Talk:Politics of Khuzestan province/Archive 1

message: Hmm. There was an anti-Ahwazi link on the Ahvaz page, but Zereshk removed it. I'll find that and add it. Also, several of the news articles I cited believed in the "conspiracy" theory. If you think that there should be any more links, Zereshk, you add them. Zora 05:27, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

message: I object to Southern Comfort's accusations of "historical revisionism" in the "political organisations" section. I have simply put forward information on the platforms of these political parties, but Southern Comfort is putting his/her own POV on these party's policies by insisting they are "revisionist". Although I have not reverted to my original article and tried to accommodate his/her opinions, Southern Comfort continues to re-impose this inaccuracy. The fact is that the history of Al-Ahwaz/Khuzestan is a matter of debate and that the accusation of "revisionism" is intended to smear those who do not hold the view that the region is ethnically Persian - a notion that I have attempted disprove and which Southern Comfort has made no attempt to challenge adequately. S/he has also been similarly abusive on Ahwaz City's history.--Ahwaz 14:13, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not make any major changes to this new section, nor am I against you including these groups' views. What I did do was change the assertion you've made that Khuzestan is actually 'Arabistan,' which is historical revisionism. What you're trying to say is that Persians (and this includes Loris, Bakhtiaris, Gilanis, etc) are not native to the region, that Khuzestan has no Iranian heritage, that before the Arabs invaded and occupied Iran there wasn't even any Khuzestan or province there to begin with. If that's not revisionism, then I don't know what is. Your arguments are reaching beyond the limits of absurdity. Please, do us all a favour and learn some historical facts. SouthernComfort 16:15, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I never said Khuzestan was Arabistan nor am I making any explicit claims about who is native. Clearly, anyone who is born and resides there is a native, just as those who are not born there and do not reside there are not native Khuzestanis - although there are 30,000 Khuzestani Arab refugees currently living in tents in Iraq since they fled the Iran-Iraq War and they deserve some mention. I was simply stating what these political parties believed and that the historical debates over Khuzestan's ethnic heritage are part of the ethnic conflict within the province. To call this "historical revisionism" is POV. I suggest that you need to learn more about the Arabs of Khuzestan, instead of claiming that all those who identify themselves as such are loyalists of Saddam Hussein - a notion that is both false and prejudiced.--Ahwaz 17:40, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Historical revisionism" accusation 

message: The article I originally wrote has been transformed into a biased and inaccurate apologia for one position. I protest vigorously. I will be trying to rewrite the article to present an alternate view as well.
To take just one distortion: the statement that there was no Abide Emirate before Sheikh Khazal, that he was an interloper introduced by the British, that there were no Arab inhabitants outside the small area he ruled. This contradicts info from the Encyclopedia Iranica, which SC and Zereshk accept whenever it's convenient, and doesn't at all account for the numbers of Arabs settled in villages throughout the province.
Then there's the attempt to suppress population estimates, in line with the Iranian government strategy. Zora 08:26, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article has been warped into Persian nationalist fantasia 

message: Determined googling produced this fascinating article on the oil industry of Khuzestan 
and also this letter from Hirad Dinavari :
: No nationalist ideology, be it Persian, Azeri, Pan-Turanist, Kurdish, Arab, Zionist, Armenian or Afghan will give you the full picture. They are all wrong! I am glad you are reading history, but please read objective history, avoid ideologs with an agenda like Ahmad Kasravi. I am not saying he is wrong, or his research is faulty, I am saying he uses history to push his Iranian nationalist ideology. I am a history major and love the history of the Balkans, Turkey, Caucasus (Ghafghaz), Iran, Iraq, the Arab world, Afghanistan, Central Asia and India. I have lived in Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India and Turkey.
Zora 10:16, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Woo! New links! 

message: So far as I know, there isn't a standard Wiki way to insert literature references, but I've been using, and I've seen a lot of, standard social science style. That is, if you have a references list, then you can can use (Le Strange, 1905, p. 232). If there are several publications in a year, then you use 1905a, 1905b, etc. If the reference in the text is the ONLY reference, it's usually Lands of the Eastern Caliphate, Le Strange, Cambridge University Press, 1905 OR the preceding minus the press name, or with the place of publication instead. Often people add the ISBN number, if there is one, so that the book can be purchased if desired. 
