Talk:Persian Gulf

Please DO NOT vandalize this Talk page!

1. Do NOT remove or change the comments of others;
2. Add your comments in an appropriate section, generally at the bottom;
3. Please sign your comments
4. Please be civil and avoid personal attacks.

There are great maps of religions, langauges etc. of the Persian Gulf on

http://gulf2000.columbia.edu/maps.shtml

Does any one know how to load them here on the Persian Gulf pages? There is nothing of the ethnography of the Gulf, so those maps can be of real value to the readers and students alike

Archives

Older discussion is archived at:

• /Archive 1
• /Archive 2

---

Persian Gulf

(Editors note: this section of comments has been heavily vandalized by a user who is deleting and editing the comments of others. I have tried to restore it to its pre-vandalized state. -- Gnetwerker 19:25, 4 April 2006 (UTC))

You guys want a date?

Oh sweet god, please just cool your heads. Persia as an entity has survived many attacks from the region and beyond causing a loss of grandure and historical herritage for the Persians. You may also note that Racism as a concept is very foreign in Iran as a deep-rooted culture. To call a Persian a racist is a very extreme allegation, as you imply that he does not support the core ideal the Persia has stood on for thousands of years. There is no persian race, its an ideal not genes.

IF SOMEONE DISAGREES WITH YOU, THAT DOESN'T MAKE THEM A RACIST!!! THAT LOGIC BELONGS TO EXTREMIST!

Persians, you remember that there is no monopoly over the history of the region, Babylonians (racially arab, one of the first civilizations on Earth) attempted to destroy the Semites, and in doing so spurred Cyrus the great to invade and conquer Babylon, freeing the Jewery, and Arabs although free to move and live within the Persian Empire, have been fighting ever since this war of words and swords has been going on longer than Persia was alive as an entity. To argue wether one side is racist is futile

BOTH SIDES HAVE ILLUSTRATED HATE THAT SHOULD NOT BE THERE.

The instant that the US decides to cut off the arab world it will collapse. 29 years since it cut off the Iranians, and they're still standing. You should all be working together to try and improve the living conditions of the region and build a free trading economy from which the entire region and grow and advance as one, not two juggernaughts fighting hard till one falls down. Its pointless! Why do you illustrate hate on such a public arena, just try and get along, argue facts not opinions!

I think this is a suiting place to put this Sa'di poem.

The children of Adam are limbs of each other

Having been created of one essence.

When the calamity of time afflicts one limb

The other limbs cannot remain at rest.

If thou hast no sympathy for the troubles of others

Thou art unworthy to be called by the name of a man.

If Persian poetry can't fix this rift, then I'm afraid nothing can! Stop this shre maddness please!

---

Entezar

Well this is indeed an interesting discussion. A pan-Arabic extremist versus a anti-Islamic Persian. Just on the note of the the anti-islamism... It is not very Iranian of someone to make digs at religions. Sure enough anti-semetism and other forces have suddenly been widely found within Iran and on the flip-side anti-Arab sentiments are running high within the nation, but this is all explainable.

(Before you read below, I suggest you clance through this.)

Reza Shah Pahlavi was a Nazi. He was an Aryan who renamed Persia to, 'The Land of Aryans.' He backed the wrong horse and thus he lost favour to the British. At the same time, an Arab called Gamal Abdel-Nasser got into bed with the British and Pan-Arabianism was cultivated fully. The Ottomans that had so far held control of this force were driven out and the Persians had their King removed. It was at this time, the 1920s that the term Arabian Gulf was first popularised. The Sammanids and the Saffavids retook the Persian Empire from the Arabs after 300 years of Occupation. During the occupation, men like Razi created ideas, which later developed into Modern medicine and so on as said above, some, though by no means all of the Arab scientific advancements were actually made by Persians and Turks. After the Arabs left, men like Ferdosi rebuilt the Persian language and the sense of identity.. However, one must remember that the Saffavid kings of Iran married the historic Persian ideas of liberty, freedom, luxury and fairness with Islamic teachings about morality and social order. Islam and Persia have not clashed with each other fundamentally. Persia has always been the land of cultural mixing. However, due to this un-ceasing Arab hostility towards her history, there has been an Iranian nationalistic backlash.

Historically, Persia lost her Empire after the Arab occupation to Britain which took most of Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, Turkmenistan, Khasakstan and the Caucus, from Persia, (It must be noted that Imperial Russia took some of the Persian Empire as well.) After Pahlavi took the country back in the 1920s, it was fought over yet again, and finally in the 1950s when Iran tried to take her own Democracy and claim her Oil back, their persident was killed BY the west. Pahlavi’s son was dethroned BECAUSE he tried to irradiate Islamic identity within Iran and because he supported the west in a country that did not want to more so quickly to a western style of living. It must also be noted that many of the ways of life that the west now stands for, were cultivated within ancient Persia. NEVER FORGET that every Arab State pumped endless dollars into Iraq. Never forget that the West supported Iraq. Iran lost half a million young lives and endless amounts of her military might (which was designed to keep the Soviets at bay) and her sence of prestige defeating not only Iraq, but also the entire, American-backed Arabian world. If Iran fell the Arabs could finally have that illusive prize of pride. Historically, Persia and the Ottomans have ruled them. The Entire area is historically Persian, it mostly holds Persian names such as Islam-ABAD and Hormuz as well as various Ottoman names. Persian Ideas of liberty and equality were taken by the Arabs, and found to be in agreement with the Islamic laws which the Arabs were given. A destroyed Iran is every Arab's wish. Iran has decided to hold her own against western encroachment and it holds within its capabilities the means to bankrupt the Emirates. Arabs sold themselves to be included in the Western consortium, Arabian princes shamelessly flaunt to the west, never thinking of the poor populace left on the streets. No matter how normal the life of the Persian prince is, and no matter how rich the life of the Arab prince is, their images are not even thought to be on the same scoreboard. Arabs will never be as well thought of or as well recognised as Iranians. Their sense of shame is was makes them want to conquer, and their sense of helplessness is what made them try to rename Persian claims and history as Arab.

HOWEVER… you must remember that anti-Arabianism is the reserve of only a small number of Iranians. What happened in the Iran/Iraq war did incite negative emotions, but the conflict is said to be Saddam and America’s. It was a tragic war where a Muslim country attacked her neighbour. And now we see the beginnings of the continuations of this. Arabs simply won’t accept peace at all.

86.132.160.219 23:52, 2 April 2006 (UTC) Entezar

Uggghhhh, if you're a normal, moderate Iranian, then God forbid I ever meet an Iranian extremist. And please spare us from any more racists rants, as I have very weak stomach. But I'm sorry that Arabs rename Persian claims as Arab, Arabs must know that the gulf was a Persian accomplishment and thus Persians own naming rights. Silly Arabs. --Inahet 06:50, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Fantastic! your opinion is noted. nothing in my text is wrong or incorrect, your preception of it being racist is your own and in no way begins to describe any aspect of tihs page or add any factual input. Congradulations... if you want an argument go elsewhere... -Entezar

what is this? This body of water has been called PERSIAN GULF for thousands of years. Even notable arabic scholars have called this gulf the PERSIAN GULF (al-khalij al-farsi). this arguement needs to stop. I've really had enough of arabs trying to make Iran arabic.

Patriot

I agree, even Arab scholars up to the 1960's called the Persian Gulf, the Persian Gulf. One reason I have heard for their decision for the name change was because of the shah's (the shah of Iran) support for Israel. Some of you may claim that us Iranians are racist, but its obvious the real racists are teh arabs. They have arabised Egypt and the rest of North Africa, as well as large parts of the Middle east. Maybe they hold a grudge because they could not Arabise us, and are simply trying undermine us now by trying to create a fuzzy line between what is Iranian and what is Arab. Infact, if Arabs truly believe in the arabian gulf (no capitals necessary) then why do countries such as the UAE find it necessary to have laws forbidding people from using the correct term? What are they afraid of?

