Talk:Ahvaz/Archive 1

message: If there's any debate about the nature of the British Ahwazi group, perhaps we should create a page for the organization and lay out the arguments for both sides, instead of trying to delete links or add editorial comments.
:I Agree.--Zereshk 23:21, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I care when people are being oppressed, no matter who they are. I don't agree with separatists of any kind -- or nationalists of any kind. IMHO, nationalism is a nasty primate attitude that we should learn to transcend. Thus I'm unlikely to "sympathize" with people trying get their way through violence. However, I think we ought to tell it like it is, rather than pretend that unpleasant things don't exist. Zora 22:52, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

message: I will now debate you, not as a westerner, but as an Iranian who speaks the southern dialects prevalent in territories claimed by al-Ahwaz, where I was born, and as a native tongue.
*You said: Citations from medieval etymologists are suspect, given that etymology (East, West, anywhere) used to be a matter of "Well, they sound similar to ME, I see a link". You can get from anywhere to anywhere by that method. Modern etymologists are much stricter in their methods.
#Modern etymologists being more strict doesnt make the medieval ones wrong. 
#Modern etymologists in fact base their conclusions on the collection of medieval accounts and studies. Without them, there is nothing to study.
*You said: In fact, I'm thinking that the section should be cut down even further, eliminating the Elamite etymology, which is unsourced.
It is far from that in fact. I can give you as many sources as you like. That you dont find them acceptable is simply your POV. 
If you studied Old Persian, you would realise that the cuneiform used was not an alphabet, but a cross between an abjad and a syllabary. U-W-J, also U-W-J-I-Y, U-J, U-J-I-Y is read /Hūjiya/; R. Kent (1953) writes that it appears incessantly in the cuneiform inscriptions, which explicitly equals "(h)altamti, (h)alamti". he also notes that the early middle persian form of the same word as /xuuź/, which appears in the arab traveler's writings when describing xuuzii - the language or dialect of xuuz. with the usual ethnonymic addition of the ezade and -staan, c.f. siistaan 'saka-land' etc., we get modern persian Khouzestan /xuz-e stan/. The index of Kent lists UVJ as Elam, but also lists in the *dictionary* section Hū(w)jiya "'Elamite, Susian'; derivation of preceding"; the preceding being Hū(w)ja "'Elam, Susiana', a province of the persian empire; also as ethnic, 'Elamite, Susian': Elam. hal-tam-tu, Akk. e-lam-mat, cf. MPers. Huź". 
*You said: Ahvaz (which I presume is the Persianized form of Ahwaz).
Your presumption is simply and firmly incorrect. It's the other way around. Would you like me to give you another analysis for that?
*You said: Attempts to argue that Ahwaz/Ahvaz is actually a Persian name strike me as nationalist fantasies.
The facts remain however, in spite of your opinion. The text you deleted is in fact derived from the publication of The Khuzestan Office of The Governor, held by Arabs by the way. I can give you Arabic citations for that.
*You said: the city seems to have been founded by people who were arguably "Persian".
Not "arguably". But Factually. There are more archeological ruins in Khuzestan proving this than you can muster. The entire region was in fact Persian until the conquests. And the Persians never moved out. The Arabs came in.
*You said: and that the city has been part of Persia for much -- but not all -- of its history. 
I'm curious, can you give me relaible sources for this claim? This is one example of a day-light fallacy.
*You said: I'd defer, of course, to any properly sourced citations from modern etymologists. Lacking those, cutting out the debatable material seems like the only honest course.
Granted.
Resources I have (grabbing randomly from the top of the pile): Khačikjan Margaret (1998): Elamite Language. Deshpande & Hook eds. (1979): Aryan & Non-Aryan in India (article: McAlpin, "Linguistic Prehistory: The Dravidian Situation"). Webber & Belcher (eds.) (2003): Indus Ethnobiology: New Perspectives from the Field. Hole Frank (1987): The Archaeology of Western Iran: Settlement & Society from Prehistory to the Islamic Conquest (Smithsonian Series in Archaeological Inquiry). 
I hope those will allay any concern you have over my resources.
Also, 
Whereas your arguments simply have no academic merit, I'm putting back the section. --Zereshk 02:09, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Reply to Zora. Ahvaz ''IS'' Iranian.