I don't think I've been consistent, and I really need to think this through, and figure out the best way to give references. Anyway, Southern Comfort, you've been referring to books with just the author's name and the title, and giving no other information. More info is important if other editors are to use, or evaluate the sources. The date seems to me to be quite important. Frex, I have a very different reaction to Le Strange, 1905, and Daryaee, 2002. The Daryaee is going to be state-of-the-art, and the Le Strange is to be used with caution. Also, it's important to use the Persian or Arabic title if the book is in Persian or Arabic. That way, other editors don't go nuts looking for non-existent translations. It's OK to put an English translation of the title in parens afterwards, if it's clear that this is just a gloss rather than the title of a translation. 
Careful specification of the sources used is the humanities/social science equivalent to the scientific paper's careful specification of the experimental protocol. Other researchers need to know HOW to repeat the research in order to do confirmatory experiments, or readings, or whatever. Zora 06:39, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: Just found a very nice-looking source, from a professor at the U. of Berkeley: .  Most relevant is these two paragraphs; after describing the first Treaty of Erzerum, it says:
: While the terms of the treaty were clear, both sides continued to intervene in each other’s territory.  The creation of the new and independent state Muhammarah (modern-day Khorramshar, Iran) in 1812 added a new dimension to the conflict.  Iraqi governors and the Persian Shahs vied for control over Muhammarah.  By 1840, tensions over nomadic tribes and attacks on Muhammarah nearly brought the two empires to war.  However, Britain established a boundary commission composed of Iranian, Turkish, British and Russian diplomats to mediate the conflict.  In 1847, the Persians and Ottomans, with the help of the newly created commission, approved the second Treaty of Erzurum.
:  The second revision emphasized the importance of the Shatt al-Arab river.  Persia was given control of the land east of the Shatt al-Arab while the Ottomans received sovereignty of the land west of the Shatt al-Arab.8  In addition to the new border distinctions, the treaty made clear that the Persian government could not interfere in Northern Iraq (particularly in dealing with Kurdish tribes).9  In return, Persia was given control over Muhammarah.  The second revision of the treaty not only outlined new terms for the two empires, but also brought the first foreign intervention in Iranian-Iraqi relations.  While small, occasional border disputes would occur, the two empires would not engage in another large-scale war due to the presence of the foreign powers.
- Mustafaa 21:02, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Helpful in understanding the backrgound alluded to is : "This treaty did not establish a frontier line, but “rather, it described that strip of land in which the authority of both sultan and shah was weak and disputed. Somewhere within that zone lay the boundary.”  And this treaty (Treaty of Zohab) was as precise as it gets until the Second Treaty of Erzurum! - Mustafaa 21:29, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: I've made substantial edits reflecting this information. See what you think. - Mustafaa 21:26, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: More sources

message: User Ahwaz' assertion that  "see Ahmad Kasravi's book "The Forgotton Kings", he states: "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." He quotes Muhammad ibn Jarir al-Tabari as stating: "Aam is the same as 
Merah Ibn Zidan Tammim, it seems these are the same well known tribes of Bani-Tammim who today reside in Khuzestan and their ancestor is Merah Ibn Malik, who lived in the era of Ardeshir Babakan the first Sassanid king, and helped that king in his war against the Parthian Ardawan." The Aam are the Bani-Aam tribe, an Arab tribe."  
(a few paragraphs above) and the grandiloquent statement "Throughout history there have been accounts of Arab resistance to Persian rule which were primarily focused on land"  and also
"Ethnic tension between Persians and Arabs in Khuzestan was alluded to in Tabari's The History of the Prophets and Kings, in which he wrote of emnity between the people of Kalib ibn Vail, an Arab tribe, and Hormozan, a Persian king who ruled an area that was then called Ahwaz during the caliphate of Umar ibn al-Khattab (581-644 CE). Tabari wrote that the conflict between Hormozan and the Arabs concerned "land and vilage disputes."
motivated me to study Tabari's book. I used the English translation of Tabari's "Tarikh al-rusul
walmoluk" :
The History of Al-Tabari an annotated translation, translated by G. R. Smith, State University of New York Press, 1994.
