In this article, there are at least two references to dubious sources. First, generally speaking, a journalist is not an expert, he/she is a reporter. Hence the quote from Mr. Azizi Bani-Torof is at best a personal opinion, and not supported by any credible source. Second, Mr. Pour Pirar is not a historian. Whatever he is (popular writer, gadfly, ...) no one in the historical community (or the scientific community in general) takes him seriously. I suggest we should drop these references to comply with the fact based nature of Wikipedia. Mrjahan
I agree with above. If anyone is under any misapprehension about the credibility of Pour Pirar and his conspiracy theories they should look at http://www.turkiran.com/554%20hamvatan%20setizi.htm. In this he argues that Persian history is only 150 years old, that all that came before is a fabrication and that Iran was terra nullius before the coming of Arabs because of a Jewish Massacre of all Iranians at the time of Esther. I have removed the reference to this crack-pot anti-semite and someone has reverted the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 144.139.193.12 (talk • contribs) 16:07, 21 October 2006.
I also doubt the factuality of his Bani-Torof's assertion that Arabs lived in Khuzestan before the coming of the Aryans. Were the Elamites Arabs? No.Khosrow II 02:53, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Referring me to a website in Persian doesn't improve matters, anon, since I can't read Persian. It certainly sounds like crackpottery, but how am I to know that you've paraphrased correctly? Also, Bani Torof is one of the few sources we have, in English, for the Khuzestani Arab POV. I don't like to see his views given short shrift. Perhaps you could find some other scholars from that camp to quote? Quotes in Persian or Arabic, if necessary, but translate.
I've been spreading myself too thin and haven't kept an eye on this article, but I am suspicious of all attempts to cast the Arabs as later interlopers who can therefore be dispossessed in favor of Persians if so desired. We know that there was an Arab kingdom, the Lakhmids, under the suzerainty of the Sassanids, located nearby; we know that the area was under the rule of the Umayyad and Abassid caliphates for many centuries, and that the Arabic language spread and prospered under their rule. Genetic studies have shown that the spread of a language doesn't necessarily mean that everyone who speaks that language is genetically related to the original speakers (very few of the South Asians who speak English have British blood). So it's basically indeterminate whether the current Khuzestani Arabs are genetic Arabs who have been settled there for many centuries, Arabs who were later migrants, pre-Islamic conquest inhabitants who adopted the Arab language and culture, or a mixture of all three (in unknown proportions). We'd need a lot more genetic, historical, and archaelogical studies to know more. Zora 05:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Zora, he is no historian, and no scholar. I myself can prove his theory wrong. He has no credibility. I'm removing his theory until you can show me he his a credible historian and scholar, and that this isnt just his crazy theory. He can so easily be proven wrong.Khosrow II 20:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bani-Torof writes in the preface to the published speech, "Also after delivering this speech I found new sources that prove that the indigenous Arabs of Khuzestan used to live in the area before the coming of the Aryans to the Iranian plateau. These sources include “A Pause and Reflection on History of Iran- 12 Centuries of Silence” by historian Nasser Pourpirar and “The Complete History of the Pre-Islamic Arabs” by Professor Javad Ali. Two volumes of the 10 volumes of the latter work have been translated into Persian by the late Dr.Mohammad Hussien Rohani."
According to WP policy this man and the men he is quoting is are a reliable source. This article reminds me of problem with fictional history on Kurdish people. Since another person has validly shown that Pourpirar is also a racist and Anti-Semite, we should fix this problem. If others dont agree I suggest a request for comment on the issue so others can say what they think. Khorshid 10:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sying Bani-Taarof is or is not a reliable source? because it seems to me he is not.--129.111.68.21 19:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Iranian Arab journalist and writer Yusef Azizi Bani-Torof, in a speech given in 1999, claims that the historical ancestry of Khuzestani Arabs "goes back to 6 main tribes. They consider themselves to have sprung from a common ancestry and we see this in the Aalam al-Insab." Bani-Torof has also said that "the Arab people of Khuzestan are not Arabic-speakers. By that I mean they were not Persians, Kurds or Lurs who changed their language to Arabic and are now referred to as Arab-speakers." [2] He further believes that "the indigenous Arabs of Khuzestan used to live in the area before the coming of the Aryans to the Iranian plateau."
