Talk:Iranian Arabs

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

This article should be more than just disambiguation. I suggest merging Arabs of Khuzestan with this one. Khorshid 03:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest moving it to Iranian Arabs, like ..i.e. Persian Jews --Rayis 01:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I moved it per your suggestion. Khorshid 01:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge from Arabs of Khuzestan[edit]

Khuzestan is 80% ethnically Persian. Ahvaz is the only majority arab city with around 75% of the population being arabs and this is due to iraqi refugees.

Further more, many of these Iranians who were born in arab countries arent even ethnically arabs, but ethnic Persians.

There are loads of ethnic Persians in iraq, kuwait, bahrain, uea and qatar. Comprising around 20-40% of the populations over there. Even ghadaffi admitted that most Persian gulf people living in these small states were ethnic Persians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.31.195 (talk) 15:44, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Please merge relevant content, if any, from Arabs of Khuzestan per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arabs of Khuzestan. (If there is nothing to merge, just leave it as a redirect.) Thanks. —Quarl (talk) 2007-04-08 09:04Z

In the article it says Arabs make 3 % of Irans pop....well that sounds incorrect...since only in Khuzestan there're ca. 9 million Arabs...that makes 12-13 % of Irans pop. & not 3%..but again persians are manipulating so many articles on Wikipedia making Wikipedia not trustful anymore... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.6.158.33 (talk) 00:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You arabs are always lying, the population of Khuzestan isn't even 5 million, and half of those are Lurs. I don't expect much else from your kind, but maybe try and read sources that aren't arab owned, you might learn something then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:5AC0:61:2099:828C:160D:ACAB (talk) 16:51, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Arab-Iranians[edit]

I strongly suggest that the name of the page be changed from "Iranian Arabs" to "Arab-Iranians". An Arab-Iranian is an Iranian citizen of Arab descent, ethnicity, or identification (compare with Irish-American, French-Canadian, etc). In contrast, an Iranian Arab would be an Arab of Iranian descent, ethnicity, or identification, such as those Iraqis of Iranian descent or were expelled from Iraq during the Iran-Iraq War.

The fundamental issue is to underscore that their country/state of citizenship is Iran, and that their ethnicity is Arab.

I would welcome the input of other contributors on this matter. Louse 22:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No objections have yet been raised regarding changing the name of the article to "Arab-Iranians". However, prior to moving the page, I would like to once more offer the opportunity for discussion on this issue. Louse 20:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
===Survey===
Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
  • Support for the reasons stated above. Louse 20:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the concept of ethnicity in the new western countries, is some how difficult to apply to the ancient nations of the old world. The main indicator of "ethnicity" in the new countries like U.S.A is racial-lingual, but in the old nations that is mainly cultural (compare with Jews). In Iran, ethnic groups have such a long background of being culturally Iranian that sub grouping them by lingual-racial considerations may not be possible. As example we have Iranian Azeri's, Iranian Kurds and etc. But considering separate ethnic groups and bind them by "Iranian" citizenship is unfamiliar: the nation-states idea is an idea that merge only after French revolution ...--Alborz Fallah 10:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The current title is more appropriate. I agree with reasons stated above by Alborz Fallah. --Dfitzgerald 00:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose 'Iranian Arabs' is the correct usage Asdf169 (talk) 16:18, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • support because it confuses English speakers. But I know less than nothing about this topic and I am not here to argue with Iranians about Iranian culture. I'll note, however that this is an article in the English language and that Louse has correctly summarized the nuance of the terms for a North American. I am Canadian and live in the US, if it matters. May I suggest that you instead follow the above terminology in the Arabic and/or Farsi Wikipedia and in any other language whose culture supports it? Or, if you feel strongly that the nomenclature should be used in English as well, you might want to clarify it for any other ignoramus who arrives here unknowing ;) On a related note, I clicked the discussion page for this article because I wanted a definition for "Ahwazi". The term redirects here but does not appear on anywhere on the page, so I still do not know if this is an ethnic or cultural group, a Farsi word for Arabs with Iranian citizenship (I thinjk I understand from the above?) or a subset of one of these. And I am absolutely positive that I do not know enough to define the term myself. I encountered it, if anyone is wondering, as a file name on a picture flagged for migration to Wikimedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elinruby (talk • contribs) 03:31, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
hmm, my reading of WP:TITLECHANGES indicates that if it's been that that way a while, perhaps it should be left alone. So perhaps I am wrong. I did however notice the comment below about ahwazi -- could someone please move some of that content to the main page for the benefit of outsiders who would like to be less ignorant? Thanks Elinruby (talk) 03:47, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arab diaspora?[edit]