Conquest of Iran is mentioned in the following volumes:
Vol. 12 : The battle of Al-Qadisiyyah and the the conquest of Syrria and Palestine.
Vol. 13 : Conquest of Iraq, Southwestern Persia and Egypt.
Vol. 14 : Conquest of Iran.
I studied all the stuff about the conquest of Southwestern Iran and also all other places where Ahwaz or Hurmuzan is mentioned in the above 3 Vol.s .  The result shows how honest and knowledgeable Bani Torof and user Ahwaz are. 
First let's know what is mentioned in Tabari about al-Aam. Vol. 13, Parapraph# 2536 (pp. 116-117):
 "There is a story explaining how this man called al-Ami came by his name. This al-Ami was Murrah b. Malik b. Hanzalah b. Malik b. Zayd Manat b. Tamim, with whom, as well as with al-Usayyah b. Imri al-Qays, there settled a mixed bunch of people from Ma'ad.[Translator's note: Ma'ad is a collective name for northern Arab tribes.] Those people who were of the opinion that he should not give support to Persians in controling al-Ardawan had believed him to be blind to what was the proper course of action. Concerning this attitude, Ka'b b. Malik, his brother -sometimes it is Sudday(b. Malik who is mentioned)- composed the following verses(in tawil):
(Though) once a good man, now our Murrah is blind, and, deaf to his kinsman's pleas, he has set out to settle away from us, spurning his land, and seek with the Persian lords power and fame." 
 
So did you understand how "indigenous" those people were? The "Aam" you speak about was a defector. But wait that's not the end of the story. Where those Amis used to live? Vol. 13, paragraph# 2534,pp 114-115:
 "In that year, I mean 17, the conquest of Suq al-ahwaz, Manadhir and Nahr Tira took place according to some; according to others, that was in the year 16 after Hijrah.
An Account of the Circumstances Leading to the the Conquest of al_Ahwaz and of Him Who Carried It Out
According to al_sari-Shuyab-Muhammed, Talhah, al-Muhallab, and Amr: Al-Hurmuzan was one of the seven noble families among the Persians. His territory was comprised of Mihrijan Qadhaq and the district of al_Ahwaz. These weere families who were higher in rank than anybody in Fars. When al- Hurmuzan was routed at the battle of al-Qadisiyyah, he headed for his territory and fought him who attacked them. Al-Hurmuzan used to make raides on the people of Maysan and Dastimaysan [Transl. note: These are districts north of al-Basra and west of al_ahwaz.] from two dirrections, Manadhir and Nahr Tira." 
In order to avoid misunderstanding of the last sentence look at these paragraphs from the events of year 14 (Vol. 12, pp171-172):
 "According to Abayah b. Abd Amr: I participated in the conquest of al-Ubullah with Utbah. Utbah sent Nafid b. al-Harith to Umar with the news of the conquest. The people of Dastimaysan gathered [an army] against us. Utbah said: I think that we should march against them. We marched and confronted the governor(marzuban) of Dastimaysan. We fouth him; his companions were defited and he was taken prisoner, his mantle and belt being seized. Utbah sent him [to Umar] with Anas b. Hujayyah al-Yashkuri. According to Abu al-Malih al-Hudhali: Utbah sent Anas b. Hujayyahto Umar with the belt of the governor of the Dast-i Maysan. Umar said to him: "What is the condition of Muslims?" Anas said: "The [wealth of this] world has engulfed them, and they are dripping with gold and silver." The people became attracted by al-Basra and came to live there." 