I think this part is also a problem. Since this is his opinion we should put it on his article. About Arab Iranian POV that is what is called a non sequitor. The Wikipedia policy is to show NPOV but it has to have reliable source be verifiable. I think the article could use a peer review to identify problems. Khorshid 10:50, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This guy is obviously not a historian nor scholar, this is just his own theory, and its probably not based on anything credible. This needs to be removed immediatly.Khosrow II 20:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bani-Torof has written 20 books on ethnic minorities in Iran[1]. He is a noted author. Disagree with him and contest him, but don't just censor out what he has said because he has quoted a few words from a book by someone you think is a racist. He may be right, he may be wrong. There may be no right or wrong. Who cares? It is not for us to decide.--88.109.10.50 23:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That still does not change the fact that he is a journalists, and that he does not specialize in history. His claim that Arabs lived in Khuzestan before the Aryans even came is pure historical revisionism. So who were the Elamites? Arabs? No.Khosrow II 03:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think that Zora is correct in stating that there are a range of ideas about the native Arab population of Khuzestan and where they came from. It is not historical revisionism to have these debates. Bani Torof is one of those who has a particular viewpoint on this. A good way of cleaning up the article is to present all the arguments on the origins of the Ahwazi Arabs, instead of just Bani Torof's. This would hopefully bring the NPOV balance that you are seeking.--88.110.178.162 01:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bani Torof's theory is ludicours. Will Durant states that there were no more than 500,000 Arabs in all of the Middle East before the Islamic invasions. This means that total, from northern Saudi Arabia to Libya, to Anatolia, to Afghanistan, there were only 500,000 Arabs total. Also, how does Bani Torof explain the Elamites, who were the ones in Khuzestan before the Aryans came. Does he claim them to be Arabs, because thats the only way his theory works.Khosrow II 01:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In the document this article links to, Bani Torof quotes Ahmad Karavi as saying "The Arabs immigration to Iran postdates that of to Syria and Iraq, what is certain and there is proof for, is that the date of that immigration is centuries before Islam, and from the early days of the Sassanid. In the Parthian era the gates of Iran were open to the Arabs…" He also makes references to Tabari and others to support his argument. Would you say Karavi and Tabari are revisionists? Clearly, there were Arabs in the region during the Elamite era - how many is the question. I can't see any claim that Elamites were Arabs in this document. He quotes one scholar saying "there are traces of Elamite civilization which belongs to the Achaemenid, Parthian, and Arab era, and there are many signs of those eras in this place", but this is not the same as saying that Elamites were all Arabs.--88.110.178.162 01:56, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This claims are so senseless that they dont deserve a response. No evidence of Arabs during Elamite period. Show the evidence or don't talk about it anymore. Khorshid 15:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bani Torof provides the evidence that Arabs were present during the Elamite era using respected Iranian scholars such as Karavi and Tabari - who are reliable sources. Read the speech he gave, instead of making assumptions.--88.110.190.21 16:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tabari never mentions elamites. So there is a big lie right there from Bani Torof. Thanks. --alidoostzadeh 22:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bani Torof does not claim that Elamites were an Arab civilisation. Read the article. He quotes research that states "From what has been discovered in the city of Susa, one can say that within these hills, there are traces of Elamite civilization which belongs to the Achaemenid, Parthian, and Arab era, and there are many signs of those eras in this place." This is the only time the Elamites are mentioned. In fact, he is rather vague on the topic, stating that there is no reason to rule out an Arab presence during the Elamite era which is not the same as saying that Elamites were Arabs. I fear some are trying to set up a straw man, misrepresenting Bani Torof to delete reference to him. Bani Torof spends more time discussing the origins of Arab tribes, a subject on which he has written books. In his article, Bani Torof lists more than 40 books as his sources, many of which are by respected Iranian academics.--88.109.89.203 11:44, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. bani-Torof might have written a lot of things, and he might be a very nice person. But he still is not a historian or an expert. He is a journalist/reporter with very limited education, and unfortunately dabbles in issues unrelated to his expertise where he knows very little. As a result his opinions and statements can not be taken seriously. Wikipedia is supposed to be an Encyclopedia, not a public relation platform for wannabe politicians. Keep that in mind.