message: *You said: Your insistence on seeing "Persianness" millenia into the past is the usual nationalistic distortion of history. I imagine that if you were sent in a time machine back to ancient Elam that you'd find it completely alien. What are the salient features of "Persianness"? What makes the Elamites Persian? That's why I said that they were "arguably" Persian -- it's a debatable point. 
It's not debatable, no matter what you throw at me. In fact, you are supporting Pan-Arabist nationalism. To quote yet another text, 
::The Elamites, fierce rivals of the Babylonians, were precursors of the Royal Persians. Persians, Masters of Empire, John L. Papanek. 
* You said: As to the region ALWAYS being Persian -- well, centuries of Arab rule rather counts against that, unless you've managed to convince yourself that the Ummayads and Abbasids sere Persians.
#And who was there before them? Where do you think Ctesiphon was? 
#When the Arabs arrived, almost every city in Iraq was either Persian or is derived from a Persian name (Examples: read about Kufa, Al Anbar)
#The Abbaside + Umayid rule lasted only for 2 centruies over Iran. The Samanids brought back the Sassanid heritage with full vigor.
#The Abbaside dynasty was heavily Persianized itself. In the words of Richard Nelson Frye: 
::It is clear however, that Iranians not only dominated the bureacracy, but all branches of The Abbasid government. Golden Age of Persia, p151.
The same is also stated by: D. Sourdel, Le Vizirat Abbaside. p699-723.
* You said: Several of the books you've cited have nothing to do with Hormuzd-Ardashir/Ahvaz. India? Dravidians? The fact that you have a book about the Elamite language doesn't prove that the derivation of Ahvaz from Ooksin is plausible, unless you cite something to that effect from the book. 
#Wrong. Read them before giving me an answer. The books in fact talk about the non-semitic, hence non-Arabic language of the Elamites. 
#The Khuzi language was in fact used in the courts of the Persian Empire, as is reported in the Al-fihrist, quoted by Ibn Moghaffa', Richard Frye, and many others. Where do you think Susa was?
:: Look, if you can't come up with cites from the books you have confirming your derivation, then you don't get away with just telling me to read the books, it's in there. That leads me to suspect that you can't find any cites because it's NOT there, and you're just trying to muddy the waters -- like a squid squirting ink to cover its escape. You have the burden of proof, not me. 
:: The derivation of the town name is of antiquarian interest only; not knowing where the town's name came from doesn't detract from the article in the slightest, from the general information point of view. You want the derivation to prove that Ahvaz was Persian first, Persian forever, Persian in name always, rah rah rah. That's just silly. There are many towns in England, frex, with names that were Roman or Danish in origin. Does pointing that out mean that I want Italy or Denmark to conquer Britain? I don't think so. I don't know Arabic, so I don't know what Ahwazi might mean in Arabic. For all I know, it's a nasty ethnic slur that the Arab tribes used for the traders whom they believed were fleecing them. Maybe it means "penny-pinching rascal". Maybe they called the city "Suq al-Ahwaz" BEFORE the conquest, and once they were in charge, kept on using the name, the conquered being in no condition to object. If that's the case, so what? Does it mean that the city rightfully belongs to Iraq? I don't think so. 
:: Given that you can't cite anything concrete re the derivation of the name, why not just leave out the whole discussion? You haven't cited anyone but yourself in supporting the derivations, so the question doesn't seem to be of great and universal interest. It imbalances the article. It's extraneous. 
:: As for arguing that the Abbasids were "Persian" -- well, all the scholars agree that Islamic civilization was heavily influenced by the Persians -- and also by the Arabs, and the conquered Greeks. The influences went in all directions. That's part of what made it a "Golden Age". My Persian literature text says that Modern Persian (post-Islamic-conquest) was heavily influenced by Arabic, and contains not only imported vocabulary, but imported syntax. So it seems rather beside the point to point to the influences going from Persia to the caliphate, and ignore the influences coming into Persia from the caliphate. 
* But I fail to see any connection between Ahvaz/Ahwaz and Khuzi. It's Ahvaz that's in question, not Khuzi.
Really? If Khuzestan is Iranian (and is connected to pre-Arab Iran), how can its member parts (like Ahvaz) not be Iranian?
: The derivation of a city's name has NOTHING to do with whether or not it should be counted part of one country or another. Nothing. I don't see why you're so determined on this. Zora 
*You said: You haven't shown that your medieval writers are any more trustworthy. 
Your opinion. Plain and simple. 
#I dont have to prove anything to you. I can name dozens of sources that are widely accepted. Only, you seem to be oblivious about them, and reluctant to accept anything written before the 20th century as reliable. 
#The burden of proof is actually on you to prove that Ahvaz was not part of Persia, and is Arab in origin.
*You said: You've restored the section in all its garbled English glory. I'll let it sit for a day or two while I figure out what to do.
You wont. First, go learn our language, then give your expert opinion about our culture. You dont even seem to know the difference between the Arabic w and Persian v appearing in the texts.
Look. I really dont have time for this nonsense. Youre trying to change something way out of your league. And it takes me 2 hours to write you a reply that you never accept anyway. 
You simply cant revise history, no matter how hard you try. And even if I'm not here, someone else will keep revisionists like you from tailoring history to their opininated whims.--Zereshk 04:30, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Reply to Zora, Trying to change history