Iranian Arabs are native Iranian .Being Iranian is nothing ethnic , so I think it would be correct not to use "Arab diaspora" template here . I mean if a population of immigrant Arabs live in Iran , that would be correct to name them as diaspora ( e.g : such as the students of religious schools in Qom ) , but the native Arab-language Iranians of Kuzestan , are not diasporas. --Alborz Fallah (talk) 11:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ahwazi Arabs[edit]

Ahwazi Arabs are an indigenous, ethnic, national and a linguistic minority in Iran. Iran is composed of 6 major national and ethnic groups, Persians, Turks, Arabs, Kurds, Baluchis and Turkman. The 70 million population of Iran is estimated to be 1/3 Persian and 1/3 Azerbaijani-Turks-The remaining 1/3 is made up of Kurds, Arabs, Baloch and Turkman. However For the past 80 years, the Persian ethnic group has dominated Iran politically, economically, culturally, and in every other sphere of life-

Official or government data is not available on ethnic composition. In fact Mr. Chairman we recommend that the Islamic Republic of Iran fulfills the recommendations of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination’s sixty-third session on August 2003 to “provide an estimate of the demographic composition of the population, including the Arabs in the Al-Ahwaz region of Khuzestan in its periodic report”.

Prior to its annexation by the Iranian government in 1925, al-Ahwaz was an autonomous territory inhabited by indigenous Ahwazi Arab tribes for thousands of years. For the past 500 years, the region was called Arabistan. The government changed the name to Khuzestan, a Persian name, in 1936. The state adopted Farsi (Persian) as the sole official language and banned Arabic education in the province where about 90% of the people were native Arabic speakers. This ban continues today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.226.22.113 (talk) 19:13, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The information which had been written in this article is totally wrong and there is no real historic advance, the Arabs people in Ahwaz ethnicity are Arab and there is no duvet about it because the are part of the Illumes civilization. But unfortunately some of Persians raciest trying to change the reality of the history, the population of the Ahwazi Arabs is almost 9 millions. And the others people which are living in central of Ahwaz are just some of emigrants people which rare working to the Iranian government as employs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.226.22.113 (talk) 18:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you arabs love to make up numbers with no sources. Even by CIA sources arabs are only 2% of Iran's population, and Persians 60%. I know lying is in your "people"s blood, but try and make your lies a bit less outlandish, people are more likely to believe it then. Khuzestan province is mostly Lur, and Arabs there aren't even native to the region. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:5AC0:61:2099:828C:160D:ACAB (talk) 16:54, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing issues / UNPO[edit]