-Another Patriot

Your hatred is so reeking and filthing up the thread. We didn't 'arabise' anybody all of these people are originally Arabs, your sick and twisted logis hold no water(hold nothing really) We have no wish to make you Arabs, go and be happy, racist persians(no capitals needed)! I think you're angry because, Arabs destroyed the sassanid empire(again, no capitals needed) and we followed your last cowardly emperor for sixteen years of his life. He was eventually caught by a peasant, who thought the emperor was a poor beggar(that was what he looked like!) You're angry because, the people at that time accepted Islam as their religion, and accepted the Arabs as their rulers...it makes you angry because, you see yourself as superior, which you're anything but that. The gulf was always Arabian, and no amount of persian racism or biased articles will make it otherwise.

-An Arabian patriot.

You are the racist my friends. You Arabs, like the Mongols, conquered and killed. You arabised Egypt, you arabised North Africa, you arabised Israel, you arabised Mesopotamia, you arabised Lebanon, you arabised Syria, etc.... None of these people were originally Arab! Arabs originated in the southern part of the Arabian peninsula. You dont know anything about your history! Your people massacred thousands, you forced your language and culture onto others! Only two nations were able to fight of your arabisation: Spain and Iran. Neither are Arab today, no matter how hard your ancestors tried, no matter how many innocent Spanish and Iranians your ancestors killed, no matter how many of our monuments you destroyed, we defeated you, and then came back to conquer you again! the Persian Gulf has never been Arabic! Infact, your own scholars used the term Persian Gulf up to the 1960's. You are living in a dream world, you are learning propaganda! You are ignorant, and racist. You are a supremicist. Islam is Turkish and Persian, it is no longer Arabic. The Arabs did nothing for Islam except to spread it by force, it was Turkish and Persian scholars, poets, and scientists that made the Islamic Empire so great! The Persian Gulf will remain Persian as long as there is an Iran, and as long as you Arabs just sit back and make no contribution to human civilisation.

-An Iranian Patriot (same as the above)

Really? Everybody that conquered and killed is like the Mongols? Then you persians, then called Aryans, are more befitting for your twisted analogy. You drove down from the Central Asian steppes and comitted heinous acts of racism and marginalization of the natives, and you started an empire which subjugated, terrorized, and murdered many peoples of the Middle-East. Also, prior to Sykes-Peako agreements of 1900s, there was no Syria or Lebanon. It was called Bilad al-Sham or the Levant. Also, prior to 1948 there was no Israel, it was always Palestine, which was, is, and alwayse will be Arab. Do your homework before you attack, will you? Also, all these countries have Arab origins in the Arabian penisuala, your hatred is apparently blinding you. You are very deluded you know that? All these people will defend their Arab identity with their blood, if you're saying the truth, then it would've reached them long before now, right? Racists and supermacists usually contradict themselves, I see that now! Throwing insults around seldom helps your topic Arash(or whatever). I already gave a list of Arab scholars who contrinuted to Islam. Arabs contributed majorly to civilization: We invented the zero, we created the numerals used in modern-day maths( 1, 2, 3...) Medina, Damascus, and Baghdad were centers of learning at an age were Persians were too busy drinking alcohol and reciting dirty poetry to realise what's going on around them, do you know that?! Allah tells us not to force people into Islam: "Let there be no compulsion in religion" (2:47 Holy Qura'an) I find it weird that I have to protect Islam from an alleged Muslim, but Allah foresaw that there will be people who claim to be Muslim, but hate Islam in their hearts. Also, by your own words, your so-called "contributions"(give me a few will you) to Islam would never have happened if Arabs didn't "force"(obviously something that was never done) you to convert! Another contradiction, amazing how you confuse yourself so quickly!

Arabs have contributed immensely to human civilization, no sour attempts like yours will obscure that. Please don't flatter yourself by saying we want to arabise you...we want nothing from a fire-worshipping, superiority-complexed, racists who want nothing other than returning to a violent past where they were called "The Empire"(even though they failed to protect it the only two times it got threatened)

The body of water is obviously the "Arabian Gulf" A greek scholar naming it doesn't mean it's the word of God! I am shocked at the amount of anti-Arab sentiments the political and geographical articles have in this website, seriously, somebody needs to do something about it. How can you call an obviously severly biased article like that "NPOV"? No arabian source is listed, the other side doesn't get a chance to state their opinion, it's immediately deleted by Arash clones, how can we find a voice in this if we don't get a chance? MB 21:00, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

LOL is this the crap they teach you in your schools? No wonder a degree from Arab countries aint worth horse shit. Klymen

You racist Arab, always trying to turn it the other way...

For your information, Persians have not ruled Iran for 800 years, so all of the statements you made are clearly wrong! Also, for your information, the first human rights charter was Persian. Persians never committed genocide, never forced their culture or their language onto others, and when Persians have conquered, never did they massacre the inhabitants. The Arab genocide against everything non-Islamic, non-Christian, and non-Judaism is fact! There are records of it, there are stories of it, and even historians acknowledge it!

And again, Arabs have not done anywhere near the amount of work for human civilisatoin that Persians, and later Turks have. Infact, how many Arabs migrated to Persia when their nations were so poor that they could not even feed their people...

the Persian Gulf has always been the Persian Gulf! You racist Arabs will never stop Arabising others will you? When will you learn? The only place where Arabs ethnically originated in was the Arabian Peninsula, not Israel, not Syria, not Egypt, not Mesopotamia, etc...

What do Arabs have left in this world? Nothing but the image of terrorism, so they start trying to claim other peoples history. You cannot claim Persian scientists, scholars, poets, inventions, bodies of water, land, and anything else that is Iranian. What does Iran have to do until you people put a hault on your racist atitudes? Oh wait, Arabs think that they are God's people and that everyone else has to become Arab and speak Arabic no matter what (LOL) so I guess you people will never stop.

And next time you try and debate with me, please work on your history skills, because all your facts are wrong and I can prove them wrong.

Oh well, I suggest the Arabian Sea page on Wikipedia has the term Iranian Sea in it as well, since some Iranians (such as I) refer to it as that. So if the editors dont mind, could you put a "mistakenly called Iranian Sea by some" in that section. Thank you.

-Iranian Patriot who hates racism.

You big cowardly liar...Persians never comitted genocide(s)? What about your persecution of the Kurds? Your persecution of the Sunni minority in your country? You keep telling me you offered something to human civilization, but you still failed to give me some contributions, showing what a f***ed up liar you are. What do Persians have left in this world? A supermacist, secret fire-worshipper making his little puppets called "presidents" in Iran do his evil bidding by suppressing women. Our contributions to civilization are affirmed by the whole world, you obviously don't have any(other than your excess drinking and wrong man-loving). Also, who are your scientists, scholars, poets? We have almost a 100 times the number of your scientists, scholars, and poets. We don't need your man-loving prose, Allah forbade that for us. I gave our contributions many times...you on the other hand gave none, you keep saying it's the persian gulf, your reasoning is that a greek man came by and called it that. Is that it? 300 million Arabs call it the Arabian Gulf, it stands to be an alternative name, 300 million isn't a negligble number, I'm talking to those who're reading this, not to arash and his clones. Cowards who don't sign their names, obviously are afraid of something. You offered no proof that you contributed more to the world than the Arabs( actually you offered no proof that you contributed at all) obviously you don't have any, Because you have no contributions to tell about. MB 16:02, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

ooo, some one seems to be getting angry... LOL why dont you read a history book? i dont have to explain anything to you. it is you who has to prove "arab civilisation and culture" which doesnt exist. its the truth, deal with it, Persians and turks have always been the dominating forces on islam, islamic science, and islamic culture. i dont sign my name because i am not a wikipedia member, so this isnt "arash" or whoever you are talking about. the truth is that you arabs even called it the Persian Gulf till your pan arabism started so dont give me any of your racist crap.

the persians have never committed any genocides against anyone, prove it. sunni's live un persecuted in iran, kurds live un persecuted in iran. why has there been armed resistance in pakistan, turkey, iraq, etc... but never in iran? its because iran has always been a tolerant nation.

and guess what? it is your arabic islam that has messed up our country, so dont blame anything that these mullahs do on us, because they are doing it in islam's name, and most arabs support them, because they are practicing what arabs see as correct islam, and they are messing up iran at the same time.

i dont have to prove anything to you. when westerners here arab, they think terrorist, islamic radicals, suicide bombers. when hear iranian, they think mullahs and nukes, iranian youth, democracy, fight for freedom. which one do you think they hate more? for example, look at the reaction to the dubai company controlling US ports.... thats self explanitory about what they think of you and your people.

and i have not used proper grammer this time due to the fact that i have other things to do and dont have the time to spend on this.

