Talk:History of Khuzestan province

I started rewriting the history section of Khuzestan and soon found that I had more than a section's worth of material. This article still needs pictures, references, and external links. Zora 05:16, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why the indentation?

I put it there, to set off the argumentative part. If you think it doesn't work, if a different format would be better, I'm OK with changing it. Zora 04:31, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Major revisions due

I just got my copy of a 1974 U of Chicago dissertation on the history of Khuzestan, which seems to be based in large part on old, unpublished records. It's fascinating and shows up a bunch of stuff I wrote as inaccurate. I'll finish reading the dissertation and then do a major revision. Zora 04:33, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sources

Rather than speak to me, SC left a message for Zereshk scorning my lack of sources for this article. Well, much of it was based on other Wikipedia articles, and I didn't think it was necessary to cite those. Where I did insert completely new material, I tried to source it (with links). But now I'll have another source -- even if it isn't easily available, as being an unpublished dissertation. Zora 04:35, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Correcting info re Bani Ka'b, Muhammarah

I had written the article using inaccurate info from a web source. The source conflated the sheikhs of the Bani Ka'b and the sheikhs of Muhammarah. This is WRONG, per an unpublished doctoral dissertation I ordered. I have corrected it. Still need to add the ref for the dissertation. Also found a copy of a Gertrude Bell memorandum on the politics of Khuzestan, need to add that.

I could probably expand more in some sections, but at least I removed the inaccurate stuff. Zora 10:24, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lar/Lur?

Noticed the revert today. Probably should have been listed as revert in the comments. Regardless, neither Lar nor Lur points to a valid city or or province or region article. Do you mean Lorestan? William Allen Simpson 12:32, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is that how it's spelled in Wikipedia? The sources I have mention the Lur tribe, and the area that they inhabit as Luristan. I think that's more standard. If I've got a Lar anyplace, that's a mistake. Zora 13:41, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lar is a city in Fars province. "Lur" does not exist as a place name. "Lorestan" or "Lurestan" however seems to match best. --Zereshk 22:13, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zereshk reverting and delinking

OK, we'll handle this in specifics:

"Muhammarah, a thriving port said to have been founded early in the 18th century"
- Are you saying that this name is inaccurate? Cite sources.

"The Karun river (then known as the Dujayl)"
- Are you saying that this name is inaccurate? Cite sources.

--William Allen Simpson 17:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zereshk reverting to bad text

"Many experts such as Sir Percy Sykes ...."
- Badly written and formatted (a serious error worthy of deletion).
- Inserted book references that are best footnotes.
- Inserted accolades not appropriate to an encyclopedia.
- Contradicts the paragraph in which it is inserted.
- Makes no link between language "Khuzi" and "Elamite", the subject of the section.

--William Allen Simpson 17:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Badly written" is a poor excuse to delete something. Instead FIX IT. (why do I have to repeat this everyday?)
The "instered book references" constitute evidence and sourcing, that are requirements for any good article according to WP policies.
If it contradicts the paragraph, well then ask its author to calrify what she exactly meant. That section was rewritten and jumbled up by User:Zora. However, I think the paragraph is pretty clear.
"Khuzi" was the language of the Elamites. It's as relevant as can get.--Zereshk 04:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup

Article is sloppy, badly written, and is filled with Zora's personal opinions. Needs to be cleaned up. SouthernComfort 03:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the article seems to have been written in a template format, to be fleshed out later. A great deal of this information, particular concerning the Elamites, Achaemenids, Parthians, Sassanids, etc. is already in other articles anyway. SouthernComfort 03:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All the same, the info should be there, if only so people can find the other, fuller accounts. Sloppy and badly written? -- other people would disagree with you as to my prose. POV? Zereshk and I went over this article with a finetooth comb and he signed off on it.

You resist any description of your POV as "Persian nationalism" -- as far as you're concerned,, it's just the TRUTH -- but if you're going to try to turn the article in a version of "Khuzestan has always been Iranian, Iran goes back to the dawn of history", then I'm going to resist, and insist that you present your version as one POV, not the TRUTH. You have been completely intolerant of any views but your own, but this is not the Wikipedia way. The WP way is to include all notable views. Your views are Persian; mine are Western academic. OK, they both should be there. All statements to be sourced. Zora 07:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Western academic"? LOL. You have used only one source - an unpublished PhD dissertation from a Persian Iranian who attended the University of Chicago. A dissertation that is filled with numerous errors and mistakes. All you can do is attack me as a "Persian nationalist" - on the contrary, it is you who is intolerant and spiteful. You claim that you and Zereshk went over this article and came to agreements, and yet you still attack him as a "Persian nationalist." Give me a break. I'm going to involve plenty of other editors here because I am tired of your endless tirades and rants that has been going on for almost a year and continued even when I was unable to edit on WP due to Katrina. You have no respect for anyone expect your own fringe viewpoints (especially when you claim that Khuzestan isn't even an Iranian province). Go to History of California or any other American article and attempt to impose your views there and let's see what the response will be. SouthernComfort 08:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I was not even planning to rewrite the entire article - again it is you who is intolerant and spiteful in not assuming good faith. The fact is (and there is plenty of evidence here on this page) that the article is filled with errors. I have corrected many of them, and I hope others get involved to clean this mess up. SouthernComfort 08:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SC, I've been too busy to deal with this article (or the Khazal Khan article, which you've been filling with vitriol) but I'll get to them when I can. If you haven't read the dissertation, how do you know that it is full of mistakes? The University of Chicago is a respected institution. Dissertations must be read and approved by three professors. The dissertation didn't set off any alarm bells for me -- it seemed to be thoroughly researched in British AND Iranian archives.

