarship. And hence she deleted anything said by anyone from Qom. She even tried deleting the link to Qom from Shia related pages.
5. I even proposed that we use sources affiliated with Najaf. She still refused.
6. Kept insisting that people like Tabari were biased!!!
7. She refused to even recognize Nasr as a credible source as well. Even though Nasr is a Harvard educated Shi'a, deemed by Americans as Islam's top scholar in America.

The multitude of ignorance and arrogance displayed by Zora on the Shi'a pages was so extensive that I had to abandon making any contributions to the Shi'a pages altogether. And she follows me around on Wikipedia starting edit wars with me. And here we are again, in yet another page.--Zereshk 17:59, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

As to deleting "information" -- if I were to post several pages from the Ahvaz phone directory here (assuming that there is such a thing), and you were to delete them as extraneous, I could claim that real "information" was being deleted. Would that make sense? Not really. A lot of what you (SC) and Zereshk have been doing is piling up sub-standard information (out-dated histories) that's as confusing and pointless as posting phone listings. You aren't making the best case for your POV!

And you still haven't engaged the question of PROSE. All you've said, basically, is "Zereshk and I are experts, you're stupid, go away". You refuse to engage me on any substantial points. So ... why should the ugly confusing prose re Elias' tomb be kept? What POV does it express that my rewrite doesn't? A POV that Elias was Khuzestani? Zora 12:10, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Zereshk has been one of the most dedicated and hard-working editors around here - many of these Iran-related articles were just stubs or non-existent before he began his work. He has contributed more than enough to establish his reputation as a reliable editor. So far you have been the only one to step forward and accuse him of being an untrustworthy editor, and you had previously not been involved with Iran-related articles (as far as I can tell and based upon observations here). Much of the information you wanted to include here came from untrustworthy sources, namely Ahwazi groups based in the West which promote a revisionist history. Ahwaz's main contention was that there was no area to discuss these groups or the plight of Khuzestani Arabs, and that has since been resolved.

Outdated histories? Since when has established history, accepted by virtually all academics and scholars, become 'outdated'? If you are against the established history, or do not like it, that's perfectly alright - but you have no right to delete this information from the article. So far you have not been able to refute any of this information. SR's advice holds very true in regards to this. For you to bring up the example of an Ahvaz phone directory is absurd and irrelevant. No one has opposed Zereshk's edits except yourself, and the only solution you have brought up is to delete everything. You yourself originally suggested that the Iranica was outdated and yet you are quite inclined to reference it when it suits you.

On the contrary, both Zereshk and I have been very NPOV in regards to our work here. You are the only one who has consistently continued to accuse us of being POV because history does not suit your political views. You initiated the campaign of accusations by first accusing us of being Persian nationalists which led to our accusations against you of being a pan-Arab revisionist, especially since you originally viewed the history presented by Western Ahwazi political groups as being true.

Prose? Your answer in regards to potentially bad prose is just to delete all of it, regardless of whether the information is factual? I'm sorry, that's not how WP works. If everyone thought like that, WP would only be restricted to a very small minority of editors. I have always answered all of your points, and yet you consistently evade the discussion when you are not able to respond properly and instead bring up non-issues such as prose. The prose in these articles is fine as of now. If there is bad writing, it gets corrected. It does not get deleted.

Now you are saying that this sentence, "Abadan has a shrine which some say is the tomb of Elias, the long lived Hebrew prophet along the Bahmanshir river." is POV. How is that POV? How is the prose ugly? It quite clearly states that some say that is the tomb of Elias, and this is true, just as with the tomb of Daniel at Shush-Daniel. No one knows if those are their actual tombs, and it is not stated as fact in these articles. When is it ever stated or implied that he was Khuzestani? All the sentence states is that there is a tomb which some say might be his, just as with Daniel. Again you are trying to evade the discussion by bringing up irrelevant issues.

When have I ever called you stupid? I have called you ignorant and uneducated in regard to Iran and Iranian history, which certainly seems to be true just by observing many of your edits and comments in these discussions. And no one expects you to know anything. I myself know little about the details of Indian and Chinese history and civilisation, for instance - which is why I don't edit or involve myself with those articles. Were it not for whatever conflict Zereshk and yourself had at the Shi'a articles, we would not even be having this discussion. It is also potentially disrespectful and in bad taste to follow another editor around and engaging them in conflict (as Jguk did with your article). Don't bring these sorts of conflicts to other articles. It's not right and goes against the spirit of WP.

I have nothing against you, Zora, and just as I respect you enough not to follow you around to other articles, or to engage you in conflict in other articles just for the sake of conflict, and I have tried to be very diplomatic with you as of late as I have begun to realize just how little you know of Iranian history and our country. I don't want to speculate as to what your motives are, or even if you have any motives, or whether this is all due to an entirely different conflict. What I am saying is that your actions in deleting huge chunks of data and attempting to rewrite entire articles that have been worked on by others is totally wrong and can be construed as vandalism. Furthermore, your edits added literally nothing new at all to these articles and simply resulted in a lot of deletions of valid information that no one has disputed except yourself. And you have not been able to refute any of the information here despite the challenge presented to you previously. SouthernComfort 14:38, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Exposing Zora for the nth time (n --> infinity)

I think the following passage is quite clear.

"In the latter part of the 16th century, the Ka'b Tribe, settled in Khuzestan. (see J.R. Perry, "The Banu Ka'b: An Amphibious Brigand State in Khuzestan", Le Monde Iranien et L'Islam I, 1971, p133) And during the succeeding centuries, many more Arab tribes moved from southern Iraq to Khuzestan, as a result, Khuzestan, which until recently was called Arabistan, was extensively Arabized". (Encyclopedia Iranica, p216).

But on 06:38, 23 May 2005 (UTC), Zora said:

"How can the name Arabistan have been coined by Arabs, when "istan" is a Persian word ending, meaning "land"?"

1. So with your argument, the name "Arabistan Al-Sa'udiya" (Saudi Arabia in Arabic) is a name made up by Persians. This shows once again how little you know of this topic.
2. Stop twisting the facts Zora. Nobody here denies that Khuzestan was called Arabistan for a while.