While his imprisonment and denial of his civil liberties are all very regretable, I still can not see how his personal views should be taken more seriously than established scholars because he is a prolific writer of popular newpaper articles. His views on economics and dynamics of poverty are laughable, as are his historical views. What he is good at, is letting others know about very real political grievences of ethnic Arabs today. For this particular line of work, he deserves our respect. Apart from that, he does not make a whole lot of sense.
Take this example: "However, according to Yusef Azizi Bani-Torof in a lecture at the Industrial University of Isfahan in 1999, based on information from unofficial provincial census data gathered in 1996 by the Centre for Iran Studies and published in 1997, "the population of Arabs in southwestern Iran is 4,548,240. And the ratio to Iran's total population is: 4,548,240/65,000,000 = 6.997%."
I have been working with Iranian data for over 10 years now. I have never seen this source "unofficial provincial census data" or "the Centre for Iran Studies". There are a dozen "Centers of Iran/Iranian Studies" across the world. Where is this particular center? How was this data compiled and how was it published? All the references to bani-Torof's work are from one bad translation of an informal speech. Is this what you consider checking your facts? Is this how you want to represent NPOV? I feel sorry for you then.
Zora basically is blocking cleaning up of this article because he/she admits that he/she does not have access to good sources and/or does not have the time and ability to update the state of his/her knowledge. Well, from where I stand, this sounds like a personal shortcoming and has nothing to do with keeping a neutral POV. If you do not have anything to contribute, please do not block others who are better informed. --Mrjahan October 21, 2006.
Bani Torof has made a detailed argument that you may disagree with, yet it is one that is used as a basis for argument among Ahwazi Arabs and it deserves to be included. The only way an English speaker can judge for himself is by reading the translation of his speech. One doesn't know if it is a good or bad translation. The fact that it is accompanied by other references stating other figures should enable the reader to come to their own judgement. Tell me how many other scholars have written on this issue. I would like to see a bibliography of all the "established scholars" who have written on the subject of the demography of Khuzestan.--88.110.178.162 01:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipeda doesnt work like that as we've all shown. Reliable sources, always. Khorshid 15:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are saying that only "establishment scholars" should be quoted on the issue of the demography of the Arabs of Khuzestan and I am asking you who these people are. As far as I can see, Bani Torof is the only person to attempt to quantify these numbers.--88.110.190.21 16:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mr or Ms. 88.110.190.21; I do not know who these so-called "establishment scholars" are. But I know that when you reference statistics, 1) the source should be known 2) the methodology of data collection should be known 3) data should be verified. He has done none of the above.
Mr Bani-Torof basically says that we have to accept his number on face value, without giving any verification. I do not know where you are dragging this "detailed argument" of yours. If the number is used as a fact among Arabs in khuzistan, it just shows that those who throw these numbers around should act more responsibly and also the users should think twice before using them. And by the way, if you can't judge a translation, I can. The translation is not accurate, and it has numerous mistakes. mrjahan oct 25, 2006
My friend you have made a good argument and have shown how much error there is here. The anon (Ahwaz and sockpuppets) will only ignore this and continue with the nonsense claims. Stay cool and dont give up! Khorshid 03:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You can't delete references to an Iranian Arab writer in this article spuriously claiming a lack of verifiability, yet demanding that an unsourced, unreferenced POV is included in an article on an Iranian Arab in another article, intending to denigrate an historical Iranian Arab leader.[2] I don't know if there is any agenda at work here, but at least be consistent.--88.110.190.21 17:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bani Torof is not a reliable source, this has already been discussed, notice the other messages on this talk page.Khosrow II 17:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It might have been discussed, but it has not been solved.--88.110.190.21 17:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi "ahwaz"! You are breaking WP rules by using your ip address instead of account to start edit war. Bad idea! Also on the other article I see a list of good references so its important not to hide the history! Thanks! Khorshid 17:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hah! Wrong! I challenge you to do an IP check.--88.110.190.21 17:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bani-Torof also claims Arabs are elamites..and have been living in Iran for 5000 years. I think only reliable sources should be entered. --alidoostzadeh 22:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bani-Torof has his own article on Wikipedia. He seems like a reliable source to me. Please follow Wikipedia rules and do not remove information just because you don't like it. --Ahmad
A person that claims that Elamites were Arabs is not a credible source.Khosrow II 01:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He does not say Elamites were Arabs. Please read the statements correctly. This is not the issue under consideration anyway. No one is trying to say Elamites were Arabs.