A while ago, I talked with some folks at the Village Pump re the use of non-English sources. They suggested that if you are going to base your argument on sources that are unavailable to other editors, that you be careful to quote, in Farsi, than add an English translation. That way your statements can be checked. Of course, that goes for me too. I need to go back and when I add alternate versions, add the Ansari cites.

If there's a conflict re facts or interpretations, the WP way is to give both sides. When I start working on this again, I'll try to pick out the points of disagreement and then make room for arguments from both sides. We don't decide FOR the readers, if there's a controversy; we let them decide. Perhaps we can work together if we make sure that all POVs are represented. Zora 05:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, you based this entire article on that dissertation - the fact that this article was filled with so many errors and contradictions is proof enough that it is severely flawed. For example, the claim that the Muhaisin were a separate tribe from the Bani Kaab. That is blatantly false. The Bani Kaab (in Arabistan) had dissolved into a number of clans/subtribes that warred with each other. Jabir reunited them under a single banner. That is a vital, important fact that Ansari is mistaken about (if he was actually claiming that the Muhaisin were a separate tribe). That's just one example. I could go on but this would end up being an essay.

But you haven't given any cites. You expect me to just believe you. I need some proof.

Secondly, your dissertation is only one source. There are numerous sources out there regarding Khuzestan. Go read the unpublished dissertation by William Strunk about Sheikh Khaz'al's rule in Mohammereh - it TOTALLY verifies everything in that article and what I've set down here, and Strunk used British and Qajar Persian administrative sources. And it is in the English language and from an American university. It is missing a few crucial details, however - for example, there is no mention of Reza Shah's ordering the murder of Khaz'al, though there is significant mention of the plot against Maz'al (which implicated not only Khaz'al, but all the Muhaisin chiefs). Again, you are using only one source against many others and that is not the WP way.

Sure, I can order Strunk -- when I'm in funds again. I've been meaning to do so.

Thirdly, it's "Persian," NOT "Farsi." You constantly make this mistake and it is irritating to no end. We're speaking English here. It would be appreciated if would adhere to standard English conventions in both articles and discussions.

It's not a mistake. It's a difference of opinion as to whether it's Iran/Persia or Farsi/Persian. According to one writer, "In recent years the word Farsi, the Arabized form of "Parsi," the name of the language in Persian, has become the standard word used by many English and non-English speakers to refer to modern Persian. Some Iranian authorities have actually encouraged this and have engaged in a systematic attempt to change the name of the language in the international communities to Farsi." I don't have an opinion. I use whatever word other people are using. Some people take offense if you use Persia/Persian and some people take offense if you don't. Farsi is more common in English now. If you take it as a mistake or an insult, that's your problem. Zora 09:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fourth point - one of the texts (The Administrative and Social History of the Qajars) has been translated into English and it is a massive tome and is currently in print. Most decent university libraries carry it. It is considered the standard reference for information regarding the Qajar era, particularly the latter half, and uses an incredible range of sources to illustrate every single detail of how Qajar-era Persia functioned. If you really care about this subject matter (and have respect for it), you must read this book.

Found it at Mazda Publishers. $89. We do NOT have a decent university library here. From the publisher's description, however, I don't think that memoirs necessarily trump diplomatic correspondence.

Fifth point - concerning the other works, I am assuming you want scans of the pages in order to verify the information - for that you will have to wait, because we're talking about hundreds of pages here. Some of us do have lives, and WP is not one of my priorities. You will recall that Katrina literally devastated this city. For once in your life be a "mensch." My recommendation is that you order the books (they are easily available from Persian booksellers online - use Google to find which ones have it) and have them professionally translated (or have a friend translate them) if you want immediate results. Or better yet, contact the people at Ahwaz Studies - perhaps they might be willing to share their knowledge with you. After all, they accept Kasravi as a source quite easily - and you will recall, if you have read Bani-Torofs lecture, that he also quite willingly cites Kasravi and thinks quite highly of the man as a historian. These are Khuzestani Arabs who accept Persian-language sources and even prefer them due to the level of detail and accuracy - the very same ones you are quick to condemn.

No, I'm not saying page scans. I'm saying that you should supply QUOTES, in Persian (if that's the word you prefer), and translations. That way, another Iranian could check your translation.

I'm not saying that Kasravi shouldn't be accepted as a source -- I believe that he has to be used with CAUTION. He had a strong POV and everything he saw was filtered through that POV. Of course, so do most observers, so you have to question everything based on observations or memoirs.