Please do not remove human rights material provided by credible human rights NGOs such as Amnesty International and UNPO. While they might be unfit as primary historical resources, as participants in various UN workshops they are considered well-respected within the international community with regards to human rights issues. Also, discussing it in Talk:Arabistan does not apply to this article, as these sources are used as an entirely differnet thing here and there. MiS-Saath (talk) 13:38, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UNPO is not credible. Simple as that. As per amnesty international, they get their information from such groups and have no observors in Iran. If UNPO can fabricate history then it can fabricate anything else.
Two logical fallacies coupled into one: UNPO might not be a primary resource as far as wikipedia is concerned, but that says nothing about the truth value of its historical statements. it further says nothing about its human rights allegations. that's Poisoning the Well and circular logic ("It isn't a credible source because it isn't a credible source) both at once. As far as i know, UNPO is barred from operating in Iran by the government, which means that officially it can't employ observers. That does not mean that it doesn't have any non-employed observers in Iran. And as a side-note, i wouldn't want to think what this means for human rights issue transparency if we were to dismiss reports from human rights NGOs on the basis that the host government doesn't want them acting there. MiS-Saath (talk) 14:42, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
UNPO is not credible because it fabricates history. If it fabricates history, then it can fabricate anything else. There is no circular logic, I showed that the UNPO site fabricates history in Arabistan talkpage. It is in the other discussion and you did not provide a response, where-as I brought sources. As per amnesty international, they get their information from such groups and have no observors in Iran. If UNPO can fabricate history then it can fabricate anything else and give it to unreliable entities. Also there is an article called ethnic minorities in Iran, where different POVs are discussed. This is a purely cultural/ethnic article and you can insert reliable sources in ethnic minorities in Iran in order not create POV forks. But you can not insert sources that fabricate history since this questions their whole reliability on all other issues. If there are reliable sites that say the same thing, then fine. But one can violate WP:OR and WP:RS. --Nepaheshgar 14:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Actually, that was 'poisoning the well'. the circular logic was 'it's not credible, simple as that'. that's not an argument. you did not 'show' and can't show in wikipedia that UNPO fabricates history because wikipedia is not an academic source to debate such a claim. I did not engage in original research as i was qouting UNPO, so that doesn't apply here. as for WP:RS, well, i suggest you check it again with regards to whether a human rights NGO is a valid human rights reliable resource, and why political organization definitely do qualify as reliable resources for several applicable uses, such as this one. MiS-Saath (talk) 14:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did not mean you personally, but the sources you bring violate WP:OR and WP:RS. For example it claims Reza Shah changed the name to Khuzestan in 1936! I showed Qajar era documents that he did not. The same amnesty source also makes this invalid claim. I have clear maps that use Khuzestan. So there is no circular logic, it is not credible based on some of these reasons I have mentioned. If I show maps in Qajar era that uses Khuzestan, then it means Reza Shah did not changed it to Arabistan. The website the amnesty international site quotes (Ahwaz.org) (and who is the author? it could have been uploaded to the amnesty site for different perspectives) are all politically motivated websites. Anyhow, if it is human rights issue, there is an article ethnic minorities in Iran, why create a POV fork? --Nepaheshgar 14:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Note this sentence: "Al-Ahwaz was renamed Khuzestan by the central government in 1936" from UNPO site. I can show you sources that the name Khuzestan has been used continously. And secondly, Khuzestan was never called Al-Ahwaz. It was called Arabistan in parallel with Khuzestan during the Qajar and Zand era. Also the majority of the province consists of Persians (Lurs, Bakhtiaris, Dezfuls, Takht-e-Soleymani..etc.). Something these UNPO sources do not mention and unlike what they claim, these are native people and not migrants. The main migrants came to basically two cities Abadan and Ahvaz and many of these migrants are actually Shi'i refugees from Iraq. So I can not accept UNPO as a reliable site when such historical fabrications are made for political aims. --Nepaheshgar 14:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I'll try again: it's not up to you to shoot down the veracity of UNPO. you have to convince wikipedia that your opinion counts better than UNPO's opinion (Ph.D or equivalent is a good starter) and do that on another medium, as wikipedia is not the medium for that, and in particular on a medium that they can respond to your allegations. In particular, if you find a reliable source that says that UNPO is biased, then we can and should add a reservation about their use in this article. if you find many reliable sources that say that UNPO is biased or makes frequent factual