LOL All this time the other anon is saying Elamites are Arabs and have been in Iran since before Aryans and even Elamites! Ahwaz, this pan-Arabism will only get you so far and sockpuppets will only get you blocked again and again. Khorshid 03:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This going nowhere. I just delete these refernces.
Please do. This is clear case of trolling and ultranationalistic behaviors. Bani Torof and his comrades are not reliable sources according to WP policy and should be removed at once. Khorshid 03:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Khuzestani population is predominantly divided between Arabic and Persian speaking groups. How much of the population is ethnically Arab and Arabic-speaking no one knows for certain, and definitions and estimates are often disputed, as the Iranian central government does not release any ethnic-related census figures. According to the 2004CIA World Factbook, Iranian Arabs comprise 3% of the overall population, while Arabic-speakers comprise 1%.
Precise figures on the ethnic composition of Iran's population are impossible to obtain. The last census in which such data was compiled was carried out in 1956.[3]
Amir Taheri reports that less than 40% of the province's population are ethnic Arab. [4]
the population of Arabs in southwestern Iran is 4,548,240. And the ratio to Iran's total population is: 4,548,240/65,000,000 = 6.997%.[5]
The Arab population of Khuzestan is concentrated in the west and south of the province, with Arabs as the largest ethnic group in Abadan, Ahwaz, Khorramshahr, Omidiyeh, Bandar-e-Mahshahr, Dasht-e-Azadagan, Shadegan and Shush.[6] These concentrations are in areas where fishing, settled agriculture, date orchards and trade have traditionally provided a living. Other districts in the province also have significant Arab populations, although the proportion of Arabs to non-Arabs diminishes towards the north and east of the province, where the once nomadic Bakhtiari and Lur tribes are more populous.
Since the discovery of oil in 1909, the structure of the economy has shifted to oil-related industries, attracting other ethnic groups from outside the province as well as foreigners. The Iran-Iraq War also had an impact on the province's ethnic composition, with thousands of Arabs leaving the country as refugees and non-Arab indigenous groups fleeing the fighting for sanctuary in other parts of Iran. Khorramshahr, where the fighting was at its fiercest after the Iraqi invasion, was emptied and the city was almost completely destroyed by invading forces. Since the end of the war, many former Khuzestan residents and their families have return to the province, although many of the province's Arabs have settled in Iraq, Kuwait and the UAE. The province has also seen a number of controversial government migration programmes, including land confiscations, which local ethnic groups claim have disadvantaged them and forced them to relocate to other parts of the province or other Iranian provinces.
New townships have been constructed, but many new homes are being populated by people from non-Khuzestani ethnic groups, particularly Persians and Azeris, who are employed by local industries.
This has been copied from my talk page, as the debate needs to take place here. Yomanganitalk 15:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have tried my hardest to meet the concerns of those voting, merging relevant sections with other articles, expanding the content related to elections and politics and reducing the emphasis on "ethnic politics". However, past experience has shown me that when some users are determined enough, an edit war ensues, a group of editors will stack up their 3RRs and the article content becomes garbled or protected or a similarly unhelpful situation. I have appealed for help in contributing to the article to expand and improve it, but so far no-one has responded. The fact that one user wishes to revert all the work I put in yesterday is an ominous sign, although I have had no problem with Mardavich in the past.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 12:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yomangani: I am trying to do one thing at a time; I don't have time to spend hours and hours on this. I have transferred content and once I've finished my edits to Politics of Khuzestan, I'll move onto the other articles and ensure that there is a blending of content that ensures balance. There is nothing to stop someone putting a POV tag on the Arabs of Khuzestan article in the mean time. I'd just ask for a bit of patience and when I've finished, no doubt there will be editors who will begin disputing!--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 12:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yomangani, I have to respectfully disagree, most editors on that AfD wanted either the article deleted or the good parts merged into other articles and then deleted. But even if what you are telling me is correct, the editors certainly didn't want a simple cosmetic change of title, to have all of the POV ethnic-centered content of that article presrved the way it was, which is what Ahwaz is doing, by transfering them over to other articles, making the POV problem a bigger one. He is transferring the POV ethnic-centered content of Politics of Khuzestan into Arabs of Khuzestan invoking the "the result of AfD" without allowing other editors to discuss the issue. This is gaming the system, please tell him to revert all of his edits on Arabs of Khuzestan until a consensus has been reached on the