-An Iranian Patriot, who hates racism, and people who talk about things they dont understand. (why so angry if you are right? it seems as though you yourself know you are wrong, LOL)

---

A FACT - Persia, and the name Persian gulf existed way before the emergences of Arab semites. The race "Arab" and the language came long after the Persian Empire and the Persian. Infact most Arabian countries today were Persians, attacked by semites originating from the Western region of what we know today as Saudi Arabia. Farsi, which is spoken by all Persians in Iran and is the national language is a much older language than Arabic, Farsi is one of the oldest languages alongside Hebrew and Hindi and other european languages, these are all FACTS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sinamohajer (talk • contribs)

Comments by Sinamohajer

There is no case for any name dispute - The Persian Gulf has always been the name for the concerned body of water ever since its naming, the Persian Gulf. "arabian" gulf was a fabrication of later 1960's. Its like trying to change the Atlantic Ocean to the American Ocean. How can you even open a dispute? Its very simple to understand

First of all the term "anti-arabanism" doesnt even exist. Stop making up terms. This situation is nothing to do with race, colour, or creed.

Persian Gulf is a name that has always been. Ever since the naming of waters came about, the Persian Gulf has existed and will do so forever. Its simple, just like any other ocean or gulfs in the world, the name will remain the same. The fabricated term "arabian" gulf came about due ain gnorant and illiterate civilians who are arogant in nature to accept that the Persian Gulf will always remain as the Persian Gulf.

We dont need all that nonsense. This situation is so simple to settle. You can't change a name that has always been. You cant fabricate new false names. Its like calling the Atlantic Ocean the American Ocean. Nonsense. 3000 years the water has been called and even today its refered to as the Persian Gulf. What allows a fabricated term which emerged only recently, to even make it on a encyclopedia. I suggest people stop arguing. There are no valid reasons to push for, or argue the point of a fabricated false term. The Persian Gulf will always remain the name for the body of water in the middle east.

As for the information below, most of the sayings are circumstantial, especially in regards to calling Reza Shah a "nazi". If thats the case the Stalin, Mussolini and many others who assisted the Germans in the 2nd world are also Nazi's.

Thank You and good night.

(A Nazi is someone who actively participated in the holocaust, not someone who was involved in the 2nd world war. Reza Shah never killed, nor discriminated against a jew, infact far from it. I request the word "nazi" to be removed from the text below. Also note most of the information below is circumstantial and biased.)

This fabrication of the term "arabian" gulf has offended 71 million Persians living in Iran. The population of the Arabian peninsula is 39 million, of many, who are foreign in nature often labourers from India, Africa and Western civilians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sinamohajer (talk • contribs)

Expansion of the page

--- Im sorry, but there is no need for a dispute. The Persian Gulf has always been known as the Persian Gulf. From the time in history when naming of waters ever existed, the Persian Gulf has always been. Why fabricate new terms such as "arabian gulf" or "the gulf". This is silly, its like calling the Caspian Sea, the Russian Sea.

There is no need for a dispute, nor calling this a Controversial Topic. The Persian Gulf will always remain the name for the Persian Gulf. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sinamohajer (talk • contribs)

Salam, I think we're in need to expand this page and give a more detailed view of the Persian gulf's history. I recollect reading an article also specified in the Reference section about the black slaves that currently reside in Qeshm Island, they were slaves brought in by the portugese slavetraders and then reverted to Shi'ism, later on a Qajar king gave them asylum because of the persecution they endured because of being Shiite under Sunnite controlled territory.

In addition, i think we need to be more detailed on when exactly the naming of Arabian Gulf started being heavily promoted* (Presumably AbdulNasser's era and beyond) as well as the Naming of Persian Gulf, its history, some other unmentioned cool facts like what battles have taken place there, what kind of people have been living there (a more detailed of Greater, Lesser Tonb and Abu Musa islands would be appropriate), etc. Much of wich can be find in the refrence links below but wont hurt to be mentioned on the page as well; I'll try and look for some articles regarding these.--Paradoxic 16:15, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

This fabrication of the term "arabian" gulf has offended 71 million Persians living in Iran. The population of the Arabian peninsula is 39 million, of many, who are foreign in nature often labourers from India, Africa and Western civilians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sinamohajer (talk • contribs)

== Persian Gulf == - "arabian gulf", or the "gulf" are wrong both geographically, historically and globbaly.

I do feel sorry for the individuals who are trying to justify the false term "arabian" gulf. How much common sense do you need, to understand historical, geographical and global facts cant be changed. Its like denying the 2nd World War.

Live with the fact that the Persian Gulf will remain the Persian Gulf forever.

Or maybe we should push to call the Atlantic ocean, the American ocean lol.

Persian Gulf

This article is about the Persian Gulf and should not include any fabricated names for the body of water to the south of Iran. The article should state that the ONLY name for this area is the, "Persian Gulf". If a few arab/ISLAMIC fundamentalists want to imagine that the name for the region is "the arab gulf" then that does not mean that Wikipedia should include those peoples opinions as fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dariush4444 (talk • contribs)

Spreading hatred

i'm an iranian and of course i believe the only correct name for this gulf, is the "persian gulf" and i have reasons for it. but right now, this is not what i want to write about. i think racist comments have been snowballing on this page and we should all help and put an end to it. i truely believe that hurting and insulting other people will not help anyone achieve anything. whatever opinion you want to express, it can be done in a polite and civilized manner. persians and arabs need to respect each other and stop trying to humiliate the other side because of actions of people that lived 1500 years before!! this is ridiculous. EVERY nation in the world has both good and bad indiviuals. you can find a rasict person, or a criminal, or a cruel person in any society, as you can also find scholars and fairminded people. how can you hate another human being that you have never even met. how can some of you people (i'm referring to both persians and arabs) speak so hatefully, insulting a whole nation or a whole race. for example one of my fellow iranians (to my shame a PhD, i think), had wrote it seems that the arabs and their young, inexperienced, petulant and history starved nations must be taught some history. ok, now i ask you this: put yourself in shoes of a decent arab national with no previous hard feelings abour persians, coming accross this comment. how would it make you feel to read this? wouldn't you feel insulted, wouldn't you get angry and reply in kind? i'm just amazed how unthoughtful some of us are. what could you expect to come out of such a comment? could you think the arabs that read this will now become convinced that they should back off from their claim on the name of the persian gulf and send you an apology?? this way you would turn even a fair-minded person into a racist because you patronize him. i have a friend that whenever someone says something insulting about arabs, says to him:just imagine you are talking in presence of nancy ajram and see if you would still say that!!. of course he says this as a humourous comment, but it's meaningful and serious at the core. something worth thinking about. spreading hatred can be so easy. please don't be ignorant about it. March 10, 2006 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barnetj (talk • contribs)

Borj Al Farsi/Bahre-Fars

Yeah, I agree with the Iranian Compatriot guy, lets change the "Borj Al Arab" wiki page into "Borj Al Fars" or include that its also called that. Or like the guy suggested from Arabian Sea to Persian Sea. That way we would have a mutual understanding. However right now this is just Stupid.--Paradoxic 22:01, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I was never suggesting that we actually do that. I was just telling the Arab Wikipedians why their thinking is flawed. And I think i got my point across just fine!Iranian Patriot 00:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