and in the next page:
 "According to al-Tabari's isnad- Qatadah:  The people of Maysan gathered an army against the Muslims. Al-Mughirah set out against them, leaving the heavy luggage behind. Ardah bint al- Harith b. Kaladah said: "I wish I could join the muslim men and be with them," and she maid 
a banner of her veil. The other women [also] used their veils as flags and set out in the direction of Muslims. When they reached them the polytheists were fighting them. But when the  polytheists saw the approaching flags, they thought that reinforcements were coming to Muslims and took to fight. The Muslims pursued them and killed many of them." ''
(The last story is a bit interesting!) So the attackes by Hurmuzan on Maysan mean he fought with Muslim forces who had conquered Maysan and Dastimaysan in year 14 and were threatenning his territory. ("he headed for his territory and fought him who attacked them." ) So back to Hurmuzan (Vol. 13 pp. 115-116):
 "Utbah b. Ghazwan asked Sa'd for reinforcements, so the latter sent him Nu'yam b. Muqarrin and Nu'yam b. Mas'ud, ordering them to go to the highest point of overlooking Maysan and Dastimaysan untill they had reached a position between al-Hurmuzan (and his people ) were and Nahr Tira. Utbah b. Ghazwan sent Sulma b. al-Qayn and Harmalah b. Muraytah out on a certain mission. They were two of the Companions of the Messenger of God, who had made the Hijrah with him; both from Adawiyyah clan of Hanzalah. They arrived at the border of the land of Maysan and Dastimaysan, at a point between al-Hurmuzan and Manadhir. There they called upon Banu al-Ami. So Ghalib al-Walili and Kulayb b. Wail al-Kulaybi responded. They had separated from Nu'aym (b. Muqarrin) and Nuaym (b Masud) and turned away from them. Now they went to Sulma and Harmala. After they had arrived there, the latter said,  "You are from the same tribe therefore you may not desert us. When the day such-and-such has come, rise against al-Hurmuzan. One of us will attack Manadhir, the other Nahr Tira and we will kill al-Hurmuzan's fighters. Then we will come to you again. God willing, there is no other enemy other that al-Hurmuzan."  After the two men from the Ami b. Malik clan had promised their cooperation, they returned to their clansmen who, in their turn, also agreed to help." 
Then Tabari explains the meaning of Ami as I quoted above. In the next paragraph (2537, page 118) Tabari says that at that particular night, Sulma, Harmala ,Nu'aym  and Hurmuzan  "came face to face at a spot between Duluth and Nahr Tira, Sulma b. al-Qayn at the head of the warriors 
from al-Basraand Nuaym b. Muqarrin in the command of those from al-Kufah. Then fighting broke out."  "Then the news that Mandahir and Nahr Tira had been taken reached al-Hurmuzan. So God broke his strength and that of his army and defeated him and his troops.
The Muslims killed and captured as many as they wanted from them and they pursued them untill they came to a halt on the bank of the Dujail[Transl. note: nowadays Karun ] , having occupied all the land this side (i.e. that is west) of the river. They encamped opposite Suq 
al-Ahwaz. In the meantime, al-Hurmuzan had crossed the bridge to Suq al-Ahwaz and taken up residence there."  ''
Now what happened next and where there any of al-Ami beyond the spot  "at the border of the land of Maysan and Dastimaysan" mentioned above.  
Tabari next says (paragraph 2538Vol. 13, pp 119-120): 
 "When Muslim warriors invaded al-Hurmuzan's territory and set up their camp close to where he was in al-Ahwaz, he realized that he lacked manpower to overcome them. So he begged for peace, whereupon they wrote about that proposal to Utbah, asking him for directives in this matter. Al-Hurmuzan sent a letter to Utbah who, while accepting the proposed peace treaty, answered that al-Hurmuzan was to remain in control of all of al-Ahwaz and Mihrijan Qadhaq with the exception of Nahr Tira and Manadhir and that area of Suq al-Ahwas that the Muslims had already conquered. What we had liberated from Persian rule would not be returned to them. Sulma b. al-Qayn placed a garrison in Manadhir under the command of Ghalib, and Harmala placed one in Nahr Tira under the command of Kulayb. They had formerly commanded the forces of al-Basra.