Any time I mentioned it, you deleted it. Now you're admitting it, which is progress. So, we have one academic source that claims that the area wasn't Arabized until the 16th century, as opposed to earlier, under the Caliphs. This is very interesting, because it deals with the process of Arabicization, which is a subject of intense interest for historians right now. As opposed to being front and center in the historical records, it has to be teased out of them. I would be extremely willing to put that in the article. In fact, to start a Wikipedia article on Arabicization. Not that I know a lot about it right now, since I'm still learning. Zora 18:48, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

1. You however, did make the claim that it was the first name of the land and that the word Khuzestan is a fabricated word, made up.

You're exaggerating; I never said it was the first name of the land. I said it was the name for five centuries or so. Zora 18:48, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

On 01:36, 23 May 2005 (UTC) Zora said:

"What was going through the minds of the people who were chosing the province's new name?"

Choosing a "new name"???! The name Khuz is anything but new. Deny all you want. Facts are facts.

Do you have a citation for the use of the exact term Khuzestan before 1936? Do you know for sure that the name wasn't coined in 1936 from Khuzi (which I do accept as documented) and the -istan ending? So far we've got Uvja, Halamti, and Susiana as documented names for realms covering the same general area.

"Since we don't know for sure where they got the name..."

We dont? In fact we clearly do. The fact that you ignore all the references explicitly citing this is your personal problem.

"(presumably someone was going through a reference book, looking for a pre-Arab name),"

And how do you justify ignoring the people that lived there before the 1500s?

On 06:38, 23 May 2005 (UTC), Zora said:

"According to worldstatesmen.org [4] (http://www.worldstatesmen.org/Iran.htm), the province was called Arabistan and was renamed in 1936."

And what was it called before the Arabs moved in? Or do you ignore the existence of the province before the Arabs?

Clearly the area has been some sort of cultural/administrative unit (with fluctuating boundaries) for a long time, ever since the Elamites. It hasn't always been a province of Persia or Iran. It has also had a variety of names. It isn't CLEAR if the name Khuzestan is documented pre-1500 or not. We don't even know what the area was called under the caliphs. I presume that the answer would be easily found in a medieval Islamic geographer. If you have access to such records and can give me a citation, I'll happily accept it.

BTW, in the version of the article that you guys keep suppressing, I say that Khuzestan is a revival of an earlier name, which I thought was giving your POV the benefit of the doubt. But you seem not to have read the article before deleting it. Zora 18:48, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

1. "It hasn't always been a province of Persia or Iran." So what? You can say the same thing about all of Iran. Alexander ruled Iran once. So why dont we then dismiss the name "Iran" from Iranian pages entirely?
2. So it was called Arabistan for 300-400 years. That doesnt change the fact that it most firmly was and is Persian in its root.
3. Yes, it is clear the name Khuz is documented. That you do not accept the documentation is your personal problem. I will not debate this further. You insist on denying facts. Fine.
4. "I presume that the answer would be easily found in a medieval Islamic geographer. If you have access to such records and can give me a citation, I'll happily accept it." Youre wasting my time. I already provided the names of medieval geographers. You declared them all "unreliable". You dont even accept Tabari. You were so arrogant that you declared the authors of Encyclopedia Iranica as uncertain and reliabale just because they wrote their work in 1985 (i.e. "outdated")!!!!!!!! --Zereshk 21:40, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Your denial of the legitimicay of the word Khuz-estan simply demonstrates that you are extremely POVd in this debate. We Persians at least are willing to mention "Arabistan" on the page.

"surely this is a section that could be dropped."

The hell you will. We'll put it right back. We will not have you censor this page like you always do inorder to satisfy your personal grudge against Iranians.--Zereshk 17:01, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Funny thing is that she comes in on May 23rd and completely uproots the entire article, expunges an entire section (calling it "a compromise"), deletes almost every piece of documentation I painfully looked up to convince her she was wrong, and then after re-writing the whole page, still puts up the POV tag at the end. :) --Zereshk 21:06, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Because I'm trying to be honest. If the NPOV tag should be there as long as I don't agree with you guys, it should be there as long as you guys don't agree with me. Zora 21:14, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Fine. We can keep the POV tag up there. I have no problem. Only, the true factual and well documented text that we wrote will stay up. Not your pretentious, heavily censored, anti-Iranian, grudge-holding version.--Zereshk 21:40, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Don't accept her line of reasoning. If she does not accept the consensus then that is her problem. She hasn't been able to refute anything and she cannot go around putting up POV tags for nothing each and every time. She is not diplomatic and I will no longer tolerate this nonsense. This is beyond absurd and if she continues, I suggest we go through the hassle of arbitration to put an end to this once and for all. SouthernComfort 22:14, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Editing, new article

Since the "history of Khuzestan" took up so much of the article, I moved it out into its own article, which I completely rewrote. I have re-edited the rest of the Khuzestan article, except for the attractions section. I rewrote that earlier, and I need to resurrect my changes.

It seems to me that without the controversial history section, the article is blah blah blah bland. Which is fine. The geographic articles should be as exciting as oatmeal <g>. Zora 23:16, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

---

SC, you're up to your old revert tricks. Surely, someone who claims to be a graduate student should NOT be defending prose like "The Karun is the only river in Iran capable of sailing". Yet whenever I edit out such gobbledegook, you angrily revert to it. I edit bloated, meandering prose down to a few sentences that say exactly the same thing, and you scream "vandalism". This is not seemly behavior. Zora 00:27, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Excuse me Zora, but you deleted almost the entire article. If that's not "blind, angry" behavior, then I don't know what is. If you want to make corrections to what you perceive to be "bad English," then fine, go right ahead. But stop deleting everything. That is pure vandalism, since your entirely unilateral and preemptive actions were undertaken without any prior discussion. SouthernComfort 03:55, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

SC, you aren't even READING. I reorganized the article. I kept the same material, just rewrote it. The ONLY things gone were the history (which is covered in the new article) and the etymology section. The etymology section is simply NOT needed for Khuzestan now that we've agreed that the province was called Arabestan for 500 years, AND that Xuzestan was the Sassanid name for the province. The name was revived in 1936. Since Xusi/Khusi and Xuzestan/Khuzestan aren't disputed, why dump a whole #$%@$load of garbled references on the reader? Especially when many of them refer to Ahvaz, which isn't even in question in the Khuzestan article? Leave that for Ahvaz!