"Arabian Gulf"

This is an alternative name for Persian Gulf and should be bold-faced according to WP:Style. It is used by enough people. In the worst case it should be bold-faced for the same reasons "Dubya" is bold-faced here. Is "Dubya" officially recognized??? Aucaman^Talk 02:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

dear aucaman, i think your reference to dubya is irrevelant here because: - 1. there was never a discussion over boldfacing dubya in that article and therefore that decision was never challenged, maybe if it was discussed, they would have changed it too - 2. more importantly, i think if one wants to be fair, the english term "arabian gulf", must be described as a "commonly rejected alternative name" rather than "commonly accepted alternative name". i think the evidence and previous discussions on this issue already explain that the majority of official and unbiased sources confirm that "arabian gulf" is not a commonly accepted alternative name in english. Barnetj 17:30, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

It's an alternative name in another language, therefore it should be Italic not bold-face. The one and correct name in English, as recognized by United Nations and all the major encyclopedias, is Persian Gulf. --ManiF 02:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not "another language". It's English and receives more than 1 million Google hits.

I'm sorry but this doesn't seem to prove a point (in terms of widespread acceptance and usage of the name). the phrase "arabian gulf" has been the center of much controversy. one might claim that 99% of those hits are actually articles rejecting the use of the name. Barnetj 19:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

From Arabic sources and translations of Arabic texts. Th English term has no alternative as officially recognized by the United Nations. The English name has always been Persian Gulf. --ManiF 04:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. The fact that it's officially recognized as Persian Gulf justifies the naming of the article as Persian Gulf. I'm not asking for the name to be changed. It is already mentioned that Arabian Gulf is an alternative name and this has to be bold-faced according to WP:Style. Aucaman^Talk 04:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

That's the ponit, Persian Gulf has no alternative name in English language. --ManiF 04:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Aucaman is absolutely correct. This is an often-used alternative name that must be bold-faced, per WP:Style. — TheKMan^talk 05:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I removed the italics. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (italics). — TheKMan^talk 05:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not an "often-used alternative name". --ManiF 05:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Let me clarify: It's an "often-used alternative name" by Arab gulf states. — TheKMan^talk 05:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

ManiF: Regarding your reverts, PLEASE do not confuse MoS with POV. — TheKMan^talk 05:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't qualify as an often-used alternative name in English. --ManiF 05:35, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

It's an alternative name that apparently seems to cause a lot of stress in any language (and apparently English) for whatever reason. It is clearly something that should be noted, and as an alternative name, should be bolded. Please note that bolding per MoS is not an endorsement of one POV over another. — TheKMan^talk 05:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

And I disagree with you for reasons already stated. --ManiF 05:46, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I know you feel strongly about this, but please don't let your personal views interfere with how an article should be written. I hope you understand. — TheKMan^talk 05:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

This tribalism is disgraceful. It seems to me pretty clear that "arabian gulf" is an alternative, otherwise people wouldn't go to the trouble of doing junk like this: [1] [2] etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by William M. Connolley (talk • contribs)

United Nations has issued several directives asking different organizations not to use that name as an alternative or anything else. There is no history of that term being used in any language, including Arabic, prior to 1960's. I suggest that you study the history of that bogus name before calling other people's academically-supported opinion "disgraceful tribalism" and "junk". --ManiF 09:47, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

the name for the body of water is “Persian Gulf” and it has always been “Persian Gulf” in the history. You can't just introduce new alternatives whenever you feel like it, sure you can give places nicknames and call it by the nickname in your own house or among your friends but you can never expect your new found alternative to become official and internationally used. Pan-Arab movement is really becoming desperate these days, this is another one of their miserable antics.--Kraf001 09:51, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

You may consider this bogus. You may disagree with the "Pan Arab" movement. However it does not change the fact that a significant part of the world still considers it the "Arabian Gulf". Now, if you think that this wording exists does not exist in English, perhaps I should remind you of the National Geographic incident. — TheKMan^talk 13:25, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

::: Well, that's just your opinion. The National Geographic incident is actually a very good example, as their alternative listing was removed from the atlas and placed in Italics in a footnote with the history of the bogus term, after they realized their mistake. United Nations has called Persian Gulf "the only historically and legally valid term for the waterway separating Iranian plateaus from the Arabian Peninsula" on two occasions. On both occasions 191 Member States of the United Nations, including all 22 Arab nations represented at the United Nations signed the documents. That pretty much sums it up. --ManiF 13:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the latest version of the National Geographic atlas still has a note that states: "Historically and commonly known as the Persian Gulf, this body of water is also referred by some as the Arabian Gulf." It's usage is verifiable. — TheKMan^talk 13:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Read what I said again, the listing was removed from the atlas and placed in a footnote with an explanation. --ManiF 13:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed you changed your above comment after I pointed this out. Anyway, from WP:V: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. I think everyone agrees that this has to be mentioned, but when it is mentioned it does have to be in bold per the MoS. — TheKMan^talk 13:43, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The term is already mentioned but it does not have to be in bold because it's not an "often-used alternative name". Even your own quote says "..commonly known as the Persian Gulf...". --ManiF 13:47, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

ManiF, if you have a problem with this (among many other problems you seem to have), please take it up with the following organisations (including academia, sport, business and government):

• Arabian Gulf University in Bahrain: http://www.agu.edu.bh/ (Nice music)
• Traditional Music from the Arabian Gulf: http://isanet.org/mesassoc/Bulletin/campbell.htm
• Arabian Gulf Rugby Football Union: http://www.agrfu.com/
• Sheikh Mohammed's website: "The Arabian Gulf, or al-Khaleej al-Arabi in Arabic, lies between the Arabian Peninsula and Southwest Asia." - http://www.sheikhmohammed.co.ae/english/history/history_gulf.asp (he is the ruler of Dubai)
• Arabian Gulf Yellow Pages: http://members.tripod.com/alkhaliji/
• Arabian Gulf Chapter of the Special Libraries Association: http://www.sla.org/chapter/cag/
• Arabian Gulf Enterprises: http://www.arabiangulf.lk/
• Arabian Gulf Hotel Reservation: http://arabiaknights.com/

Better get going, you have a lot of work to do.--Ahwaz 13:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Its perfectly clear that "arabian gulf" is used in any number of scholarly publications: [3] William M. Connolley 13:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Ahwaz, we already know what the Persian Gulf Arabs call the Persian Gulf, tell me something I don't know. The Islamic regime in Iran also calls the United States "the Great Satan" but that doesn't mean it should be regarded as an alternative name for the United States. --ManiF 13:51, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

"The Great Satan" is obviously intended as an insult, whereas the Arabian Gulf is not. I don't think an American university would name itself "University of the Great Satan". The Arab states call it the Arabian Gulf, so it is an alternative name, regardless of what the UN says.--Ahwaz 13:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

It is amusing that, in ManiF's mind, the entire future of the Persian people rests on whether to bold or not to bold two words on Wikipedia! I don't really care. Give him his little kick and let him have his way. Keep it unboldened so ManiF feels happy.--Ahwaz 14:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