discussion page. --Mardavich 12:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the AfD, as I understood it, was to change the title, sort out the POV problems with the article, merge relevant sections with other articles and review the situation within a month. If the content stayed on Politics of Khuzestan, then the AfD conclusion would not be fulfilled and the article will be deleted. My intention was to transfer content to other articles as part of the process of dealing with POV issues - I am not saying that Arabs of Khuzestan is complete and certainly the merger as it stands is inadequate and needs cleaning up. This is not "gaming the system" as I have not finished. Perhaps you could help me in order to rectify the problems. It usually helps to address the POV issues on the article's talk page, rather than demanding reverts. At the moment, I am spending more time answering you than actually editing.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 12:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Changing of the title is not a cosmetic procedure. The consensus of the editors was not to move the POV bits of Politics of Khuzestan into other articles, creating a bigger problem. Please revert revert your edits on Arabs of Khuzestan, propose the merger of the POV bites, and wait until a consensus has been reached on the discussion page. --Mardavich 13:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll answer here rather than spreading the conversation around more talk pages: I suggest the best solution here will be to revert the additions to the Arabs of Khuzestan article, pending discussion on their suitability for inclusion - they won't be lost by removing them from the Politics article as they will be available in the history. Ahwaz (and any interested editors) can concentrate on developing that article and the discussion on the inclusion of the information to the Arab article can take place as and when. Yomanganitalk 13:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The sections taken from the Politics of Khuzestan article and pasted into the Arabs of Khuzestan article were never a source of controversy - they never had a POV tag. The controversy surrounding POV was in the human rights and political parties section, which remain in the Politics of Khuzestan article and which I am currently dealing with. Mardavich would not know this as s/he has never been involved in editing these articles. So, I disagree with Mardavich's assumption that I have transferred a POV problem from one article to another. The main dispute issues surrounding Khuzestan-related articles focus on the proportion of the Arab population in the province and whether Arabs are treated differently from other sections of the Iranian population. Since these don't really apply to the content I have added to Arabs of Khuzestan, I don't understand what Mardavich's problems are.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 13:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I am wrong, I added a disputed section on demographics of Khuzestan to the Arabs of Khuzestan article - I will remove this, but keep the historical section which is not disputed.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 13:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the section that is disputed to the talk page [7] and responded to an offer to mediate on this. However, I don't think there has been a problem with the history content and think it should remain in the article.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 13:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yomangani, Ahwaz is clearly gaming the system. He only removed a small portion of the POV material he had transfered from Politics of Khuzestan, I wanted to avoid an edit war, which I why I approached him a friendly manner asking him to revert himself until a consensus has been reached on the discussion page. I have no choice but to revert him now. --Mardavich 14:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, your idea was to impose what you want, regardless of discussions. You are the one campaigning for an edit war. You have not approached me in a friendly manner, you have accused me of "gaming the system", despite any attempt at discussion.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 14:39, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ahwaz, you're unilaterally interpreting the results of the AfD. I approached you in a friendly manner, asking you to revert yourself, but you refused. Yomangani asked you to revert yourself, you still refused. You even removed my dispute tag on the article. I just took a quick look at your block log, and I am suddenly not surprised by the way you're conducting yourself. --Mardavich 14:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note that while Mardavich moans that content needs to be discussed first on talk pages before being added to articles (is this policy?), he makes no effort to actually debate in talk pages, preferring instead to make accusations against me on an admin's talk page. He is not being constructive, he simply wants to censor and prevent me from editing at all. It's the same story all the time.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 14:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yomangani, can you please take a look at [8] and [9]. I'll leave you to make a judgment yourself --Mardavich 14:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, and another admin will come along and block me for disagreeing with a well organised group of POV pushers.