Meanwhile groups of Banu al-Ami left their former dwelling places and took up residence in al-Basra, one group after another. Utbah wrote about that to Umar and sent a delegation." ''
Then al-Anaf b. Qays [a leader of Tamim in al-Basra] told Umar(paragraph# 2539):  "We kept on moving from one place to another, untill we arived at a piece of open country. Well, our brothers among the inhabitants of al-Kufah have settled in a place rich in vegetation, overflowing with sweet springs and lush pald groves; in a never-ceasing flow its frute produce reaches them. But we, the people of al-Basra, we have settled in a soggy swamp, which does not produce anything. One side faces the desert and the other side gives on to a brackish river. Supplies reach this region like a tricle from ostrich's gullet. Our houses are crammed, our daily rations poor. Our numbers are large but our 
nobles are few in number. Many of us have fought vigorously, but our finances are strained, while our plots of land are small. In the past God enriched us and increased our land. So may you now enrich us, Commander of the Faithful, and increase the daily rations assigned to us so that we may survive! 
So Umar reviewed their dwelling places which they had occupied untill they moved out into the desert. Then he gave them the region as their share in the booty and alloted plots to them, also taken from what used to belong to the Persian royal family. Thus all the land between the Tigris and the desert became fay' land. They divided it among themselves. The other properties of the royal family in the land around al-Basra were thus dealt with in the same manner as the land of al-Kufah was dealt with "
"The land occupied by the people of al-Basrah consisted of two halves, one was divided up into plots; the other was left for the benefit of the armed forces and the community." ''
So Tabari tells us  Omar allowed  them to settle in the area "between the Tigris and the desert", so they had hardly lived there before otherwise they didn't need to "occupy" it. No other mention exists of al-Ami (or any other Arab tribes living in the area, when Muslims were conquering the area) in the description of occupation of "al-Ahwaz" (as you see below) as well as other parts of vol.s 12 to 14 of Tabari's history. So before Islam al-Ami settlers (defectors) had hardly anything to do with today's Khuzestan. Their real existence began by Omar's aforementioned command.
Now what is that alleged "ethnic tension" mentioned in Tabari?  Paragraph 2541 (pp 121-122):
 "While the people of al-Basrah and those who were living under their protection were thus engaged, a controversy flared up, each side putting forth contradictory claims concerning the boundaries of their lands, between al-Hurmuzan on the one hand and Ghalib and Kulayb on the other.
Sulma and Harmala went there to see what going on among them and found Galib and Kulayb to be in the right and al-Hurmuzan to be wrong. So they separated the quarreling parties. Moreover al-Hurmuzan went back on his word and withheld what he had accepted to pay. Then he called 
upon the Kurds to help him, whereupon his army grew in strenght."
    
 So did you realize what was your alleged "land and village dispute" "alluded to in Tabari's  History"?  A dispute between Hurmuzan and people  who, according to Tabari "occupied" the area between Tigris and Karun just in the same year.  What a substantial dispute!
To quote the rest of the story, I'll postpone condemning you, user Ahwaz, but let me teach you a lesson now: Don't refer to a reference unless you know what is mentioned in it; otherwise people will laughe at you. '''
Now (paragraph 2541) Umar sends  "Hurqus b. Zuhair al-Sadi one of the Prophet's Companions as reinforcement."   and  "So, when they crossed over the bridge to the other side, fighting broke out while they were still on that part directly facing Suq al-Ahwas. In the end al-Hurmuzan 
was beaten. He set out in the direction of Ramhurmuz took a village called al-Shaghar on the dam of Arbuk and finally alighted at Ramhurmuz.
Hurqus conquered Suq al-Ahwaz and took up residence there. Then he entered the mountain region, and and the administration of the whole region from Suq al-Ahwaz all the way to Tustar became well organized. He imposed the jizah, wrote the news about the conquest to Umar and sent fifth parts of the booty acquired in the different areas, dispaching a delegation to carry this to him." ''
paragraph 2542: Tabari quotes a poem by "al-Aswad b. Sari" :
 "We wrested from al-Hurmuzan a whole area so rich in provisions in every district. It's dry land and water supply well in balance, when excellent groves come to early fruition. This land has a turbulent stream into which por tributaries from both sides, always overflowing." 
 
Then In paragraph 2543 Tabari says:
 "When al-Hurmuzan had arrived in Ramhurmuz and the province of al_ahwaz had become full of the Muslims settling in it, even right in front of him, he sent a peace agreement and sent messages to Hurqus and Jaz asking for this." 