mistakes, then it might be a good time to consider not using them as a source. Why should we take your opinion a-priori as better than the UNPO one? what credentials do you have to make claims about their veracity? compare with the background of UNPO in the human rights field and the fact that the UN involves them in relevant workshops. MiS-Saath (talk) 15:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have a Ph.D.. I have also been invited to write articles in reputable Encyclopedias. But none of these has relavency to the unreliability of UNPO. I have shown some inaccuracies in the UNPO site, making the page unreliable. If you want to prove me wrong, then please show their validity in the Arabistan talkpage. That is the sentences I proved were a gross fabrication of history need to be justified. For example, if Reza Shah changed the name from Ahwaz to Khuzestan in 1936 then 1) why is there Qajar maps that show it as Khuzestan. 2) Why is there not a single map that shows Khuzestan as Ahwaz. These are important arguments. I don't need a site to say UNPO is valid or not valid. If I find such sites, then you might say those sites are not valid. So basically I am going to the heart of the content and you need to justify it, or else the UNPO site fabricates information, hence making it invalid. --Nepaheshgar 15:10, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Also taking another look at the UNPO site: [1], it is funny how non-Arabian areas have been turned green in the map. I am referring to Dezhful, Andishmak, Shushtar, Izeh, Masjed-Soleyman, Ramhormoz, Behbahaan, Maahshar, Aghaajari, Haftgel, Dehdozh, Lali, Baaghamak, Hendijaan, Haft Tepeh, Bandar-emam...where the majority speaks either Persian or related dialects Luri,Bakhtiari. These are not migrants, they are natives with their own peculiar accent which is even hard to understand for average person in Tehran. Like that of Shushtari, or Dezhfuli..--Nepaheshgar 15:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
If you have a Ph.D, you must be familiar with the concept of peer review. write an article, have it peer-reviewed and then it could be used for wikipedia. As for the applicability of UNPO as a source for human rights violations, i don't think your opinion or criticism on them makes any change with regards to their reliability as a source, until it has been peer-reviewed. please read WP:V. since i find this discussion pointless as is, i'll make a final statement for now until we can find an uninvolved arbitrator: UNPO is a well-known human rights NGO which has been party to several UN workshops regarding human rights. therefore it is a credible source for citing alleged human rights violations. I believe this discussion to be a dead-end, as you wish to shoot down the credibility of the UNPO and won't accept the fact that this is neither the medium nor the process to do so. MiS-Saath (talk) 15:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it can work the other way. It is up to you to show many peer-reviewed journals that use UNPO as a source for historical facts and even human rights issue. I have discussed some of the statements you tried to put in Arabistan with maps, historical documents and etc. I have much more if necessary. The UNPO site makes the fabricated claim that the area was called Ahwaz in 1936 and then changed to Khuzestan. I have named and brought maps and documents that show this is invalid. So if this claim was correct, why are there maps that call it Khuzestan before 1936? And where is a map or document that refers to the area as Ahwaz? Here is a source about Ahvaz that never makes such a claim[2]. I have no problem with legitimate human rights issue which can be put in ethnic minorities in Iran, but it necessary to have legitimate sources and not those who fabricate history. --Nepaheshgar 15:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
UNPO is a commercial site ! According to page " UNPO Membership" : [3], every group that pays the application fee, possessing the will to be identified as a Nation or People , will be a member of this group . That is not a reliable organization or source .--Alborz Fallah (talk) 09:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
UNPO is an NGO and not a commercial company. NGOs are not commercial entities even if they collect fees, as their stated goal is not to make money, but rather to achieve other goals. Therefore, this says nothing about the reliability of the organization. MiS-Saath (talk) 11:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
UNPO has nothing to do with the UN. Anyone can attend UN workshop. Their history section is miserable and that shows it is unreliable site. It is not cited by academics (a criterion you brought up) nor peer-reviewed journal. So that is the end of the issue. And there is no reason to create POV forks. I already mentioned the article that covers these issues. You can get enganged in that article instead of creating POV forks in three or four articles. --Nepaheshgar 12:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
UNPO is not connected in anyway with the united nations. Neither do academics site it for anything related to history or culture or human rights. Please find several peer-reviewed journals that cite UNPO for human rights issues. --Nepaheshgar 12:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Not 'anyone' can attend a UN workshop, only parties of any weight are named. The synthesis in your claims with relation to UNPO has already been pointed out. but since you insist, a simple search in scholar.google.com would please you:

[4] [5] [6] [7] [8] ... as for the criteria, it's not me who brought it up, it's documented in WP:RS. MiS-Saath (talk) 15:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sure ! UNPO is an NGO , but when every group can be a member after paying the fee , and after claiming a list of disclaimers such as not being a militant group , shows that it is a mirror organization against the UN , using UN's name , getting money and doing propaganda.In that same page[9] it is written:

    Participation is open to all Nations and Peoples who are not adequately represented at the UN


    Then it may not be represented and cited as UN . Anyway , reliable sources has it's own definition in Wikipedia , and websites and publications that express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist and are promotional in nature , are considered as Questionable sources.--Alborz Fallah (talk) 15:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your complaints are bogus: Not every group can become a member after paying a fee. in particular, from your own link: "The prospective participant has to be a Nation or People, possessing the will to be identified as a Nation or People and is bound to a common heritage which can be historical, racial, ethnic, religious or territorial. The prospective participant can also be a section of a People, constituting a minority, living on a portion of its ancestral territory, incorporated into a State other than a State represented by that People. According to article 7 of the UNPO Covenant, as amended in October 2006". it is not 'against' the UN, it just limits its action to nations/people not adequately represented by the UN. furthermore, it is not an extremist source, not more or less than other human right NGOs, and in particular i fail to see such consensus outside of countries that feel threatened by its conduit. its presence in UN workshops is enough to dismiss claim of extremity. furthermore, it does not use the UN's name and declares openly that it is not affiliated with the UN. MiS-Saath (talk) 16:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And who determines the claim is true ? The Presidency of the organization after paying the fee ! When the organization itself represent it as an organization for nations and peoples who are not adequately represented at the UN , that shows it is a mirror image of UN , although in a microscopic scale.About the so-called consensus outside the countries that feel threatened, please have a glance at the map of such countries [10].Almost no unrepresented nation outside the Iraq and Iran , China , Russia and former Yugoslavia! The Kurds are nations in Iran and Iraq , but they are not in Turkey . Palestine in not in the list and Iran is on the top of the list with 4 nations!! --Alborz Fallah (talk) 16:53, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The articles brought by User:Mis-Saath does not establish UNPO as a reliable source. They just mention UNPO as an organization but they do not quote human rights, history, geography and cultural material from it. It is like obtaining articles in journals that mention Al-Qaeda and then claiming Al-Qaeda is a reliable organization! For example this article [11] talks about an Uighyur reprsentative from UNPO attending some conference. These things don't establish reliability. --Nepaheshgar 17:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion[edit]

The UNPO is probably not a reliable source. It seems to represent extreme minority positions and also appears to be a questionable source. It does not appear to be received as credible or widely acknowledged as a credible organization. I strongly recommend sticking to what's been reported about the organization's statements and views by traditional reliable publications (if they're to be included at all). Vassyana (talk) 14:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CIA World Factbook Estimate[edit]

Hey, I only became aware of this by coincidence, but anyway:

The article misquotes CIA World Factbook for some reason.

The article says Iranian Arabs are 1% (680,000 out of 68,017,860)

The CIA World Factbook says Iranian Arabs are 3% (1,976,256 out of 65,875,224)

Thus I'm going to fix this. -- Mttll (talk) 02:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was no consensus to move  Skomorokh, barbarian  10:24, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Iranian Arabs → Arabic speaking Iranians — The article talks about Iranians who speak Arabic, and thus should have a title which speaks about the article. Iranians Arabs could mean a person of mixed origin (Iran, Saudi Arabia). However, this article talks about Arabic speaking Iranians, and should thus be moved to that page. I had moved the page there previously, but a user removed it here. I am therefore, gathering consensus this time, before re-moving it again. warrior4321 01:48, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Per nominator, although I think it should be "Arabic-speaking Iranians", with a hyphen. YeshuaDavid • Talk • 14:23, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawing support after reading this article more closely. It appears that some Arabic-speaking Iranians are ethnically Arabs - could you adress this point? YeshuaDavid • Talk • 21:17, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL --- tens of thousands of GHits, hundreds of GBooks hits
  2. Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL --- 700 GHits, 49 Gbooks hits
Also, this article is about an ethnically-based community. "Arabic-speaking Iranians" would include people of any ethnicity who happened to learn to speak Arabic e.g. religious students or professional translators --- which is clearly not the topic this article means to address. cab (talk) 06:38, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose Neither for Iranians nor for Arabs , there is no known ethnicity and both cultural entities cover various races and languages , but any way , Iranian Arab is more familiar in English and it is more prevalent in Iran itself as Iranian Arabs in (Persian: عربان ايرانی) and Arabic speaking Iranians (Persian: عربزبانان ایرانی), that the first one is practically more in use .--Alborz Fallah (talk) 07:17, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think it's appropriate to use "Arab" to indicate anyone who speaks Arabic from birth, e.g. many parts of Africa have people who consider themselves Arabs even though they're not descended from the original tribes of Saudi Arabia. So I would also oppose this move, but I'll abstain in favor of people who know more about the topic than me. -- Soap Talk/Contributions 15:53, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have source that Africans call themselves Arabs? warrior4321 15:58, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just the Pan-Arabism article, which is admittedly poorly sourced for something containing so much information. -- Soap Talk/Contributions 16:00, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Iranian people.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