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 14:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[deindent] I think reverting back to the pre-merged version in its entirity would be the best solution at the moment. However, the discussion needs to take place on the article talk page - reverting the content changes isn't an excuse for skipping the discussion, and having that discussion here isn't good for record keeping. If you can't reach agreement then trying getting opinions from an uninterested third party or taking the question to WP:RFC. As for reverting the disputed tag - although you (Ahwaz) are working on removing POV it is still disputed, so perhaps it could be left until you are in a position to put it up for review by those who are disputing it. Yomanganitalk 15:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you believe me when I say that the content currently on the Arabs of Khuzestan page that was transferred from Politics of Khuzestan was never the subject of editorial dispute? If you don't believe me, take a look through the history of that page instead of relying on the accusations of an editor who has never even been involved in the article.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 15:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The whole article was the subject of a dispute at AfD, so we can't really single out one line. Conversely one line should be very easy to provide a reliable third-party source for, and having done so, there can be little argument (I hope) against its inclusion in the article. Yomanganitalk 15:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mardavich also doesn't know what s/he is talking about. What is exactly POV with the content added to the article? S/he does not say! So how can this be resolved if s/he does not even bother to say what s/he has a problem with? This is the same story all the time. The idea is to delete any content not in the control of the Iranian Wikipedians group, no matter how innocuous it is. In fact, it was Iranian Wikipedians that wrote the damn sections I transferred. The only reason they are now being rejected is simply because my username is by the edit - even when I did not write it. That is the only reason!--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 15:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yomangani, would you please revert the article back to the pre-merged version and leave a note on discussion page to start the discussions on suitability of the content to be merged there? If I do it, Ahwaz will simply revert me. It's extremely difficult to deal with this user, as you can see, he's now making personal attacks and accusations against me. --Mardavich 15:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You began this by claiming that I was "gaming the system" for simply moving content in good faith. Now you claim your feelings are hurt!--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 15:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Before tempers get any more frayed, can you discuss the objections/reasons for inclusion of the content from the Politics article. I have reverted this article back to its pre-merged state for now. Yomanganitalk 15:39, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Simple. Much of the content you deleted referred to the history of the Arabs of Khuzestan and is not relevant to the Politics of Khuzestan article.[10] There is also a small section on Ahwazi Arab refugees in Iraq, which is based on UNHCR reports. If someone has a problem with the wording, etc, then they can say. I'll give it a month and if nobody can be bothered to enter into a discussion, I will assume there is unanimity in favour of the inclusion and revert back to the merged version.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 15:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here are the sections proposed for merger with this article. Please discuss proposed changes and problems. Content could also be translated and merged from [11], which has more detail on Arab rule.
The Iranian Arab journalist Yusef Azizi Bani-Torof, in a speech given in 1999, claims that the historical ancestry of Khuzestani Arabs "goes back to 6 main tribes. They consider
themselves to have sprung from a common ancestry and we see this in the Aalam al-Insab." Bani-Torof has also said that "the Arab people of Khuzestan are not Arabic-speakers. By that I mean they were not Persians, Kurds or Lurs who changed their language to Arabic and are now referred to as Arab-speakers." [12]
According to the Encyclopedia Iranica, Arab tribes such as the Bakr bin Wael and Bani Tamim began settling in Khuzestan sometime during the Sassanid era. During the Umayyad period, large groups of Arab nomads from the Hanifa, Tamim, and Abd al-Qays tribes crossed the Persian Gulf and occupied some of the richest Basran territories around Ahvaz and in Fars during the second Islamic civil war in 661-665/680-684 A.D.(see Encyclopaedia Iranica, p.215, under Arab Tribes of Iran). In 10th century CE, an Arab tribe named Asad moved into Khuzestan(see Encyclopaedia Iranica, p.216).
In the latter part of the 16th century, the Bani Kaab, originating from what is now Kuwait, settled in Khuzestan and during the succeeding centuries many more Arab tribes moved from southern Iraq to the province, and as a result, Khuzestan became "extensively Arabized." (see J.R. Perry, "The Banu Ka'b: An Amphibious Brigand State in Khuzestan", Le Monde Iranien et L'Islam I, 1971, p133) Also see Khuzestan#The Arab Conquest of Khuzestan.