message: I've read the debate several times  but I couldnt figure out what do you want to say.Well I've been to Ahvaz and lived there for like a month. I had alot of interaction with people there as I have many both Khuzestani persian and minority arab friends.
( I've studied its history in depth from Elamite Empire to now for one of my projects about historic city of Susa )
So I would want to ask some questions about its ethnic arab population :
1.Do you know where and when did they come to Khuzestan ?
2.where did they historically settle ?
3.What have been their main profession ?
4.When and why did they settle in Ahvaz ?--Amir85
: You seem to assuming that Arabic-speakers are necessarily of Arab descent and thus recent arrivals, settlers, in a historically Persian area. Not necessarily so. People adopt the language of their conquerors. Most of the population of the Middle East isn't of pure Arabian descent. Over time, many of the dhimmis converted to Islam and as was the custom of the time, were taken into one of the Arab tribes as a client. So it is very likely that many of the Arabs that you clearly see as "them" are in fact descended from the same stock that lived there during Achaemenid and Sassanid times. 
: Given that the borders of the area now known as Khuzestan have been shifting back and forth for centuries, it is not at all surprising that the population of the area should form a continuuum with the rest of the population of the lower Mesopotamian valley, rather than there being a sharp discontinuity at the current border. That can be so without the Arabs being "interlopers" and recent immigrants to the current province.
: As for the rest of your questions -- based only on my current reading, the Arabs in Ahvaz immigrated from the villages to work in the oil and steel industries, and they are concentrated in the lesser-skilled, manual labor jobs. Given that Ahvaz had become a mere village before it grew again to its present size, just about everyone in Ahvaz is an immigrant.  Zora 17:28, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dear Zora 

message: Zereshk's original version of the above section was NPOV and factually accurate as it was. Anyone who doubts the veracity of his additions is welcome to reference any major encyclopedia or academic text concerning the history of Iran. Zora, for whatever reason, has decided to promote a fringe view that is not accepted by any academic or scholarly source, and this is most certainly not in accordance with the spirit of Wikipedia. It must also be said that it is painfully obvious from some of Zora's edits on this page and others related to Khuzestan that her knowledge of this province and it's history, as well as the history of Iran, is limited and one speculates as to what agenda she has in mind when irrationally attacking legitimate and accepted facts. SouthernComfort 10:31, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  User who is trying to promote conflict 

message: I have added documentation to the section restored by SouthernComfort.
I found exact quotes out of Encyclopedia Iranica that support all my statements. Encyclopedia Iranica was written by 40 editors and 300 authors from The US and Europe. It is indisputably the most accurate account of Iranian history.
Ahvaz is Iranian. Both historically, and etymologically. Case closed.--Zereshk 13:59, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Case is closed