You don't even seem to be reading my edits, or comparing them to the previous version. Perhaps if you did you'd see an essential continuity.

As for the insistence on etymology and history being put front and center -- you're arguing with the ghost of Saddam Hussein, not me. He made historical and "Arab unity" claims for the area; Iran made historical and "Arabs are late-comers and interlopers" claims for the area. Both sides were treating history like a body of evidence in a law case over disputed land. Since I don't think "history" has anything to do with who "owns" an area, my loyalty is to history -- trying to figure out what happened, regardless of whose legal argument is affected.

The use of "history" to prove "ownership" is a nasty business, IMHO. It leads to ugliness like Zionism. "We owned it a few thousand years ago and we don't care who has been living here in the meantime, it's OURS." It's projecting an illusory corporate unity way into the past, and saying that "I and my ancestors are one; anything my ancestors owned belongs to me". Since human boundaries have been fluctuating for all of recorded history, this kind of thinking inevitably leads to conflict and bloodshed.

If a government is good, people WANT to live under it. Nations are trying to get into the European Union. My own hope for Iran is that the government be so good, so fair, so wise, so tolerant, so prosperous, that surrounding states agitate to join the Iranian Union. My hope is that every place on earth should have such good government, and that humans never ever fight over national boundaries again. OK? Zora 07:01, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You're missing the point. I've said this before, and I'll say it again. You cannot go around rewriting entire articles when there are other editors involved, and especially doing so without any discussion. This is not an abandoned article where one could get away with such an action, nor is any of the information contained in this article factually inaccurate. It's not proper etiquette and shows great disregard for others.

How can I discuss stuff with you guys when you ignore me? Call me names? Revert on sight? Sternly instruct me that my edits are vandalism and I'm to not to bother you two?

It's not necessary to get other editors' approval BEFORE editing. Very often one just makes an edit and then other editors make comments, and further change some parts ... If there's a collegial relationship, then it all takes care of itself. You guys don't seem to be interested in developing a collegial relationship. I'd be willing to have one, if you think you could behave towards me as you might, say, towards an elderly aunt for whom you had no special fondness but had to treat politely for your mother's sake <g>. Zora 10:01, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Concerning the etymology, all of the information is properly referenced from established sources - there is no need to delete any of it, even if you disagree with it's inclusion for whatever reason. Furthermore, the information is important as the name 'Khuzestan' did not come out of nowhere and there is a history behind the name.

Then put it in its own article, dang it. It is completely peripheral to the main purpose of the article. Take a look, frex, at the article for the English town Scarborough. A little googling elsewhere informed me that Scarborough is derived from a Viking place name meaning "Skarthi's stronghold". But the Wikipedia article doesn't even mention the derivation. I looked up a few English towns at random in Wikipedia, and they don't have place name etymologies -- even though that's a long-time antiquarian discipline in the UK and there are several books on placenames. If you must have this material, don't dump it on the head of the casual encyclopedia user who just wants to know where Khuzestan is. Zora 10:01, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

How am I arguing with the ghost of Saddam (he's still very much alive), and since when did Iran make historical claims to the province? It has always been a part of Iran, and there have always been Iranians living there, whether you want to accept this fact or not.

That is just plain ridiculous. When there were hunter-gathers roaming the area, were they Iranians? When the area was ruled by Elamites, Assyrians, Babylonians, Hellenes, Arabs, Ottomans, etc. etc., was it Iranian? No. Does that make any difference to who should rule it now? No. Zora 10:01, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And when exactly did Iran ever claim that Khuzestani Arabs are 'interlopers' or even 'late-comers' (whatever this is supposed to mean)? There is no historical evidence of Arab tribes in Khuzestan before the Islamic invasion - we've gone over this before and I would like to see what evidence you have to the contrary. But what this has to do with any accusations made by Iran against them is beyond me.

You keep insinuating that the Arabs are interlopers and latecomers. Frex, your resistance to the notion that there were Abide Emirs before Sheikh Khazal. You seem to believe that he was an emigrant from Kuwait who was brought in by the British. Or your article on the Khuzestani Arabs that makes all sorts of muddled distinctions between Arabs who are really Iranian and Arabs who are just immigrants. You've got a POV! Zora 10:01, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You seem to think that just because Khuzestan was known as Arabistan under the Safavids and Qajars, that that means only Arabs were inhabiting the province.

Dang it, I never ever said that! I think that there's a good case to be made for a mostly Arab or Arabic-speaking population, but it's unlikely to have been all Arab. Barring a lot of archaeological and archival work (which probably won't get done) I'm not sure we'd ever be able to come up with any real numbers or percentages. What's more, we'd be hard put to distinguish between people who were Arab by descent, and people who came from the original Elamo-Persian stock but converted to Islam and started to speak Arabic. I might have mentioned this earlier -- there was an interesting article in National Geographic about genetic studies done in Lebanon. The studies found a great deal of genetic commonality between Lebanese Christians and Muslims, suggesting that they were both descended from the original Phoenician population. Yet both those populations speak Arabic, I believe! I gather that there's a lot of interest among historians in the whole process of Arabicization, and how it is that Iran resisted it. Zora 10:01, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What's really interesting is that the late Sassanid inscription cited by Daryeej that has Xuzestan ALSO has Arabestan -- which is translated as Arabia. So that would make Arabestan a middle Persian word, but one that was used for a place inhabited by Arabs. So we have a place name being shifted. Zora 10:01, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Which firstly is not true at all as Persian groups have always been there, and secondly it was still always a province of Iran. Just because it was known as Arabistan does not mean it was a separate country and there is no evidence to support that claim.