"Arabian Gulf" was originally intended to insult and provoke too. Go read the history of term and where it comes from. By the way, the google hits are either Arab sources/citing Arab sources or simply uninformed. Many of them are actually referring to the red sea in historical context, which was called Arabian Gulf. --ManiF 14:02, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Sheikh Mohammed, the ruler of one of the Gulf's most successful economies, along with the Arabian Gulf University must be ill-informed. They have not had the pleasure of hearing your wisdom, ManiF.--Ahwaz 14:06, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Ahwaz, for the last time, read WP:Civil and WP:NPA. I really don't appreciate your tone. --ManiF 14:09, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Ahhhh, are you getting tearful, ManiF? Take a few deep breaths, blow your nose and try to get things into perspective. Oh yes, you'll probably run off and tell someone to ban me for being uncivilised. Go ahead!--Ahwaz 14:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Crikey! Persian_Gulf_naming_dispute is linked to, the argument is well put there. The fact that there is all this debate here confirms that the two names exist. whether you like/dislike either one is irrelevant - they both are, although in the english language 'Persian Gulf' seems to be the officially preferred (note I didn't say 'exclusive') term. My personal problem is that historically Arabian Gulf has refered to the Red Sea, not the (dare I say it) Persian Gulf, and that causes confusion. But that is also alluded to in the first para as it sits 'right now'. Bold/Italic/Pink, the point is, the first para makes it obvious that some dispute exists, readers are directed to the appropriate page to explore that dispute, I don't think there's a lot of sense in inflaming the debate by arguing minutiea of format as well. Can we leave it as it is & agree to disagree? (sorry, forgot to sign this first time 'round) Bridesmill 02:19, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

---

I agree with the comment above - its fine as it is, it states the fact that it's called Persian gulf as recognised by everyone, and sometimes its referred to as Arabian gulf by a very few, and it links to the dispute article. --Kash 23:09, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. I wonder how arabs would react if iran suddenly started publicising and calling the arabian sea the iranian sea?

who cares if the arabs create universities and roads and name them arabian gulf. if iran creates universities and roads, and airports and calls them iranian sea does it change the fact that it is the arabian sea, no it doesnt, and it works the same for the Persian Gulf.

the hypocrisy and contradictions here are amazing! LOL. Iranian Patriot 04:46, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Bolding "Arabian Gulf" is clearly pushing a POV since it is not a commonly accepted term and is strongly associated with Arab nationalism. SouthernComfort 06:51, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, I see, if it is associated with Persian nationalism, it is correct but Arab nationalism is always wrong. I am learning more about Wikipedia rules. Persians right, Arabs wrong. OK, I understand.--Ahwaz 06:59, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

So, adhering to the proper and correct name is Persian nationalism? SouthernComfort 07:08, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

No-one suggested changing the name of the article, just to acknowledge that all the Arab governments in the Gulf region call it the Arabian Gulf and therefore it is an alternative name, not an official name. There is also no consensus. You are again imposing a decision, not arriving at a consensus - which is typical.--Ahwaz 07:19, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

It's not internationally recognized and it is a politically charged subject, as has been already explained numerous times. If "Arabian Gulf" were a legitimate alternative name, it would be internationally recognized and widely used. But it is not, due to (obvious) Arab nationalism. Bolding it would be saying the term is legitimate - other encyclopedias do not do this. SouthernComfort 07:22, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, please avoid making accusations against me - a number of other editors also disagree with bolding the term. SouthernComfort 07:24, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

But you said there was a consensus, but there is no consensus. See the discussion above. You are imposing your POV with the support of your gang. It is the same in every article. Bridesmill, William M. Connolley and TheKMan^talk have all argued their cases, but your gang has chosen to ignore them and impose something by weight of organised numbers. This behaviour is dictatorial.--Ahwaz 07:37, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't refer to me or anyone else as a "gang" or as being "dictatorial." SouthernComfort 07:39, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

What other name would you prefer? Falange?--Ahwaz 07:43, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

When are your friends Khoikhoi and Zereshk going to show up? I think they should be involved, don't you?--Ahwaz 07:48, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Make one more comment like that and I'll report you. See WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. SouthernComfort 08:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Please, report me. And while you're at it, report the user who wrote this nonsense: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Arabs_of_Khuzestan&diff=prev&oldid=46154909 which accuses users of racism and makes claims against Arabs. Let's see how fair you can be in the application of "civility" codes.--Ahwaz 08:09, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I just did - noticed as well that you called me an "ultra-nationalist" on the Hurriya talk. As for the comment you mention, why should anyone report it? If you want to report something, then report it yourself. SouthernComfort 08:16, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

It's an eye for an eye. If I am constantly told by you and your friends that I am "anti-Iranian", "anti-Persian", terrorist, separatist, racist, "lizard-eater", imposter, etc, for the way I spell "Ahwaz" or because I have a case regarding the demography of Khuzestan, then I think I have a right to call your little clique ultra-nationalist. It is what you are. No-one takes action against anti-Arab racism because most of the administrators here share your clique's sentiments about Arabs. It is to be expected. I use an Arabic word "hurriyya", and I am called a jihadist. No doubt you approve of this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Arabs_of_Khuzestan&diff=prev&oldid=46154909 because none of your clique are kicking up fuss over it as you are the demography of Khuzestan.--Ahwaz 09:33, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Go on, report me. You'll get some medals and awards for bravery to pin on your user page.--Ahwaz 09:38, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I am not your minder - if someone makes a personal attack against you, and you are aware of it, it is your own responsibility to report that person. Furthermore, I have never called you those names so you have just made another personal attack. As for the demographics of Khuzestan, I strongly disagree with your attempts to inflate the population numbers using POV sources, while also rejecting outright neutral sources such as the CIA factbook and Ethnologue. I tried my best to present fair and accurate estimates, but that was not good enough and the grossly inflated numbers attracted editors who were never interested in that article to begin with. Cause and effect. You would also do well to see WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA - you are not doing yourself any favors. SouthernComfort 09:47, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

My source was the US State Department's latest human rights report on Iran. Is that more POV than the CIA? You've reported me now, so I guess that's another block. You'll get a "barnstar for fighting the Arabs".--Ahwaz 09:55, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

That source was quoting "Ahwazi Arab" political groups. It wasn't stating the estimate as fact, precisely for that reason. SouthernComfort 10:05, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

The Arabs of Khuzestan article attracted editors because there was a big great notice on the Iranian Wikipedians notice board stating that my use of sources - including the US State Department and the only Iranian academic to do a study on the issue - was an "attack" and "anti-Iranian". I was singled out by your gang and you piled in and creating so much fuss (with your mysterious anons reverting anything I wrote) that it had to be protected. I never advertised for any editor to come along and disrupt the process of article writing. This whole Iranian Wikipedians notice board thing became a gang that organised against individual users, accusing them of "attacks" when no rules were actually broken. And you'll continue to do this, making accusations and running campaigns until no-one who disagrees with your agenda is left on Wikipedia.--Ahwaz 10:09, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

My gang, huh? You had best stop using that word, which is a blatant personal attack. That noticeboard had nothing to do with me, I was not aware of its entire contents until others brought up the problems, and I only made one quick edit about vandalism of the Khomeini article. Other than that single edit, I was not involved there, nor did I keep an eye on that article. So spare me the rhetoric and accusations. SouthernComfort 10:22, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, you were listed as a member and you were editing that article. This [4] still goes on, but in users' talk pages. The whole case against Aucaman was contrived, with vote-stuffing and canvassing for votes against him. You are a minor participant in this, but nevertheless the whole Persian thing that affects almost every article, from Arab scientists to demography and geography, is being conducted as an organised campaign. And I am no longer prepared to shut up about it on the basis of the "civility" codes you keep quoting. There has been plenty of incivility against me and other users from that Iranian notice board that has gone unaddressed that it makes Wikipedia rules and enforcement laughable.--Ahwaz 10:49, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

The noticeboard has no "members" list, and I only made one edit to that article. As for the case against Aucaman, that has been addressed in much further detail elsewhere. SouthernComfort 11:36, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Ahwaz, a talk page is not a chatbox. Please read WP:FAITH, stop making accusations and stay on topic of the discussions; Persian Gulf. --ManiF 11:46, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Assume good faith? Nobody assumed good faith when I was editing. I was derided as "anti-Iranian", "anti-Persian", separatist, terrorist, "leading a holy war", etc. When have you shown me good faith?--Ahwaz 12:14, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

There is no list on the notice board, but there is here -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Iran#Participants - same group of people every time (although I am amused to see Zora's name there) - which organised the notice board. Oh look, your name is second. Sasanjan who made the racist anti-Arab comments on the Arabs of Khuzestan talk page is also there, along with Dariush4444 who called me anti-Persian for debating the ethnic demography of Khuzestan. And Zmmz, who is leading the campaign against the "anti-Iranian" Iranian Aucaman.--Ahwaz 12:08, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

So because I am part of the Iran WikiProject I am automatically connected to the noticeboard? Give me a break. Anyone can join who is interested in the subject that the WikiProject deals with, and most of the editors listed there haven't been involved with the noticeboard either. Accuse me all you want, it won't get you very far. SouthernComfort 12:39, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

"arabian" gulf is fabricated and extremely political in nature, only few decades old. It is illegitimate, only recognized by 1.2% of the global population. It is very foolish to force a unpopular, illicit, incorrect and illiterate term up on people.