message: I see that Zereshk has incorporated my link to the Behistun inscriptions into the controversial etymology, but where the link transliterates the old Persian as uvja, Zereshk has added ahvja as a possible reading. Where does this come from? Zora 21:11, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank You.--Zereshk 22:31, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: And when this issue of the Iranian origins of 'Ahvaz' has been settled, despite the fact that it was settled so long ago and documented so thoroughly in the annals of history, what will Zora attack next, I wonder? I again bring up the example that discussing these issues with her is akin to debating whether or not the earth is round with a 'flat earthist.' None of us should have to justify legitimate, established history with this ignorant user. This is like debating 'Holocaust revisionism' - the facts state that six million Jews died - period. To state otherwise or to debate this issue is to enter into historical revisionism. Likewise, Iranian history has been well established and thoroughly researched. To debate this history is to enter into historical revisionism. Zora should be ignored, so as not to encourage her revisionist tendencies. SouthernComfort 23:49, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

text: Uvja is clearly mentioned as Elam here. And we all know what that means. There is no "controversy", except the one you keep trying to make up (and I dont know why). Please Zora, stop taking up my time. I have 20 other projects to attend to.--Zereshk 17:26, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source for ahvja? 

message: I have added the  tag as a neutrality dispute is ongoing. Please, don't remove it until a solution (anyone, but a solution) arrives. --Neigel von Teighen 21:05, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV tag 

message: Southern Comfort, whatever I do, you revert. That is ugly, ugly behavior. Zora 07:03, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What's ugly is what you have done to the article. It looks bad and the writing has not been improved at all. You haven't added anything to the article, but you have disrupted the whole flow. SouthernComfort 07:45, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do you really want to play revert war? 

message: My re-org may not last long, but I moved all the contemporary stuff to the head of the article, as that's likely to be what encyclopedia users will be wanting/needing. The history comes next, and I tried to keep it neutral. The etymology dispute is cut down and put as a comment on history, which is where it belongs. I think the article is more balanced now. One more tweak, if it's still there ... Zora 07:13, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: See my comments on Talk:Khuzestan. The flow of the article has been ruined. The mention of 'Ahwazi separatists' and 'forced Persianisation' (the latter very POV) is POV and is dealt with in Ethnic conflict in Khuzestan. SouthernComfort 07:18, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm OK with removing the forced Persianization -- I think you'd agree that that happened, you just don't like the emphasis. OK. But there's no reason OTHER than political for removing any mention of Ahwazi separatists and their preferred etymology. I was thinking of adding a third option, "dunno, not enough evidence", but I can't find a citation for that -- even though I think it's the most intellectually responsible position. Zora 07:48, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

text:  I was fiddling with the formatting, and I just couldn't get it to look right. I think the map is too big. The png needs to be edited down. If that's done, I think I can get the article looking nice. Zora 07:48, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've returned the article back to its original format with minor changes unless you can provide something better than your previous changes. I'm alright with removing the etymology section, but that will destroy the flow with the photos. I would tinker with this right now but I don't have time. SouthernComfort 08:15, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added the Arabic pronunciation next to the Persian at the top, which should have been there anyway. Iranian Arabs always use the Arabic pronunciation, not just separatists. This has nothing to do with politics on their part. SouthernComfort 08:50, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

text: Again: I've returned the article back to its original format with minor changes unless you can provide something better than your previous changes. I'm alright with removing the etymology section, but that will destroy the flow with the photos. I would tinker with this right now but I don't have time. SouthernComfort 09:52, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: And by the way, I do agree that the etymology should not be at the top, but until a better format comes up, the original format will have to remain. If it ain't broke, don't fix it - until something better comes along. SouthernComfort 09:54, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re-org 

message: Trimmed the etymology section of Khuzestan by moving the Ahvaz info from there to here. Section regarding 'etymology' should be moved to the bottom, but since this will disrupt the flow as far as the photos are concerned (which need to be next to Contemporary Ahvaz), I'm going to leave this 'as is' for now as it looks good and the TOC allows any interested party to skip ahead. SouthernComfort 10:33, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Re-Org v2