Now you, user Ahwaz, did you understand what is the meaning of "indigenous" ?! Aren't you get upset to hear about this "intentional immigration" and its negative effect on the  culture and heritage of the native people? Where were international organizations to condenm 
 "Muslims killed and captured as many as they wanted from them" ? Did you know that in the time of Sasanids Khuzestan (Susiana at that time) used to be compared to India for it's vegetation and they were long-lasting wars (from Omar to Bani Abbas, Khuzestan was the port of departure of armies to the east) which deteriorated even its ecology?
 If you think more carefully a better title for your article is this: 
 "History of the calamities inflicted on Khuzestan by Arabs: From Omar to Sheikh Khazal to Saddam Hosein".   (I don't consider Arabs who now live in Khuzestan in the above title. sorry if it seems otherwise. )
Now compare Tabari's history quoted above to the account of Bani Torof in his so-called article:
"Tabari history says this about the conquest of Ahwaz:
the conquest of Ahwaz was in the 18th year, when Omar (2nd caliph) entered Syria.
The cities of Ahwaz were overcome and the king of Ahwaz was Hormozan, a great
man, the kingdom of Ahwaz was his and his family’s. There were seventy cities in
Ahwaz. And Hormozan was the king of all those cities. There were people in Ahwaz
of Kalib Ibn Vael and there was enmity between them and Hormozan due to land and
village disputes. Hormozan went to the main of the cities that was in the center of the
country; the name of the city was “Sough al-Ahwaz” and took refuge in that city which
was fortified. And through that city was a river by the name of Dojil and underneath it
is a bridge. (Tabari’s history)"
So did you understand what an asshole forger your "prominet academic" is? First Tabari says the year of conquest was 17 or 16 (see quotations above) but Bani Torof says 18.
Then he speakes of "seventy cities"  while Tabari mentiones "seven noble families among persians". He also craftsmanly deletes the "al-" in 
"al-Hurmuzan" but retains the "al-" in "al-Ahwas" and then rejoices: "Mohammad Ibn Jarir al-Tabari tells us that Khuzestan had seventy cities, and the name of the province was Ahwaz not Khuzestan, and the capital was Sough al-Ahwaz, an Arabic name." 
How shrewd he is!  Does the name "al-Hurmuzan" Tabari uses really means name of the governor was "al-"Hurmuzan ? The same applies to "Suq al-Ahwaz".
He goes on to say : "It is obvious from the problems between Hormozan and Kalib Ibn Vail, that the Arabs of Khuzestan were already suffering racial discrimination in those days."  
Tabari's history, qouted above, tells you all that discriminations! Go to the hell. This shows how accurate his other statements are.Now, Have you, user Ahwaz, thought you could obfuscate the history simply by searching the internet and making links to this and that website? And what gullible person could believe this is just for the sake of human and civil rights? Your have used a revealing name for yourselves BRITISH-Ahwazi guys. You'd better do you buissiness in London or Dubai and stop coveting Khuzestan's assets.
Up to now user Ahwaz used controversial and many times baseless statements in the article and challanged us to disoprove them. Now regarding the above issues, the situation is reversed. I erased  the baseless assertions and whoever wants to restore similar statements has to present well-documented refernces . 
The things I've edited are as folows:
1)"accounts of an Arab presence in Khuzestan dating back to the Parthian era". I have not access to Kasravi's book now but according to yourself, Kasravi says Arabs helped Ardeshir. This doesn't mean they lived in Khuzestan. Most probably they were Arabz  of Hirah who where allies of Sassanids. 
2)"Lurs and Bakhtiari, who have their own dialects, customs and tribal identities that are distinct from the dominant national Persian culture. Khuzestan also had its own local identity"
Which province doesn't have its own local identity? What is "dominant national Persian culture" ?
People of Tehran, Esfahan, Yazd aand Fars each have their own accent and local identity. This is not a thing that you could push your teeth in.
These and the shit you've made out of Tabari, invalidates the 2 first paragraphs.I aded a short introduction instead. Only one of the sections of the "Roots of ethnic tension" ,(pahlavi era)
has to do with ethnic tension.