Ahmad Kasravi writes in The Forgotten Kings that the "Arabs immigration to Iran postdates that of to Syria and Iraq, what is certain and there is proof for, is that the date of that immigration is centuries before Islam, and
from the early days of the Sassanid. In the Parthian era the gates of Iran were open to the Arabs ... but it is certain and there is proof for it that during the Parthian era Arab tribes were living in provinces of Kerman, Khuzestan, Bahrain and Fars." [13]
Beginning in the 16th century, the Bani Kaab, an Arab tribe originating from what is now Kuwait, came to settle in western Khuzestan. By the mid-18th century, they dominated much of the area. After Nader Shah's death in 1747, they refused to pay taxes to the Persian and Ottoman empires alike, blockading the Arvand/Shatt al-Arab and attacking Basra; Karim Khan Zand, the Ottoman army, and the British East India Company all responded by attacking them in the 1760s. However, following the death of their strongest leader, Sheikh Salman, the tribe declined.
In 1837, the city of Mohammarah, the center of a local sheikhdom, was taken and in 1847 the Second Treaty of Erzurum between the Ottomans and Iran, confirmed it and all territory on the east bank of the Arvand/Shatt al-Arab as Iranian. Sheikh Jabir al-Kaabi, the Sheikh of Mohammerah, effectively became a provincial ruler under the command of Nassereddin Shah Qajar, the Shah of Persia. Under orders from the Shah, Sheikh Jabir fought the British to maintain Iranian sovereignty over the region. Upon Sheikh Jabir's death, his son, Sheikh Maz'al, succeeded him as tribal leader and Sheikh of Mohammerah. He strengthened and expanded commercial and political ties with Tehran. In 1897, Maz'al was murdered (some accounts state he was assassinated) by his brother, Sheikh Khaz'al Khan, who then not only assumed the position of Kaabide tribal leadership, but also proclaimed himself the ruler of the entire province. This was soon accepted by the Qajar court of Tehran, and his position as Sheikh was made official.
The rest of the province (the eastern and northern regions) remained dominated by BakhtiariKhans, Lur tribal leaders, and Persian groups. Several of the Bakhtiari Khans, in particular, had entered into alliances with Khaz'al.
When British cartographers, diplomats, and telegraph workers, traveled along Iran's southern coast in the early 19th century laden with guns and accompanied by powerful ships, some local chieftains quickly calculated that their sworn allegiance to the Shah in Tehran with its accompanying tax burden might be optional. When queried, they proclaimed their own local authority.[1]
By 1925 however, having dissolved the Qajar dynasty and establishing himself as the new Shah of Iran, Reza Shah had the Arab chieftain Sheikh Khaz'al arrested, who had by this time lost the support and protection of the British colonialists. Khaz'al was sent to Tehran and spent the rest of his life there under house arrest until his death in 1936. It is said that he did not die of natural causes, but was murdered by a low-level guard on the orders of Reza Shah. The areas which had comprised his emirate were returned to the province, and the name of Mohammerah was changed to Khorramshahr, while Naseriyeh reverted to Ahvaz.
Reza Shah then embarked upon an overall campaign to forcibly settle all the nomads of Iran among others the Arab, Bakhtiari, and Luri nomadic tribes of southwestern Iran. This created great resentment amongst tribal leaders who viewed such actions as an attempt to suppress and destroy their cultures and way of life. Reza Shah countered their arguments by claiming that some of these nomadic tribes were dangerous and had engaged in criminal activities such as highway robbery and banditry. The Lurs, in particular, were considered to be one of the fiercest Iranian tribes. Similar claims were used to justify actions taken against the Baluch tribes of eastern Iran. These initial attempts by the central government to settle the nomadic peoples were ultimately unsuccessful, as when the era of Reza Shah ended, many of the tribes returned to their nomadic ways. Under the reign of the last Shah of Iran, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, attempts were again made to settle these tribes using less forceful methods and which met with greater success.
In addition to the nomadic issue, Reza Shah had also promoted an aggressive campaign to bring the whole of Iran into the modern age, and to accomplish this it was felt that the entire nation would have to be brought under a single cultural and linguistic banner. Persian language and modern dialect were stressed over minority languages such as Azeri, Baluchi, Khuzestani Arabic and Kurdish, and over distinct Persian dialects such as Bakhtiari, Behbahani, Dezfuli, Luri, and Shushtari. The Arabs of southern Iran were, in particular, singled out by the Pahlavi governments for increased scrutiny in these efforts, which they widely considered as constituting evidence of state-sponsored racism and cultural suppression. As with other Iranian ethnic groups, the Arabs of Iran wished to retain not only their Iranian identity, but also the identity of their own distinct languages, cultures and heritage, though in recent decades increased migration to the urban centres and assimilation into Persian culture has tended to reduce these sentiments.