You can't understand ancient history at all if you are operating with a notion of nations on a map with borders marked with thick black lines -- and, on the ground, fences, and border posts with armed guards. Empires just kinda faded out around the edges! How firmly a peripheral area was attached to the central government was a highly variable matter, depending on the strength of the local rulers, the strength of the central government, what other armies or tribes were wandering around the area, etc. Zora 10:01, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There is no controversy or dispute in this area except that which you are trying to create. The problems Khuzestani Arabs are having in Iran are the same problems faced by most people in Iran in regards to this regime. You seem to think Iran is like Israel where there is ethnic conflict and bloodshed, which is nonsense. There is nothing in history or current events to support this notion. Iran is not Israel, and any comparisons with Israel and with Zionism are not only improper, but absurd. SouthernComfort 07:41, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Zionism is a Jewish implementation of German ethnic-linguistic nationalist theories. So is pan-Arab nationalism, Persian nationalism based on linguistic or ethnic unity, etc. Comparisons with Zionism are quite apropos. Zora 10:01, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Zora is displaying a flagrant case of ignorance on Iranian matters. She is incorrect on all counts. I call on all administrators to put an end to this stupid edit war she persists on. We are all sick and tired of her vandalism.--Zereshk 03:56, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why delete details?

Why delete details? Because both you guys have a bad case of "everything I know or can copy-and-paste must be shoveled into this article". There are relevant details and irrelevant details. If you throw too much at a reader, the reader gets MEGO (my eyes glaze over). You have to look at the article with the jaundiced eye of a reader (who is going to say #@$%@#$ and stop reading if you bore him/her) and not with the fond and approving eye of the author. Good authors know that you must "kill your darlings". If you are particularily attached to a piece of prose, that's probably the one that sticks out, obstructs the flow of the narrative, and has to be killed.

I kibitz in a Usenet writing group, which used to do group critiques of short bits of writing. If you said to a good writer, "This doesn't work; that doesn't work ..." the writer would say, "Um, I didn't see it that way, but if it doesn't work, I'll fix it." The bad writers would defend every word of their precious prose with utmost ferocity. You can't improve as a writer if you can't step back from your prose.

There are folks here on Wikipedia who are darn keen editors and have hacked my prose to bits. I respect them. Usually when they make a change, I look at it and say, "They're right, it works better that way". Not that it doesn't HURT, sometimes <g> .... Zora 07:15, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

1. Because both you guys have a bad case of "everything I know or can copy-and-paste must be shoveled into this article". Because it's the fuckin truth dammit. First you asked for sources. We gave you that. Then you rejected them calling them "uncertain" and "outdated". Now youre deleting entire sections because they are "gargled english"?!
2. There are relevant details and irrelevant details. In fact they are higlhy relevant. You seem to forget that we threw in all those references in response to your ignorant accusations against Persians, Khuzestan, and Iran.
3. If you throw too much at a reader, the reader gets MEGO (my eyes glaze over). Then maybe you need to see an optometrist. The page is written in a sections format so that people can skip information they dont need. You can avoid MEGO by clicking on the contents at the top of the page. It's why the contents appear as hyperlinks.
4. If you are particularily attached to a piece of prose, that's probably the one that sticks out, obstructs the flow of the narrative, and has to be killed. Really? Then I guess we have been doing you a favor by killing your "re-written" edits that you seem to be so attached to.

--Zereshk 04:09, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Final research results

One of the excuses Zora uses to expunge huge chunks of the articles on Ahvaz and Khuzestan is her claim that "Khuzestan" is a word that was not in use before the name "Arabistan" came along.

Fortunately, I spent the entire day visiting The Library of The National Museum of Iran. There I found a wealth of unparalleled sources that support EVERYTHING written by me and SC. I found 81 books written before the 15th century that explicitly mention "khuzestan" and "ahvaz". With great difficulty, I obtained permission to scan 4 maps drawn during the 12th century that clearly show "Khuzestan". I will add the results of my research to the articles, gradually in the next 2 days.

The documentation on Khuzestan's Iranian heritage is so extensive that I now believe we should take out the sections on the origins of the names of Ahvaz and Khuzestan, give them each a full page of their own, and instead put a summary on the main pages of Ahvaz and Khuzestan.

But while I put together the body of the new expanded etymology section, I would like to hear everyone's input on this decision.--Zereshk 04:03, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Fully support and appreciate your efforts. SouthernComfort 21:27, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Zereshk, I guess you didn't notice, because you were traveling. I ordered a recently published book, an English and modern Persian translation of the Eransahr, and found reference to a Sassanid inscription that mentions Xuzestan. I put it in the artcle, SC erased it, and then re-added it. I wasn't sure where the name came from, and now I know that the pre-Arab-invasion name was revived. All I needed was a trustworthy source.

I'm just fine with having the etymologies removed to separate pages. The articles would flow much better without them.

The question is, did you find any pre-Arab conquest citations for Ahvaz/Ahwaz? There's really no doubt that it was called that after 630 CE. The question is how the name was derived -- and I don't know if you noticed, but my stance has always been that it's not at all clear whether it's an Arabic word or an Arabic version of an Elamite or Persian word, lacking any evidence other than chroniclers writing centuries later. That's not primary source. Inscriptions chiseled in the rock -- that's indubitably primary source! <g>

You must have collected a bunch of other place name info as well, which would probably justify a bunch of articles on Persian place names. Zora 05:33, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

BCE/CE vs BC/AD

User:Jguk continues to change the dating convention in this article from BCE/CE to BC/AD. Thoughts? SouthernComfort 01:20, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Change it back when we make other changes, rather than just playing revert war. I have faith that his CRUSADE will be stopped dead in its tracks by the ArbCom, so it's just a matter of waiting. Zora 06:14, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please stop being deliberately offensive to me by using charged words such as "crusade", especially as it is SC and Slr and not me that is arguing about religion. I am confident that Fred Bauder will get shot down and Slr, and other users, will be told to accept that his proposal failed (as it quite clearly did). Incidentally, remember that before SC visited this article it used BC/AD. It is SC who is arguing for change (despite the community clearly rejecting that argument). I ask SC to respect the majority of our readers and to stop deliberately causing offence by his changes, jguk 10:37, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Are Arabs persecuted in Khuzistan?