3000 years the water has and is known as the Persian Gulf, even before the emergences of arab semites. The Persian Gulf is the correct, globally accepted name for the body of water situated south of Iran, and north of UAE.

"arabian gulf" cannot even be considered as a nickname for the Bold textPersian GulfPersian Gulf, let alone be mentioned in a encyclopaedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sinamohajer (talk • contribs)

There is not such thing as "Arabian Gulf". It was always known as "Persian Gulf". "Arabian Gulf" is clearly a recent invention of some states and used for clearly political reasons. I think that this article (and many more) should not be overly concerned with naming disputes of such nature. --195.167.60.22 22:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

NPOV tag

I have added the {{NPOV}} tag to this article as requested by user:SouthernComfort at WP:AN (not WP:AN/I as I mistakenly put in my edit summary). I have not read the article and have just skimmed this talk page. I am not going to get involved in this issue (I haven't time). Thryduulf 12:13, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you kindly. SouthernComfort 12:36, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Iranica has an article on this subject: [5]. --Zereshk 07:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Arabian Gulf bold-facing?

The World Recognizes the Persian Gulf as the Persian Gulf. If the citizens of some arab countries choose to use the false term: "arabian" gulf, then fine, but keep it to your selves. We want WIKIPEDIA to remain factual and represent the world, not the tiny minority of some Arabs who are pushing to change illicitly manufacture historical facts.

I created a new thread because the "Arabian Gulf" thread seems to have lost it's focus on the subject after the first few posts. Anyway ... I believe that Arabian Gulf is not a "commonly accepted" alternative name, in fact I believe it can be more accurately described as a "commonly rejected" alternative name according to many prestigous and unbiased sources including the U.N. which has made it clear in it's editorial directives that the only accepted name of the gulf, is the Persian Gulf. Therefore i think, as User:SouthernComfort had pointed out earlier too, the term is pushing a POV and cleary associated with Arab nationalism. The National Geographic incident is a very good precedent that can be followed here for settling the dispute over bold-facing Arabian Gulf. For those that do not know what i'm talking about, National Geographic Atlas, in one of it's recent editions, had printed the term Arabian Gulf in paranthesis and smaller fonts next to the name Persian Gulf. Shortly after they were requested to review the matter, they removed the term Arabian Gulf even in paranthesis and smaller fonts and placed it only in a footnote that explains about this term being used locally in some Arab countries. I think National Geographic atlas is an excellent verifiable source that backs the decision for not bold-facing Arabian Gulf. Barnetj 16:52, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

A name doesn't have to be widely accepted to be considered an alternative. However, I think people are beginning to make too big a deal out of the number of single-quotes surrounding these words, so I will have to recommend italisizing "Arabian Gulf" as a compromise. Its usage is widespread enough to deserve formatting in a way to point it out from the rest of the text, but since it is also widely rejected by a number of neutral academic sources, should not take the next formatting step up, boldfacing. I think this would be a fair compromise. — TheKMan^talk 17:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I support this compromise. Barnetj 18:25, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I support User:TheKMan's compromise. --ManiF 18:38, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

• Sorry, agree that Nat Geo is excellent source & verifiable, but this business is a matter of opinion, not fact. Because both 'facts' are true - there *are* people who refer to the Persian Gulf as the Arabian Gulf. Right, Wrong, or Otherwise...refusing to acknowledge the existense of the 'Arabian Gulf' POV is in itself POV, politiacl agenda, and appeal to authority. You can't wish away an unpalatable (to you) reality by ignoring it. Lets just all agree to disagree & leave the intro as it was - made it quite clear what the isssue of contention is. And having an argument over whether to make it Bold or Italic or whatever threatens to become peurile rather than conciliatory. And just to clarify my personal bias, I think refering to the Persian Gulf as the Arabian Gulf is confusing, given that an Arabian Gulf already exists Bridesmill 18:00, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it must be mentioned in wikipedia as a fact, that some Arabian states refer to this gulf by the alternative name Arabian Gulf, I don't think we should ignore that. But what i do not agree with, is emphasizing it as a commonly accepted alternative name. Barnetj 18:25, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Bolding the Arabian Gulf makes it appear that it is, in fact, a legitimate alternative name. It is not. The same holds true for "Persia" - "Persia" is not a legitimate alternative name recognized by the international community for Iran. It is not bolded in the Iran article and should remain unbolded. The same holds true here - only some Arab states accept "Arabian Gulf" and that is due to nationalist and prejudicial anti-Iranian (or more specifically, anti-Persian) sentiment. WP should not endorse such positions. SouthernComfort 19:20, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

What major encyclopedia's say

Britannica

Persian Gulf also called Arabian Gulf, Arabic Bahr Faris, Persian Khalij-e Fars, shallow marginal sea of the Indian Ocean that lies between the Arabian Peninsula and southwestern Iran.

[6]

Encyclopedia of the Orient

Persian Gulf

Persian: khalij-e fars (persian gulf)

Arabic: 'al-khaliju l-arabiyy (arabian gulf)

Gulf bordering Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, United Arab Emirates and Oman, with an area of 240,000 km², a maximum depth of 90 metres, and an average depth is 50 metres.

[7]

Google

Google, the compass of the Internet shows 2 million hits for "Arabian Gulf" [8] and 90 million hits for "The Gulf" [9], while Perisian Gulf is only 19 million hits !![10]

Conculisions

• Arabian gulf and The gulf combined is used much more than persian gulf.
• In Britanica both Persian gulf and Arabian gulf is written in bold.
• In all encyclopedia's, Arabian gulf is mentioned at the introduction exactly beside "persian gulf" and not 4 lines away like in wikipedia.

Its also worth noting that in Iran you can go to jail for using the term Arabian Gulf!!! Its the equivalent of burning the american flag in the USA!! This explains the emotional behavour of some Iranian wikipedians. Jidan 20:08, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

"Arabian Gulf" is NOT mentioned in all encyclopedias. "In Iran you can go to jail for using the term Arabian Gulf" is a totally false statement. What is your source for this information? --ManiF 20:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

dear Jidan,

• as i had pointed out before: the fact that there are [x] million google hits for the "arabian gulf" does not prove anything in terms of the widespread acceptance or usage of the name. the term "arabian gulf" has been the center of much controversy and therefore a lot has been written about it. one might claim that 99% of those hits are actually articles rejecting the use of that term in english.
• the number of results for a google search on "the gulf" is totally irrelavant. "the gulf" is a generic term and could refer to any gulf in the context of the page that was searched.
• your statement about people going to jail for using the name arabian gulf in iran is false (please name one instance) but more importantly it is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
• it has been explained many times in previous discussions on this talk page that the majority of independent and unbiased sources including the United Nations (i hope that's credible enough for you) recognize "persian gulf" as the only correct name for this body of water. Barnetj 20:40, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Dear Barnetj, are you saying that all major encyclopedias and Brittanica are wrong? Jidan 20:53, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Dear Jidan, I'm very interested to know where you go this statement from "In Iran you can go to jail for using the term Arabian Gulf". I'm still waiting for your answer. --ManiF 20:56, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

dear jidan, like i said, the majority (but not all) of independent and unbiased sources recognize persian gulf as the only correct name of this gulf in the english language. for example encyclopedia of the orient (which you had referred to) only mentions arabian gulf as the name used in arabic language (not english). another example would be the national geographic world atlas (see above, under section "arabian gulf bold-facing?") Barnetj 21:18, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Jidan, are you on drugs? first of all, google searches for anything that has the words arabian gulf in them. therefore, out of those 2 million, 1.5 million of them could be about the Persian Gulf dispute, or just have arabian gulf in parenthesis or something. Second of all, have you ever heard of the arabian gulf bomb? here is an example: http://arabian-gulf.info/

Also, i typed in The Gulf and just simply Gulf, not only did articles about the Persian Gulf come up, but also about any article that had the word Gulf in it, such as the gulf of mexico, the gulf of florida, etc...

