Talk:Arabs of Khuzestan/Archive 2

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Note: Check your sources

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: Bani-Torof has written 20 books on ethnic minorities in Iran. 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  Tabari never mentions elamites.  So there is a big lie right there from Bani Torof.  Thanks.  --alidoostzadeh 22:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Dispute

message: This has been copied from my talk page, as the debate needs to take place here. Yomanganitalk 15:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  I have removed the section that is disputed to the talk page  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  Yomangani, can you please take a look at  and . I'll leave you to make a judgment yourself --Mardavich 14:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Debate

message: 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)
replies: text: 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. 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)
thread_title: Merge