message: SC, you removed the NPOV tag. As far as I'm concerned, the problems haven't been solved. I need to take my last edit, the current last edit, and meld them. I haven't had time -- my daughter came home from college last Sunday and I've been fixing up her room AND driving her here and there. I don't think the rule is that the tag stays up for a week. I think it stays up until the editors involved reach consensus. I'm not gone, I'm just busy. Zora 05:25, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: One week has passed with no consensus. Please do not destroy this article as last time you added absolutely nothing new and no other users have disputed this version. I am currently involved in the 'BCE/CE vs BC/AD' problem and I do not have the time to keep an eye on this article all the time. Please just give it a rest, will ya? SouthernComfort 07:09, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

text: By the way, if you're disputing the one week rule, please check the Wikipedia policy pages. It does quite clearly state if that consensus has not been reached in one week, that the tag should be removed. You brought in an admin, he took it to RfC, earlier you had taken it to Wikiquette alert. You are the only user disputing this page, and no one else has chosen to dispute anything. Honestly, it was interesting for awhile, but this has gone on for long enough, and the article is fine as it is. SouthernComfort 07:26, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of NPOV tag 

message: I see a lot of contention on this page.  I do not want to get involved as I know little about Persia (except that I have personal reasons for being a huge fan of Cyrus the Great) (and I assume that isn't the "Persian" spelling), and I really do not want to make things worse, and if anyone thinks I am doing that, I apologize in advance.  As to conflicts over style, I can give no constructive advice.  In some cases, consulting the Wikipedia:Manual of Style might help, but usually the best way to go is first to gently explain why you think the way something is phrased or organized will make it hard for the average reader to understand, and then see if you can work out a mutually acceptable solution.  There are two good reasons for this advice, and I speak as an experienced writer: On the one hand, the author (presumably an expert) has to recognize that he or she does not have distance from his or her own writing, and a non-expert is almost always in a better position to comment objectively on style.  On the other hand, the copy-editor, no matter how good their ear for articulate phrasing, their eye for eloquent prose, will often miss highly nuanced matters of content that only an expert can perceive and understand (i.e, what appears to be an improvement in style unintentionally leads to an inaccurate sentence).  I hope opposing parties see this as giving good reasons for listening to one another seriously.
As to disputes over content, this may be a little easier to resolve than you might think.  Easier, because Wikipedia articles are not arbiters of truth.  Period.  This is the essence of the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy.  Talk pages are not contests to prove one person wrong and another person right, they just aren't.  There is only one relevant question: do you have a legitimate and appropriate source for your claim?  If you do, include your claim in the article along with a citation.  What if two people make opposing claims and both have sources?  It doesn't matter.  Each puts in their claim with their source (e.g. "According to X, .... but according to Y, ...."  The only think left to argue over is whether the source is appropriate and legitimate.  Here too the solution is easy.  Include the claim and the source, and then mention that some people believe that the source is not appropriate or legitimate.  If possible, state who thinks the source is inappropriate or illegitimate (and no, the "who" isn't a wikipedian, but someone who has published on this topic), and if possible give a concise explanation as to why they question the legitimacy of the source.  In short, if you see a claim you do not like, even a claim you are absolutely convinced is wrong, do not delete it.  Just (1) insist that the editor who put the claim in provide the source, and (2) agree that since you are not going to delete the editor's claim as long as there is a source, that you have the right to add that some either take a different view (provide source) or some question the source (provide source).  End of conflict.  I hope.  And I hope all understand that I have written this with the utmost respect for all who have contributed to this article, Slrubenstein   |  Talk  22:21, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  if I may ... 

message: I just got a wonderful book, Touraj Daryaee's 2002 Sahrestaniha i Eransahr. A translation of the famous Middle Persian text into English and modern Persian, with notes and commentary. I'm going to use it to rewrite the history and etymology sections -- LATER. Right now, I just wanted to work on the formatting. I have long thought that the layout is ugly and confusing, that the etymology section logically FOLLOWS the history section, and that both belong at the end of the article rather than at the front. I'm hoping that SC and Zereshk will accept the changed layout. Then we can limit the argument to the history and etymology sections. OK? Can we at least agree on that? Zora 23:52, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The article layout was fine as it was. Stop ruining it. And since there is a consensus against you, you will not go ahead and make such a massive unilateral change as to 'rewrite' the article. Your efforts are not appreciated. SouthernComfort 14:09, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