In 1980, Saddam Hussein, the Iraqi dictator, tried to take advantage of the revolution in Iran. Gambling that the new government would be too weak to resist him, and that the Arabic-speaking minority of Khuzestan would support Iraq, his armies invaded Khuzestan, initiating the Iran-Iraq war. He was proved wrong when the Iranians successfully defended the province, and the Arab minority remained firmly with Iran. Around 16,000 Khuzestanis died fighting in the war, 12,000 of them Arabs. The brutal eight-year-long war devastated Khuzestan, most especially the important port city of Khorramshahr, and the province is still recovering.
A report on Iraq published by the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) in November 2005 drew attention to the plight of Khuzestani Arab refugees in Iraq. [14] The report says that there are around 2,500 Arab refugees in Iraq, most of whom fled the Iran-Iraq War. According to the UNHCR, "... they are predominantly of rural background, and live in local settlements in southern Iraq near the Dujailah area 45 kilometres west of al-Kut."
The refugees had been given land and housing by the regime of Saddam Hussein, but after his downfall in 2003 they were made homeless after being attacked by extremist Arab militias allied to the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), an Iraqi Shi'a party supported by the Iranian government. According to the UNHCR, around 80 Khuzestani Arab families were forced out of their homes by opponents of Saddam Hussein and have been relocated to the UNHCR transit centre near Basra. The UNHCR report states that "they were later evacuated by the Iraqi authorities and ever since have been scattered throughout the southern governorates. Many attempted to return to Iran, but came back to Iraq due to alleged harassment by the Iranian authorities and difficulties reintegrating following years in exile."
The Khuzestani population is predominantly divided between Arabic and Persian speaking groups. How much of the population is ethnically Arab and Arabic-speaking no one knows for certain, and definitions and estimates are often disputed, as the Iranian central government does not release any ethnic-related census figures. According to the 2004CIA World Factbook, Iranian Arabs comprise 3% of the overall population, while Arabic-speakers comprise 1%.
Precise figures on the ethnic composition of Iran's population are impossible to obtain. The last census in which such data was compiled was carried out in 1956.[15]
Amir Taheri reports that less than 40% of the province's population are ethnic Arab. [16]
the population of Arabs in southwestern Iran is 4,548,240. And the ratio to Iran's total population is: 4,548,240/65,000,000 = 6.997%.[17]
The Arab population of Khuzestan is concentrated in the west and south of the province, with Arabs as the largest ethnic group in Abadan, Ahwaz, Khorramshahr, Omidiyeh, Bandar-e-Mahshahr, Dasht-e-Azadagan, Shadegan and Shush.[18] These concentrations are in areas where fishing, settled agriculture, date orchards and trade have traditionally provided a living. Other districts in the province also have significant Arab populations, although the proportion of Arabs to non-Arabs diminishes towards the north and east of the province, where the once nomadic Bakhtiari and Lur tribes are more populous.
Since the discovery of oil in 1909, the structure of the economy has shifted to oil-related industries, attracting other ethnic groups from outside the province as well as foreigners. The Iran-Iraq War also had an impact on the province's ethnic composition, with thousands of Arabs leaving the country as refugees and non-Arab indigenous groups fleeing the fighting for sanctuary in other parts of Iran. Khorramshahr, where the fighting was at its fiercest after the Iraqi invasion, was emptied and the city was almost completely destroyed by invading forces. Since the end of the war, many former Khuzestan residents and their families have return to the province, although many of the province's Arabs have settled in Iraq, Kuwait and the UAE. The province has also seen a number of controversial government migration programmes, including land confiscations, which local ethnic groups claim have disadvantaged them and forced them to relocate to other parts of the province or other Iranian provinces.
New townships have been constructed, but many new homes are being populated by people from non-Khuzestani ethnic groups, particularly Persians and Azeris, who are employed by local industries.
Insert non-formatted text here
^"Memorandum by the Rev. George Percy Badger on the Pretensions of Persia in Beloochistan and Mekran, drawn up with special reference to Her Claim to Gwadur and Charbar," London, Dec. 23, 1863, FOP 60/287.