3)Demographics: This is funny; first "According to Human Rights Watch, 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." and then Bani torof Comes and gives the impossible data! Bani torof in his Article says: "percentages are my opinion." and we saw that how honest his opinions are. I couldn't find the census data on the internet so untill a reference from Census Bureau (or othar official organization) is obtained there is no reliable data to post.
4)Name of cities : I added a note (not so polished ) because  formerly it didn't give any information about the age of that Arabic names.. If you found a contradicting reference , cite it.
5) Moin's assertion is based on a guess.
Damned 05:35, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a thought: the census data suggests that there are plenty of districts where Arabs are a minority. It kinda undermines the argument that all the province is Arab and can secede.--61.11.69.22 16:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What is in Tabari's history and what has been obfuscated 

message: Added them in (in a separate section). If the involved editors dont like the format (of them having a separate section), then we can directly incorporate them into the body of the text in the article. I'll leave that up to y'all erudites.--Zereshk 20:36, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added a section from a recent Amnesty report on the government's failure to adhere to the Constitution. As you have put extracts from the Constitution into the article, I thought it more appropriate to retitled the section as the Constitution and government policy are two separate areas.--Ahwaz 10:12, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Articles of constitution

message: Regarding "unsubstantiated" material: The following table, reportedly based on unofficial provincial census data gathered in 1996 by the Centre for Iran Studies and published in 1997, accompanied his lecture ... The alleged source in question for these population figures, the "Centre for Iran Studies," is not a known or verifiable organization and as such does not meet the stringent criteria of WP:V. Furthermore, as I had mentioned many times before - though ignored each time - the population figures conflict severely with legitimate sources, both official and unofficial (including the CIA.)
The table should be removed entirely and if mention is to be made of the figures, they should be stated as the unverifiable claims of a possibly non-existent organization. SouthernComfort 19:16, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since population figures are a recurring problem, we need to discuss them thoroughly in one place and refer to that discussion whenever the question arises. I don't want readers to trust Bani-Torof uncritically; I also don't want that POV re population removed. Expose readers to full range of estimates and arguments. Zora 19:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The source does not meet the criteria of WP:V and clearly violates that policy. As it currently reads in the article, it presents the figures as being "unofficial" but legitimate in the same way the CIA figures are "unofficial" and legitimate. WP:V was formulated to help maintain some level of credibility and accuracy. WP was never intended to be an ethnically-driven forum for political propaganda, agendas, etc. I don't know what Bani-Torofs story is regarding this particular issue, but the figures and the non-existence of the "centre" are too absurd for inclusion. Unless, that is, if there is overwhelming consensus amongst WP editors to throw credibility and respectability out the window oonce and for all and no longer pretend to be an "encyclopedia." I mean, that is what this project is supposed to be about, right? SouthernComfort 23:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this the same SouthernComfort who said I have a lot of respect for Bani-Torof as a journalist and though the data may be flawed, it may not be totally incorrect at the time it was taken ... So the census data, unofficial as it was to begin with, is definitely outdated. But I still don't have a problem with its inclusion--88.111.63.92 23:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

text: May I also suggest that "Centre for Iran Studies" is possibly a bad translation of a similar named organisation. The fact is that this is a published document by a well-known Iranian Arab journalist SouthernComfort (not an exile or a separatists, but one who remains in Iran) previously said he respects that is relevant to the issue of demography of Khuzestan.--88.111.63.92 23:51, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What does my personal opinion of Bani-Torof have to do with this issue? I didn't have a problem with its inclusion because at the time I thought the source was verifiable. After much time attempting to verify this so-called "Centre for Iran Studies" I have not been successful. The source furthermore conflicts with both official and unofficial census numbers. There are many reasons why Bani-Torof may have accepted this information, but it is my place to speculate as to his motives, if he even had one, as he might have very well been misled. At any rate, the source, as far as the issue of population figures, does not meet the criteria of WP:V. The table should be removed. Also see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Wikipedia is definitely not a soapbox or a political battleground or a place to push such agendas. That's official policy. Please try to observe such policy, otherwise your edits will not be welcome. SouthernComfort 14:42, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know why you are taking that tone with me. I have not stopped you from making edits nor have I made any changes. So please don't insinuate that I am doing things that I have not done. Assume good faith.--88.109.74.236 17:07, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:V]]