text: There are other editors here, and it is improper for you to go against consensus, especially when you have in the past deleted huge chunks of information and attempted to rewrite the entire article. These edits have contributed nothing and instead have resulted in the ruining of the article. This is totally against the spirit of WP and is unacceptable behavior. SouthernComfort 20:06, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trying to separate controversial and noncontroversial elements of article 

message: It's kinda amusing -- in a sad way -- that anything I add gets immediately reverted ... even if it's new, germane, evidence from a Persian text and a Persian scholar that supports one of your arguments!
Yes, I found a citation for a late Sassanid use of Xuzestan in the Eransahr book, in a 3rd century inscription of Sabuhr I. It's now clear that the province name, Khuzestan, as promulgated in 1936, is a revival of the Sassanid name. 
You also deleted new info re the origin of the Sassanid city name. Zora 18:47, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I added that one sentence from Eranshahr (which you added while deleting everything else). Now stop deleting paragraphs from the article and attempting to ruin the layout. SouthernComfort 22:25, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  You don't even READ before you revert, SC 

message: Al-Muqaddasi agrees with Matheson, cited there:
:  وأما الأهواز فإن سابور لما بناها جانبين سمى أحدهما باسم الله عز وجل والآخر باسمه ثم جمعهما باسم واحد فاسمها هرمزداراوشير ثم طرح اسمه وبقي داراواشير ثم سمتها العرب الأهواز
: Shapur, when he built Ahwaz, named one side by the name of God and the other by his own name, then joined them together into one name: Hormuzd-Aravashir (misspelling for Hormuzd-Ardashir?), and it remained Daravashir until the Arabs named it Ahwaz. (p. 149, on AlWaraq.com). 
Incidentally, Muqaddasi couldn't stand the city: he says it "has no religion and no noble origins..., and no good time and no good heart, and the stranger there is in deep trouble". - Mustafaa 00:00, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Muqaddasi

message: I just arrived in Tehran. I will gradually start adding new material to various pages, includiung this page, as I access the unique sources here in Iran.
It will take me a few days though before I can start contributing again. Im still recovering from that looooooooooooong flight.--Zereshk 01:54, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Adding more sources

message: According to Persian transliteration, "vav" must be transliterated to "v". Those who thinks "Ahvaz" must\should written by "w" suppose it an Arabic word, but it's not Arabic, it's Elimate as in the Ahvaz's Wiki article mentioned. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sasanjan (talk • contribs) 13:10, 4 October 2006.
:Ok, that makes sense. I still think we should include the Arabic name at the top, however. The main reason is the city's significant Arab population, and also for historical reasons. This is the same reason, for exapmle, why we have the Kurdish name at the Diyarbakır article. Khoikhoi 05:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But don't the Arab inhabitants of the city have a name for it in Arabic? Shouldn't we mention it? Khoikhoi 00:35, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, its just "Ahwaz". Khorshid 00:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So it looks exactly the same in Arabic and Persian? Khoikhoi 00:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, Persian alphabet (modified Arabic script) has "vav" (v) but Arabic has "waw" (w). Khorshid 00:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I think the first part should just have "Ahvaz" because later in the article is explained details about Ahwaz/Ahvaz and etymology, etc. Khorshid 00:50, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Where? I still don't get what's wrong with mentioning the Arabic name in the intro. I've never seen anyone object to having the Kurdish name at Kermanshah, the Azeri name at Tabriz, and the Luri name at Khorramabad... Khoikhoi 00:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

text: So, what's wrong with mentioning the Arabic name? Khoikhoi 04:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not an Arabic name. Read the history section for an explanation! Putting the "Ahwaz" and especially "al-Ahwaz" (which is NOT the name of the city but of a region of Khuzestan) in the first paragraph is POV especially when it the history is explained later which shows why it is POV. Please, stop encouraging this pan-Arabists! Khorshid 01:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wrong! All city names in Arabic have the al- prefix. That's just the way it is in formal Arabic. The name of the city is Ahwaz, but when you write it in Arabic you write al-Ahwaz. And it has nothing to do with Khuzestan in general. Next time make sure to provide sources for your outragous claims. Khalilak 02:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL YOU should provide sources for your outrageous claims! Silly pan-Arabist fantasies. Anyone with an education knows that "al-Ahwaz" refers to a region of Khuzestan NOT the city. The city has NEVER been called "al-Ahwaz"! In history it was called Suq Al-Ahwaz and Naseriyeh but NO EVIDENCE THAT IT WAS EVER CALLED AL-AHWAZ WHICH WAS A NAME FOR A SMALL REGION OF THE PROVINCE! And you want sources, go read the article and read Iranica and stop wasting our time! Khorshid 01:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Writing "Ahvaz" using "w" is incorrect. 