Nice research man, you proved yourself quite the idiot.

Also, iran doesnt send people to jail for using the term arabian gulf, unlike the UAE. And im not saying encyclopedia brittannic is wrong, but when it comes to the middle east it is very biased. remember that it was the british that first used the term arabian gulf heavily, and to this day, because of the tension between iran and britain, this bias is still around.

and lastly, should i edit the Arabian Sea page, because some people also call that the Iranian Sea... LOL, i'll wait for the response before i take any action.Iranian Patriot 21:05, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Iranian Patriot, i'm sure we can all serve our cause better if we remain calm. there's no need for insulting others with statements such as "are you on drugs?". specially as an Iranian with a culture that has "built-in manners", i'm sure you would agree. Barnetj 21:29, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Let's cool down a bit guys. Comment on the content and information provided, not the contributor. There is no need to be in-civil towards another user. — TheKMan^talk 21:08, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Its OK. I forgive Iranian Patriot. He is actually a nice guy. This issue is very sensitive to the Iranians...Why? I dont think the arabs will be so emotionally if the iranians named the arabian see, iranian see. Jidan 00:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, using the term "Arabian Gulf" in Iran is not allowed. Why do you think did Iran ban National Geographic?

Try walking in tehran with a t-shirt written on it "Arabian Gulf" and see what will happen. You will be lucky if the police catches you before the citizens start beating you. Jidan 23:11, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Please backup your statements with quotations and references. You are simply making false allegations. --ManiF 01:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

OK. From Times:

IT TAKES a lot to unite the Iranians, but National Geographic magazine has pulled it off. Everyone from the most devout mullah to the most fervent moderniser is unanimous in a furious response to what was perceived as a perfidious attack on the country’s proud civilisation and long history.

The crime? The magazine added the words “Arabian Gulf” in brackets beneath “Persian Gulf” on a map to label the body of water that divides Iran from its Arab neighbours. [11]

Jidan 02:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

That article doesn't claim what you are claiming which is, and I quote again: "In Iran you can go to jail for using the term Arabian Gulf". I'm waiting for you to backup that allegation with a reference. --ManiF 02:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

For crimes you go to jail. And using the the label "Arabian Gulf" in Iran is a crime. Thats why National geographic was banned and I gave a reference from a newspaper. Jidan 02:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

"Crime" in that sentsence is a figure of speech, not literal. I asked you to provide a source that says or suggests what you claimed which is "In Iran you can go to jail for using the term Arabian Gulf". --ManiF 02:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Why do some people always try to turn these talk pages into a forum for discussing Iran's internal politics or people? Aucaman^Talk 02:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Good question. No one was discussing "Iran's internal politics or people" until Ahwaz and Jidan came along. --ManiF 02:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

No one was ever sent to jail in Iran for saying Arabian Gulf, ever! Maybe in UAE it is a crime for which you can go to jail but not in Iran. The worst Iran did was banning National Geography and Iran also threatened to pull out of Asian Olympic as the result of Qatar using the term. Please don’t make up stories. Thank you. Gol 06:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Persian Gulf in Arabic Wikipedia

- Persian Gulf is the correct name for the body of water - Well considering the CORRECT and FACTUAL name for the Body of Water surrounding the Arabian and Persian peninsula is the PERSIAN GULF, it is of no suprise that WIKIPEDIA decided to use the correct name in the Arabic edition. Or do you want them to change historical, global and geographical facts just for you? I dont think that is possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sinamohajer (talk • contribs)

Regarding the naming dispute, I thought it would be interesting to note that in the Arabic language wikipedia, the main page about this body of water is titled "Persian Gulf" (الخلیج الفارسی in Arabic) [12] and the article on "Arabian Gulf" (الخلیج العربی in Arabic) is a redirect to the Persian Gulf page [13]. The caption of the first picture in this arabic article roughly translates as: "A map from the year 1565 that shows the name of the gulf as the Persian Gulf, and shows the name Arabian Gulf where the Red Sea is". Barnetj 21:55, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

It looks like that page was just moved. The decision looks very controversial since there's been a lot of edit warring over what to call the article. [14]

[15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] So it's not as clear-cut as you're trying to make it sound. Were you just trying to change the subject? The point was that many major sources present Arabian Gulf as an alternative to Persian Gulf and point out that the name is used by the local population. As I've said many times, bold-facing "Arabian Gulf" is not an endorsement of its usage; it's a recognition of its usage. Aucaman^Talk 22:39, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

If you look at the history of the page, you will see that the page has not been "just moved". However it is definitely a controversial subject over there too (as you have pointed out) but what i think is interesting is that eventually the dominant view seems to be in favor of keeping Persian Gulf as the primary name. About whether bold-facing arabian gulf is an endorsement of it or not, please read the posting under section "arabian gulf bold-faced?". Barnetj 05:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Looks to me like the page was just moved back to "Arabian Gulf" and is likely to just stay there. Aucaman^Talk 16:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

It is as if the arabs and the arab nations want confrontation with Iran. Its like their goal is war or tension. No wonder the Israeli Palestinian issue isnt solved yet. LOL. When historica the name of the Red Sea is the Arabian Gulf, why do the Arabs insist on changing the name of the Persian Gulf? I dont see their reasoning, all i can conclude is that they are racist or they just want tension.

Jidan, i know that you would be offended if Iran started changing things around. What if Iran started calling Gulf of Oman something else, or the Arabian Sea, or Shatt al Arab water way? i know you would be offended, dont try to act like you wont.

the arabian gulf is an invention, and it was created for the sole purpose of creating tension between arabs and iranians, and unfortunatly, the arabs still want that tension.Iranian Patriot 17:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

United Nations - Standardization of Geographical Names (UNCSGN), Resolution III/20

In 1977, the third UN Conference on the Standardization of Geographical Names (UNCSGN) adopted resolution III/20 entitled "Names of Features beyond a Single Sovereignty". The resolution recommended:

 "when countries sharing a given geographical feature do not agree on a common name, it should be a general rule of 
 cartography that the name used by each of the countries concerned will be accepted. A policy of accepting only one or some 
  of such names while excluding the rest would be inconsistent as well as inexpedient in practice."

This is also consistent with all major encyclopdia's(Britanica, Colomubia, etc), englsih and non-english. Therefore the entry in the main article should be like this:

Persian Gulf also called Arabian Gulf, is a ......

I hope this settles the issue. Jidan 19:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Are you forgetting that the United Nations has already clarified it's position in this specific case through at least two editorial directives, stating that the ONLY standard geographical name of this gulf is the Persian Gulf? I always try to assume good faith, but now i have no choice but to conclude that you are deliberately trying to game the system with this kind of posts. Barnetj 19:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Just want to make this clear: If we were to accept the United Nation's view on this matter, then there should be no mention of the term "Arabian Gulf" at all! It is clearly stated in U.N. directives (in 1994 and again in 1999) that the one and only recognized name of this gulf is the Persian Gulf. I fully support this solution to settle the dispute. All editors in favor of basing the article on U.N. directives and removing all mentions of the term "arabian gulf" please announce your support. Barnetj 20:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

There are many naming disputes in this World. For example: english chanal or La manch? East sea or Japan sea? etc. The resolution from UN that I posted above states that: it should be a general rule of cartography that the name used by each of the countries concerned will be accepted.