I'm not rejecting Persian texts either. Sheesh, I speak in shades of grey and you translate into white and black. Look, you can't just STATE things and say, "This is proved in such-and-such source, which you don't have and you can't read, but TRUST me." No, I can't trust you.

I would be using Persian texts if I could, and I would be asking you for help, if you were willing to collaborate. But you don't seem to be able to accept that WP allows different POVs to exist. Zora 09:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sixth point - WP articles are not supposed to be university term papers. I suspect that you see yourself as a "scholar" and wish to write articles here in such a fashion since the article was previously filled with your own speculations and opinions. I am afraid that you are mistaken. If you want to clutter this article with endless quotes from numerous POVs (and there are more than just two POVs, especially with a province as complex and diverse as Khuzestan), which seems to be the direction you want to take this article in, I will definitely resist, and others will as well because that's not what WP is about.

It's precisely what it's about. When there's a dispute, we give all sides. Zora 09:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you are imposing one source - ONE unpublished and error-filled source against numerous others, all published works, which you claim are not reliable. That's fine. Since you don't like Persian-language sources, request Strunk's dissertation from the Ahwaz Studies people which will completely contradict Ansari and then let's see what you think then. Also, ask them to help you with translations of Kasravi. Also, what you are suggesting sounds dangerously like a POV fork, which is against WP guidelines.

It would be a POV fork if I set up a separate article. It is the norm for an article to contain several views of the matter. Zora 09:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If, after all that, you still insist on Ansari's flawed work, we will have to come to some other agreements, because there is no way I am accepting totally incorrect conclusions like the "Muhaisin were not Bani Kaab" or some spin that Khaz'al was a saint (both Khaz'al and Reza Khan were uncannily similar - despots often are). That is certifiably ridiculous. SouthernComfort 08:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I never said that Khaz'al was a saint. You are the one insisting he was a devil. So far as I can tell, he was a not-very-admirable but typical-of-his-time-and-place person. He should be depicted in grey, not in stark black or stark white. Zora 09:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well then, it's settled. When you're back "in funds," you will order Strunk and maybe the other one and then we'll see what new problems you can come up with. And yes, I do take your attitude as an insult, but after all, this is not surprising as you clearly have no respect for Iranians, no matter their ethnic background, which has been evident for almost a year now. C'est la vie. So, go read those books and have a good time. If you will excuse me, I have a life and a girlfriend to get back to after spending so much time here on WP dealing with this nonsense. As I said, if you need anything else, go contact Ahwaz Studies. They will be more than glad to help you. SouthernComfort 09:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's "settled". You can't tell me not to edit the article until I come up with $140 and then read two books. I think there's ample reason to believe that your version is POV, and needs to be countered with a different POV. I'll work on it when I can. Zora 10:07, 6 February 2006

Romans/Byzantines, Sassanids

The border swung wildly. It was usually the bank of the Euphrates, but sometimes the Romans/Byzantines got as far as Susa, and sometimes the Persians got as far as Damascus and Jerusalem. The fighting went on for centuries. Don't think of it as if it were a modern border, that stays in the same place barring unusual circumstances. There was no U.N. then. Zora 00:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi:

Just give me a source which mentions that. Romans came as far as Susa but that was during the reign of Parthians, not Sassanids.

I reverted your change because the claim is not supported by any source and by WP:V I can remove any claim which is unsourced.Behaafarid 09:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"However , the Sassanids are frequently in conflict with the Roman and then the Byzantine empires, which sometimes advance as far as Susa" (That's the claim).

al-Muqaffa quote

In the 'Elam' section, Abdullah Ibn al-Muqaffa is quoted as saying:

"The Iranian languages are Fahlavi (Pahlavi), Dari, Khuzi, Persian, and Suryani (Syriac)."

This is false/misleading for multiple reasons:

The insertion of interpretation is not "legal" in a direct quote unless clearly identified as such, which is not the case here.
The link behind 'Pahlavi' says Middle Persian. This is essentially correct for the 8th century context, but misleading/problematic in general. When Middle Persian is meant then it should say Middle Persian and not be confused with Pahlavi. In the post-conquest context (and only for such a context), Fahlavi/Pahlavi means Middle Persian written in Pahlavi script (as opposed to being written in Arabic script).
The quotation includes the word "Persian." There is no way al-Muqaffa used that word. Not only is that inconsistent with the names used before, in the 8th century [New] Persian did not exist yet (or rather would not have been identified as a language distinct from [Middle] Persian). Having already mentioned Fahlavi, why should al-Muqaffa mention Persian again? If he said anything at all, he would have been Farsi, which by that time meant [Middle] Persian written in Arabic script (hence distinct from the post-conquest understanding of Fahlavi as Middle Persian written in Pahlavi script).

I've replaced the quotation with a paraphrase "Ibn Nadeem quotes the 8th century scholar Abdullah Ibn al-Muqaffa as having counted Khuzi among the Iranian languages and for having identified it as the unofficial language of the royalty of Iran." Thats all that neccessary/pertinent in this article. It also avoids listing Syriac as an Iranian language, which otherwise raises questions of how qualified a linguist al-Muqaffa was.

-- Fullstop