message: *Ahwaz is actually more common than "Ahvaz". Please compare Google "Ahwaz" vs. "Ahvaz".
*Only people in Persian-speaking parts of Iran use Ahvaz because Persian does not have IPA [-w] . The local population and most of the world consider [æhwæ:z] a perfectly fine pronounciation. 
*Most encyclopedia articles are either titled "Ahwaz" or include Ahwaz as a perfectly fine alternate pronounciation. 
*See ethnocentricism.
Khalilak 13:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: No

message: The correct term is Ahvaz as already explained. As for Google hits, it doesn't matter how many people make a mistake, if a name is mistakingly pronounced, then it should be corrected. --Mardavich 18:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But don't the Arab inhabitants of the city have a name for it in Arabic? Shouldn't we mention it? Khoikhoi 00:35, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, its just "Ahwaz". Khorshid 00:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So it looks exactly the same in Arabic and Persian? Khoikhoi 00:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, Persian alphabet (modified Arabic script) has "vav" (v) but Arabic has "waw" (w). Khorshid 00:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I think the first part should just have "Ahvaz" because later in the article is explained details about Ahwaz/Ahvaz and etymology, etc. Khorshid 00:50, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Where? I still don't get what's wrong with mentioning the Arabic name in the intro. I've never seen anyone object to having the Kurdish name at Kermanshah, the Azeri name at Tabriz, and the Luri name at Khorramabad... Khoikhoi 00:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

text: So, what's wrong with mentioning the Arabic name? Khoikhoi 04:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not an Arabic name. Read the history section for an explanation! Putting the "Ahwaz" and especially "al-Ahwaz" (which is NOT the name of the city but of a region of Khuzestan) in the first paragraph is POV especially when it the history is explained later which shows why it is POV. Please, stop encouraging this pan-Arabists! Khorshid 01:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wrong! All city names in Arabic have the al- prefix. That's just the way it is in formal Arabic. The name of the city is Ahwaz, but when you write it in Arabic you write al-Ahwaz. And it has nothing to do with Khuzestan in general. Next time make sure to provide sources for your outragous claims. Khalilak 02:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL YOU should provide sources for your outrageous claims! Silly pan-Arabist fantasies. Anyone with an education knows that "al-Ahwaz" refers to a region of Khuzestan NOT the city. The city has NEVER been called "al-Ahwaz"! In history it was called Suq Al-Ahwaz and Naseriyeh but NO EVIDENCE THAT IT WAS EVER CALLED AL-AHWAZ WHICH WAS A NAME FOR A SMALL REGION OF THE PROVINCE! And you want sources, go read the article and read Iranica and stop wasting our time! Khorshid 01:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Yes

message: First:
You indicate that Ahwaz is more common but when you do a google search, Google searchs both ahwaz and al-ahwaz, if you try ahwaz -"al" then you can see that Ahvaz is more common.
Second:
Iran's official language is Persian and any name (no matter German or Chinese or Arabic) must be written using Persian transliteration, so Ahvaz is correct.
Third:
"W" is just a sign of Arabic transliteration and can't represent the local's pronounciation.
Fourth:
Ahvaz comes from the Elamite word "Huvja" and so it's not Arabic.
here's a long discussion on this issue:
http://www.wikiran.org/wiki/Talk:Ahvaz
http://www.wikiran.org/wiki/User_talk:Sassan#Ahvaz
217.219.229.3 09:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Gol. Ahvaz is the official name, but even government departments sometimes refer to Ahwaz and the airport's code is AWZ. Naturally, the Arabic spelling is commonplace because Arabs populate the region.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 10:52, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ahvaz is correct