IRAN: Interview with Human Rights Special Rapporteur on Adequate Housing, Miloon Kothari

© IRIN

Human Rights Special Rapporteur on Adequate Housing, Miloon Kothari

TEHRAN, 9 Aug 2005 (IRIN) - Access to adequate housing in Iran is fraught with difficulties. Iran is riddled with earthquake fault lines and prone to severe droughts. The burgeoning population, coupled with massive population migration from rural to urban areas has resulted in a surge in demand for housing.

The UN Commission on Human Rights Special Rapporteur on Adequate Housing, Miloon Kothari, recently spent 12 days travelling through several Iranian provinces gathering information for a report.

His mandate included the examination of issues related to the rights of ethnic minorities, women, property evictions and land tenure. During his mission, Kothari met with a range of representatives from governmental and non-governmental bodies. These included senior officials from several ministries, national institutions such as the Imam Khomeini Relief Committee and the Iranian Red Crescent Society (IRCS), members of the judiciary and lawyers dealing with disadvantaged groups.

At the end of his mission, Mr Kothari spoke to IRIN in Tehran about his preliminary findings.

QUESTION: What are your impressions of the overall housing and land rights situation in rural and urban Iran?

ANSWER: Since the revolution there has been significant improvement in terms of access to water, sanitation, electricity and support for building. And there has been an attempt in the government, both at the level of different ministries and different organisations - like the Imam Khomeini Relief Committee, the Welfare Organisation, the Housing Foundation and the Housing Bank - to improve access to housing and civic services. And say, in comparison to other developing countries, the overall situation, if you look at the number of homeless people or number of people living in slums, is definitely better.

But this has to be taken in a very qualified way because what I noticed in the visits to different provinces and the interviews that we conducted is that there are a number of groups in Iran that have suffered disproportionately in terms of access to these services. I'm talking about the Kurds, the Arabs, the Laks, and the Nomads. It's very disturbing that these groups have not benefited proportionately in the same way as the rest of the Iranian population. I think this is very striking.

For example, when you visit Ahwaz [in the western Iranian province of Khuzestan bordering Iraq] in terms of the very adverse conditions in the neighbourhoods, there are thousands of people living with open sewers, no sanitation, no regular access to water, electricity and no gas connections. I think that the kind of question that arises is, why is that? Why have certain groups not benefited? In addition to this there are a couple of other problems that come up. Again in Khuzestan, you notice that we drove outside the city about 20 km and we visited the areas where large development projects are coming up - sugar cane plantations and other projects along the river - and the estimate we received is that between 200,000 - 250,000 Arab people are being displaced from their villages because of these projects. And the question that comes up in my mind is, why is it that these projects are placed directly on the lands that have been homes for these people for generations? I asked the officials, I asked the people we were with. And there is other land in Khuzestan where projects could have been placed which would have minimised the displacement.

The third issue in Khuzestan, which is very disturbing, is that there is an attempt being made by the government to build new towns and bring in new people from other provinces. For example, there is the new town of Shirinshah where most of the people being brought into that town are people from Yazd province [in central Iran] - non-Arabs. So the question then is that these people who are being brought there, perhaps for work and lots of incentives, why is it that those jobs are not going to the locals?

Another point in Khuzestan is that from these deprived neighbourhoods you can actually see the towers of the oil refineries and the flares and all of that money, which is a lot, and it is going out of the province. Even a small percentage would significantly improve things in terms of development.

Q: Can you tell me more about your findings of the state of housing and land rights of minorities and other groups in Iran?

A: There are three groups that face discrimination regarding housing and land rights in Iran. There's discrimination against ethnic and religious minorities and there's discrimination against groups that, like the Nomads, have their own category. And the third cuts across all the groups and is against women.

I think that you see, for example in the neighbourhoods we visited in Khuzestan of the Laks, which is a very deprived group, that they are living in conditions of high density, again without access to adequate sanitation and water. And just nearby, you see other neighbourhoods with much better services.

And with the nomads there is a very serious problem that in spite of their significant contribution to the national economy and their long history in the country, there is this non-sensitivity to their lifestyle. There's a kind of looking down upon them, that they should settle down and be like everyone else. There are attempts being made to actually grab land, to confiscate land that is on their migratory path and where they settle for short times and there isn't a system in place where their products could be brought to the market or where health and education services could be offered to them which wouldn't be very difficult. I think in much of the land where they are, there is a lot of space. So again there's this question. Why is it that development is taking place where they are? Or on the lands which they need?

There are, in addition to the groups I've mentioned, also individuals. You find elderly women, women-headed households, orphans, street-children, families of prisoners who nobody is looking after. There are lots of people whose needs are not being met and the needs that are being met are not sufficient. For example the pension that elderly women would get every three or four months is hardly anything compared to their expenses. So there is a need to make two kinds of assessments. One assessment is where the services are not reaching or not regular and there you have to look at quantity and quality. So you say in a certain region 80 percent of people are receiving water - but are they really? Is it 24 hours? How long is it that they are not getting it? And then there's a question of quality. Is it potable, is it enough for people to live on from a human rights perspective?

And the second assessment is of individuals that are being left out, so you still have destitute women you see in Tehran and street women and you have this enormous problem, which is quite shocking to me, that there are no safe houses, no shelters where women can go.

Another step that is necessary is for the government to admit the problems, which you find is not so common with the officials. There's a general glossing over things, of either saying, 'we don't have these problems' or, of passing the buck. When we talked, for example, to the Tehran municipality about deprived people, they said 'that's not us, that is the Ministry of Housing, or the Ministry of Social Welfare.'

So what happens is that people fall in between. They don't have anywhere to go. That's the first step. Then designing policies, legislations that are based on this recognition. I think if the government was honest and up-front, I think it would be easier for the international community to contribute.

Q: What do you think needs to be done to begin to address the problems you are raising about a lack of access to housing, land and services for these deprived groups?

A: I think that in terms of solutions, what I would recommend first of all, is that it's very important for the government to make an assessment of where the vulnerable groups are, who are the communities - numbers of people, types of problems - that are being left out of the system.

And in spite of this extensive system of industries and other organisations looking at housing and related services, it's clear from everywhere we visited in the country, including Tehran, that there are lots of people who are falling between the cracks, who are essentially not being looked after by the system.