An image used in this article, File:Iranian people.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 20 March 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Iranian people.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:18, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Flag ?![edit]

In this edit , user عمرو بن كلثوم insists on inserting an unknown flag of unknown organization under the title of Flag of the Iranian Arabs . What's the source for this claim ? --Alborz Fallah (talk) 21:07, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bogus numbers[edit]

An IP editor has been changing numbers in the article in a way that doesn't match anything I see in the cited sources or in any related Wikipedia articles. I've reverted them a couple of times. They have persisted. Since I don't really care enough to continue dealing with this, I'll let someone else take over. - dcljr (talk) 12:32, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Iranian Arabs. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:20, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to omit population estimate or make note abt verifiability?[edit]

I've just reverted what appeared to be possible vandalism in the form of changing the population estimate. In researching the veracity of the since-reverted edit, I was unable to find a verifiable population estimate of Iran's ethnic groups from the last decade, especially for Iranian Arabs. There's even a question of the accuracy of previous population estimates, such as the 2008 estimates (Iranian Arabs as 2% of Iran's population) from the CIA World Factbook / the Library of Congress Federal Research Division. From what I've gathered:

I'm the opposite of an expert on this stuff, but this is just the info I've been able to find. Thoughts? Should a note be made about the unreliability of any population estimates? ---Comm.unity (talk) 18:34, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with your argument is that the "sources" you've used to provide alternate estimates are all partisan ethnic lobbying organizations. The FDD article for example was written by Brenda Shaffer who has been exposed on numerous occasions as being a lobbyist for Azerbaijan and exhibits a clear anti-Persian and anti-Iran POV in all of her writings. The last source you posted also seems to be entirely from the Arab perspective, so any estimates they give would be inherently unreliable. The first source you linked (Minority Rights) sources the "5 million" claim to a Human Rights Watch article[12] that stated an estimate of "2.5 to 5 million" without giving any sources or explanation. The reason the CIA sources are used is because they are devoid of any ethnicist sentiment and therefore much less in danger of bias. Ethnologue also used to be a reliable free source until they went subscription-only. --Qahramani44 (talk) 02:14, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that any population estimates from the ngo-type sources would not be reliable & neutral enough for inclusion as authoritative article references, but I was not suggesting that those estimates replace the CIA estimates currently used. In fact I actually reverted an edit that changed the estimate, as I said in the first sentence of my comment. I am merely raising the point that the currently used estimate may be unreliable, and thus may warrant a foot-notation on the article saying as much (I resign that my initial suggestion for total omission of any estimate goes too far). My comment is a cursory look at reliability, and further researching is of course called for. Just as a side note: I understand why the CIA estimates are what are used, but I just gotta say that it's not like the CIA is without an agenda or bias of its own.
Sorry for any confusion (again, I'm no expert at all, just a fool with too much time on their hands!) and I appreciate your comment ---Comm.unity (talk) 10:36, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notable people[edit]

I think we should add a sun section of notable Iranian Arabs like Imam Tawhidi Nlivataye (talk) 09:24, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Iranian_Arabs&oldid=1207736336"