Q: At your press conference, you mentioned the issue of confiscation and land-grabbing. What do you mean by this and how is it happening?

A: There are various kinds of confiscations. One that has been very well documented is the confiscation of the lands of the Bahai's [a religious minority] which has taken place in many different parts of the country, where their lands in villages and lands in cities have been confiscated, including in Tehran.

The second type is more indirect and is related to the example of the nomads I was giving around Shiraz [a city in the southern Fars province] where lands are taken, sub-divided, trees are planted and trees are allowed to die. And then that land is sold to private entities to construct expensive housing. Those are the lands where the nomads used to migrate and have their seasonal homes, and this is done in collusion with the Ministry of Agriculture.

The other kind is, of course from development projects, like the ones I mentioned in Khuzestan, but it's happening in other parts of the country where large development projects, like petrochemical plants, are being built leading to the displacement of entire villages - with thousands of people not consulted on the projects, informed of the impending displacement, nor offered adequate resettlement and compensation. There is a strange system in the country where if the government wants to confiscate land, you can't challenge it. All you can do is to put up some sort of resistance to get good compensation.

We looked in detail in some areas on the issue of compensation and, for example, in Khuzestan the compensation being offered to the Arab villagers who were being displaced is sometimes one fortieth of the market value - and there's nothing they can do about it. It's a fait accompli. That's how it is. And all of these phenomena are continuing. It's something that is happening almost every day.

Q: What are your main concerns regarding women?

A: The main concern is that there is a state of denial regarding women's rights. The country has a very large-scale problem of women not having equal rights to land and property, housing and inheritance. This type of discrimination is built into the civil code and the manner in which courts have interpreted this code. Then there's the additional problem of domestic violence, which is widespread in the country. Again, it's only coming out now but there is no place for women to go and even if there was, there's this whole cultural issue. Would they be separated from their children? Would they be ostracised by society? I think that in terms of the communities I was speaking about that are living in poverty, obviously, the impact is greater on women and that has to be recognised and specific interventions designed to alleviate the suffering and to improve the lives of women.

The other problem that is very clear on women's rights and comes up very sharply, is when you compare the provisions of the civil code with numerous articles of the Iranian constitution and international human rights law.

There is a conflict and I think that conflict has to be resolved. One way of doing it would be to make sure that national law and policy is consistent with the recognition of the equality of women in international human rights law. But even if they don't want to do that, it should be possible as Shirin Ebadi [Iran's Nobel Laureate and human rights lawyer] and others have pointed out, if you take the original teachings of Islam, the Koran and Sharia, there's nothing there that says that it cannot be interpreted to mean that women cannot have equal rights. It's just been interpreted in a different way in the civil code. I think bodies like the Guardian Council and others, including the parliament, which has a significant role to play, could make another interpretation and that needs to be done because it's quite clear that women do not have equal rights.

It's also very clear that women are becoming a little bit more outspoken in society but then the people that are working on women's rights – the lawyers, the activists - are facing a lot of repression. It's very courageous work. Many of the people we spoke to didn't want to be named. And you can make a very long list of women who are suffering from double, triple discrimination - divorced women, destitute women, women who've lost their families, their husbands [for example from the earthquake], women who have husbands who are drug addicts with no income in the family. They have to go and earn a livelihood but there's no place to go.

Q: Is there sufficient access to public housing?

A: There is very little public housing. In fact most of the housing in the country is built by the private sector, a very high percentage. There isn't sufficient public housing. There isn't social housing where rents could be at a minimum level that people could afford.

There are a lot of programmes to help people, for example, in villages, to build their own housing. But again the assumption in all these programmes and the entire national housing finance system is that you have the capacity to save. And then you have the capacity to make a particular down-payment, which a lot of people don't have.

There is also no data, including from the Housing Bank, on the number of people in the country that have no access to housing finance as they are unable to meet, due to their low income levels, the basic criteria of the national housing finance system.

There has to be more control over speculation. Speculation is enormous. Even in Tehran, lots of land is being taken over and expensive housing being built. In north Tehran, so many buildings are empty because even rich people can't afford it! And what happens is that in south Tehran there are lots of people who can't afford the rents and this problem is very striking with young people, newly married or single. They just cannot afford to have a place of their own.

In some areas of Tehran rents are 50 - 70 percent of income, which is way, way above any kind of standards because then what happens is that people have to compromise on food, health and education.

I think at a preventative level in Tehran, the municipality has to be much more careful about where they're allocating land for investment. So what's happening is that a lot of people are investing in land in north Tehran, so you are creating a market, which is not actually necessary.

If there was better planning in the city, there would be much better efforts made in revitalising the central part of the city and developing the southern part. But what's happening right now is that most of the investment is going to the north, which has already created an imbalance and it's going to create more of an imbalance in the future. So if you look at Tehran, if the municipality did an assessment, where are the poor neighbourhoods?

You have these enormous areas on the eastern border of the airport [the 9th district including neighbourhoods like Jay], where there is high density housing. There are a lot of neighbourhoods like that and you begin from that, and you say, okay, we need to improve the conditions here, we need to revitalise this area. In one sense the city is losing its soul, because the whole central area, which should actually be revitalised is not. There are lots of parts which are abandoned at night with problems of crime. So the whole problem is not based on improving the lives of the most deprived, it's based on other priorities.

Q: Thousands of residents of Bam lost their homes after the devastating earthquake in December 2003 razed the city. Most are still homeless. Is enough being done for them?

A: I think that the reconstruction work in the centre of the city, where the maximum damage took place and in the surrounding villages, is quite impressive, both on the efforts being made by the national reconstruction people and the Imam Khomeini Relief Committee. That work seems to be proceeding and there's a great deal of technical expertise going into that, but what is disturbing is the situation in the camps. There are still many camps and people have been living there for 18 months. Some of the camps have very serious health conditions, sanitation problems, water problems, people are living in these connexes - containers - and lots of people we spoke to are not sure what their future is.

There is some certainty for people who owned land before but not those who rented homes. And again the point I was making earlier, we talked to many elderly women, disabled women who are not registered, so again that assessment is missing.

Also there's no clarity on how long - is it going to be another year, two years? But overall I think the reconstruction work is quite good.

Q: Given Iran's high risk for earthquakes, are measures being implemented to safeguard homes?

A: I think the plans are quite extensive, both in terms of the assessment they've made [especially the Housing Foundation], in terms of the zones that are going to be affected and statistics on the number of houses that need to be strengthened. Some work has begun; I think the reconstruction work in some of the provinces has already begun. But the main obstacle right now is the funding. I think this is where I do believe the government is sincere and they are making an attempt and this is definitely a place where the international community could assist more.

Q: You have come up with some preliminary recommendations from your mission. Can you summarise these?

A: I welcome the attempts being made by the Iranian state to engage with the international human rights system, including an open invitation to UN Special Rapporteurs to visit Iran.

In this context of the willingness to engage, I have formulated some preliminary recommendations [the full text of the findings can be found at www.ohchr.org] including the need to implement the Iranian constitutional recognition of the right to adequate housing for all Iranians, despite their ethnic or religious origins; to develop policies and legislation, including amending the civil code, to address the equal rights women to housing, land, property and inheritance; to ratify the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW); to consider policies to intervene in the housing market and to control land and housing speculation; to place special emphasis on the development of historically neglected and poor provinces of the country such as Ilam, Khuzestan and Sistan-Baluchistan; to strengthen public participation in development initiatives and recognise the critical role being played by civil society organisations and identify on an urgent basis vulnerable groups and individuals that are being left out of the programmes of access to housing and civic services.

It is also important for the international community to assist Iran in its ambitious attempts to convert all housing in the country to meet earthquake-proof standards; to increase funding to housing projects aimed at uplifting the conditions of groups in vulnerable situations and to increase support to civil society [groups] that are engaged in human rights and community development projects in Iran.

Stop the propaganda

1. If you think Khuzestan is the only place to have striking poverty and "open sewers" (as your sign of "discrimination against Arabs"), go no further than southern Tehran to see what a slum means. No need to even mention places like Zahedan and Zabol, where people in Khuzestan live like Kings in comparison.
2. If you think the central govt is displacing and diffusing the Arab population of Khuzestan by building newly centralized and pre-planned settlements and towns in the region, then check out the outskirts of Isfahan. We now have cities where there was totally arid deserts 15 years ago.
3. Im amused as to how people keep spewing that discrimination is going on in Iran against Arabs, while Arabic language is mandatory for all Persians to learn in high school and college, while studying Persian heritage has been banned for over 25 years (e.g. when was the last time you heard someone teach anything about Mehregan in any school in Iran?). Heck, almost every banner and mural on every frikin wall in Tehran is in Arabic, thanx to the new Arab-phile president Mr Ahmadinejhad and his conservative gang who wishes to turn Iran into part of the great "Islamic Ummah". When was the last time you saw Iran make even one film about Iran's Persian heritage (like the life of Darius or Cyrus or Xerxes or the Sassanids, or Alexander, or Shahnameh etc etc)? Not even one?!!! And how many films and productions do we see on the Arabic muslim heritage of Iran? Is there anything but that? There is even an Arabic channel broadcast from Tehran. Im a half ethnic Azeri, and Azeris arent even allowed to officially speak their language in schools. Even though Azeris have historically been patriotically pro-Iranian. And Azeris are not just 3% of the population. So please....spare us the crap about discrimination against Arabs in Iran that keeps showing up on this page. Iran has been doing nothing but ramming down Arabic culture in everyone's throats for the past 25 years. Iran has become the pot that is blacker than the kettle, caring more about Arab issues (such as Palestine) than Arabs themselves care about. If you want to talk about discrimination, see how Arabs treated others when they ruled others. And it still continues today.--Zereshk 02:05, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Zereshk, there's a difference between classical Arabic, Quranic Arabic, and the Arabic of the street. Schoolchildren may be forced to learn classical Arabic, but that doesn't necessarily translate into any more sympathy, or understanding, for contemporary Arabs as people. You keep getting complaints, and what you call "vandalism" here, because you're not letting the Arab people have their say. Zora 03:27, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually Zora, to complete the information that youve learned, both classical and contemporary arabic are taught in Iran, by force, in all schools and colleges. Classical Arabic is taught under the courses "motoon-i Islami" and "Quran" in both college, pre-high, and high school, while modern Arabic is covered under the course series called "Arabic". Furthermore, the TV programs broadcast in Arabic for Iranians are about politics, economics, and current events, and are in modern Arabic, not the classical version.

Also, you continuously dodge the point: the foreign culture of Hijaz has been imposed on Iran for the last 25 years. Look at this typical picture. The text is in (modern) Arabic and reads: "Oh messenger of God". The garbs worn by the ayatollahs are Arabic in origin. The symbol on the flag is in Arabic. It doesnt say "Khoda" or "Parvardgar" (meaning God in Persian), but says "Allah", the Arabic word for God. The decorations on the flag are also in Arabic. The clothes worn by the women are Arabic hijab, both by origin and code. If some Arab is killed by an American or Israeli, it gets full time coverage for days on all media channels, whereas if an Iranian is killed by the govt or security forces or intelligence (or even negligence), they are labeled as "ashraar" (an Arabic word for criminals or troublemakers), if mentioned at all.

It's the other way around zora: It's the Persian voice that is not allowed to be heard. My Iranian "nationalism" is only a reaction to your western ethnocentric orientalist colonialism.--Zereshk 23:02, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Zereshk: I agree about your points on the Azeri language and I agree that Arabs are not the only impoverished or oppressed people in Iran. But that does not mean anti-Arab racism does not exist in Iran and it is an act of great denial to insist that - contrary to all evidence, including that provided by Miloon Kothari - Arabs do not suffer persecution and ethnic cleansing in Khuzestan. It is simply yet more evidence that the Iranian regime is oppressive.

As for the use of Arabic by the Islamic Republic, it is used only in the context of religion and in the form of classical Arabic. The Ahwazi Arabs have a Mesopotamian dialect of Arabic that they share with those on the other side of the Shatt Al-Arab. This is distinct from classical Arabic and is effectively banned by the regime in schools and the media.

Advocating the rights of Arabs in Iran is not the same as Arab separatism. But denial of Arab rights is certainly a sign of ethnic oppression. You have to decide which side you are on. --Ahwaz 10:17, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Looks quiet in here. I'm 22 years old and still have problem finding out who's persecuted in Iran and who's not. Kurds? Arabs? Turkmans? Persians? Seems to me we are all persecuted and exploited in one way or the other. It's just a wast of time and energy to argue about Nationalism and all that jazz. It would be nice if nationalist types ended up tearing each other apart and left us alone. --Sennaista 23:09, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

good call.--129.111.56.36 23:42, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Proposal

The Human Rights section is too similar to the Ethnic politics of Khuzestan entry. I proposed merging the content with this entry.--Ahwaz 08:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Please excuse my ignorance but what is this mention of "Ahwazi" in the article? I have never heard Arabs here call themselves Ahwazi, just Arab. Also, why no mention of Persians and Lor and others who are also poor and being displaced by rich people? Hajjagha 10:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

The Ethnic politics of Khuzestan refers to a UNCHR report on the forced confiscation of land owned by Laks, a Persian tribe, but there is little material available to expand on this. Perhaps you can do some research on this, instead of vandalising articles and complaining about others' work.--Ahwaz 10:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Also I have read some articles here on Wikipedia, not all, but there is much racism against both Arab and Persian and it would be nice if everyone could stop promoting racism against one group while fighting racism of the other. What government does against Arabs does not mean Iranians are racist against Arabs when same government also forces Persians and others into poverty. Look at the Kurds now - they experienced massacre recently and they are more oppressed and poor than almost everyone except Baluch. Hajjagha 10:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Hajjagha: None of the content I have written has been anti-Persian. In fact, I have been at pains to show that the Arab unrest is not a communal Arab-Persian conflict but related to dissatisfaction with government policy. If there is any anti-Persian racism, please modify the article and change the phrases or insert counter-arguments instead of simply deleting content that others' have spent time working on.--Ahwaz 10:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Your last sentence above applies to yourself as well. You cant delete info you dont like, supplant it with your own version, and call the opposing version "persian nationalist" and "propaganda".--Zereshk 04:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

The parts I deleted were an unsubstantiated rant about ethnicity in Iran in the human rights section. It was little more than propaganda with no attempt to point to secondary material and anyway the English was appalling. I decided to make references to reports by HRW, Amnesty and UNCHR (I don't think these are pan-Arab or anti-Persian organisations), but also added a "criticism" section countering human rights allegations. I believe I summarised many of the points made before. But if you would like to expand on this and perhaps give reference to other secondary material substantiating the arguments, then go ahead. You, Zereshk, have made a point about the importance of secondary material to counter Zora's analysis of Khuzestan's history. I believe I have met the standards of proof you are demanding. But this does not seem to be good enough.--Ahwaz 07:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

If it's bad English, then fix it. That's no reason for deletion. Secondly, youre eclipsing the page with ethno-political material, which was already mentioned in 2 sections in the article, and had its own linked page. Also, your edits were not balanced. Write any anti-Iranian rant you like. But also be fair and write the view of your opposition. I dont see you doing that. You deleted the opposition on dubious reasons. One paragraph against 3 sections? That's biased. Try again please.--Zereshk 07:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I did not write any fucking anti-Iranian rant. I wrote about the fucking human rights situation with evidence from human rights organisations, you fuckwit.--Ahwaz 07:30, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Sweet.--Zereshk 07:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Claim that early Iranians "settled" in Khuzestan

SC, that's just plain wrong. The technology that led to the expansion of the Indo-European languages is believed to have been horse-drawn chariots used in warfare. The originators were peoples of the steppe, and the technology, and associated language, seems to have spread from the steppes down into the Afghan plateau (per Witzel) and thence into India and Persia. The Medes and Persians seem to have been peoples of the central Iranian plateau, speaking Proto-Iranian languages, and from there spreading down the Karun valley into the Mesopotamian plains. They didn't "settle" in Elam -- they conquered it! You've distorted history to make a nationalist point. I don't think that you'll find ANY historian who would, or would have, endorsed your version. Zora 07:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Firstly they did settle, because waves of Aryans were observed into the pre-Indo-European societies there. Then other waves came and settled, before the third overran the area. 69.196.139.250 03:44, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Anglo-American Forces and Israel are fostering these artificual problems in Iran

All the beheadings, murder of foreign reporters, mosque bombings, and terrorist activities in Iraq are committed or sanctioned by Anglo-American occupation forces or ISrael. Israel is very much so involved in North Iraq that is why there is new claims that Kurds and Jews are one and the same race by Israelis. This has resulte din an alliance between a very small minority of Iraqi Kurds and ISraelis. Connect the dots with what is happening from Iraq to Iran.

Here is proof:

British Special Forces Caught Carrying Out Staged Terror In Iraq?: Media Blackout Shadows Why Black Op Soldiers Were Arrested: USA, Information Liberation [[8]]

Britain "apologizes" for terrorist act in Basra; Rescue of SAS men who were planning to place bombs in Basra City Square: Global Research.ca, Center for Research on Globalization [[9]]

The next link is photographic evidence taken by Iraqi Police, before British Military attacked police station and freed the British terrorist operatives. [[10]]

Caught red-handed: The Raw Story, North America [[11]]

Troops free SAS men from jail: The Telegraph, United Kingdom [[12]]

Iran accuses UK of bombing link: BBC, United Kingdom [[13]]

Basra council severs relations with British: Daily Star, Lebanon [[14]]

Basra Council Cutting Ties with British: China Radio International (CRI), China [[15]]

69.196.139.250 03:44, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Translation

Isn't it neccesary to have an english translation for the arabic poetry? It could be plain propaganda... :|

You are certainly right.--Zereshk 03:01, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

ARABISTANI INDEPENDENCE

ARABISTAN IS THE REAL NAME. QUIT HIDING THE ARAB HERITAGE!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arabistani (talk • contribs) 9:40, 6 October 2006