Wouldn't it be fine if we agree to disagree and mention this also in the article? Jidan 20:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

UN does not recognize the name Arabian Gulf. It has made it clearly on two occasions. The only time that in a text published by UN the term is mentioned is when it is a transcript of a speech from an Arab guest or ambassador who has chosen to refer to Persian Gulf with another name. No map published or used by UN ever uses the term Arabian Gulf not even as an alternative. Going according to UN is not going to help those who favor Arabian Gulf since UN has made it very clear what is the ONLY legitimate name of that body of water. The official name is Persian Gulf and I appreciate if people do not try to twist things around. The argument was never about what is the official name, some users are now trying to argue that Arabian Gulf is as valid as Persian Gulf while the argument was never about that. It was about whether the alternative should be bold-face or not. Please don’t try to manipulate the conversation for your own agenda. Even Aucaman who start this whole thing agrees that Persian Gulf is the legitimate name and that Arabian Gulf is not an internationally recognized name so please don’t try to change the subject. Italicizing the term would be the best compromise.

Gol 03:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Outside Perspective

I looked into this page because of a note on WP:RFC. I have noticed a few things, one of them very concerning: Sinamohajer has removed and edited comments apparently made by others, deleted references to the archives, and otherwise vandalized this Talk page, while adding WP:NPA-prohibited attacks, often unsigned. This must stop. If it does not, a civil discourse here cannot take place.

Second, there was recently a similarly vitriolic naming dispute at Falkland Islands -- I suggest that people take a look at that. In the end, the editors of that page determined to use the ISO standard designation in the intro, discussing the controversy regarding the name in a closely-following paragraph. This is what I would suggest here. It is neither appropriate to use a name that is not internationally accepted as the page name or (usually) prominently in the introduction, nor is it appropriate to omit entirely a name in common use by a substantial minority, in this case many bordering countries. But as I said, first the vandalism of this Talk page must stop. I will try to revert some of it myself. -- Gnetwerker 18:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

With a link to 'Persian Gulf naming dispute' at the start, this really oughtn't to be an issue. In such a case it is the responsibility of the article to be under the title, and to use the closest offical name possible - again, the ISO seems a good choice here. Then, a brief link to the name controversy page, with an explanation as to alternative names used later in the article. Robdurbar 18:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and I endorse the quote that: 'bold-facing "Arabian Gulf" is not an endorsement of its usage; it's a recognition of its usage' Robdurbar 18:39, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

This sentence is not acceptable

The following sentence should be modified: Since 1960s, Persian Gulf Arabs and their states have usually referred to the water body as the Arabian Gulf.

Up to now, United nations has past three resolutions saying that the name of this Gulf is Persian Gulf. The usage of the word Arabian Gulf has been repeatedly condemed by UN.

I suggest the following sentence:

Despite three UN resolutions in condeming such act, some Persian Gulf Arabs and their states keep on refering to the water body as the Arabian Gulf. Some Arab states appologized for that.

We can't have the word arabian gulf in this article without mentioning who (Saddam Hossein and President of Egypt) were behind it. The word arabian gulf is not simply a name. There is a hateful politics behind it. The United Nations with its 22 Arab members countries has on several occasions officially declared the unalterable name of the sea between Iran and the Arabian Peninsula as the Persian Gulf. --Fooladin11:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

It is not Wikipedia's place to take sides in international conflicts. The NPOV way to state the point above is much more like you first wrote it: "Since the 1960s, some states bordering the Persian Gulf have referred to the body of water as the Arabian Gulf, despite three United Nations resolutions formalizing the name as Persian Gulf. This states the facts without passing judgements on them. Partisans on both sides, please take note. -- Gnetwerker 05:37, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

---

I found the following link to a recent 8 page UN Paper: Historical, Geographical and Legal Validity of the Name: PERSIAN GULF (4 April 2006) http://unstats.un.org/unsd/geoinfo/gegn23wp61.pdf

I think we can take it that a group of the UN experts on the subject are not biased too much! I leave it for someone who has the time to incorporate the UN report into the rest of the page. By the way, the main culprit is BBC and I am after them thru an MP’s office. I think the above mentioned report is great. Cheers, Kiumars. 82.70.40.190 18:03, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Poll?

We're not talking about which name is more "correct". Bold-facing "Arabian Gulf" is not an endorsement of its usage; it's a recognition of its usage. Bold-facing has nothing to do with correctness. You're telling me that "Dubya" is the correct way of addressing the President of United States and that's why it's bold-faced here? Bold-facing has nothing to do with correctness.

The article's title has to do with correctness. If the article's title was "Arabian Gulf" I would certainly agree with moving it to "Persian Gulf". But that's not the case, and no one is challenging the currect title.

The fact is that "Arabian Gulf" is used by some people and this deserves mentioning. If you think it's incorrect, then you can explain why it's incorrect. See WP:NPOV: "The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these are fairly presented, but not asserted. All significant points of view are presented, not just the most popular one."

I think it's about time we take a poll on this. Aucaman^Talk 20:24, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

It is already mentioned and it does already mention why its incorrect. -- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 22:41, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm; c'mon folks - the link in the 'Since 1960' line points to 'persian gulf', with searches for 'arabian gulf' redirected - That's not *really* playing nice...If I could suggest using wording such as "although several UN resolutions continue to refer to the Persian gulf....," rather than despite which has fairly forceful connotations (as in 'despite a 24 hour block for 3rr user nitwit continues to push this POV). I'm not sure a poll is going to help too much as it will hang on who calls most of their friends.Bridesmill 20:46, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Unprotected

This article has been protected a rather long time for the level of dialogue that's happening on this talk page. Please try to edit constructively and then it won't be necessary to protect the page. I'm leaving it unprotected, but if edit warring breaks out again you can always make a new request that it be protected. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 00:06, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. -- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 00:50, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

To bold or not to bold

See Falkland Islands - the "other" name ("Islas Malvinas") there is not bolded. It shouldn't be bolded here for the same reason. Italics is fine, and this was the original format here before a certain someone decided to bold it for no good reason. Up to then, no one had a problem with italics. SouthernComfort 04:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, "Malvinas" in Falkland Islands is bold-faced now. Secondly, it's usually not a good practice to suggest rewriting a disputed section of an article based on another disputed article. The example of Dubya I gave seems to be better. Aucaman^Talk 04:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Not anymore it's not, and you cannot take this problem to other articles to suit your POV. "Dubya" is a nickname, not a geographical body. The manual of style doesn't say anything about using "alternative" names which are controversial and offensive to a certain group. Bolding is inappropriate. SouthernComfort 04:47, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing offensive about "Arabian Gulf". Also note that Wikipedia is not censored: "Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive." This is not the first time I've seen you call things you don't like "offensive". Aucaman^Talk 04:58, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

That's your POV. Iranians consider it offensive [27] [28]. Yes, and you are offended by plenty of other things as well, so what's your point exactly? Bolding is unnecessary and there are no WP policies or guidelines which stress that it must be bolded. SouthernComfort 05:01, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm an Iranian and I don't think there's anything offensive about the term. That's the point. The notion that term "Arabian Gulf" is "offensive" because it contains the word "Arab" is pretty racist in an of itself. Aucaman^Talk 05:26, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I've provided sources regarding the issue of offensiveness and why it is considered offensive. Again, no WP policy or guideline exists to stress that it must be bolded. SouthernComfort 05:29, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Those sources do not claim that the word is "offensive". Why should it be offensive? Aucaman^Talk 05:33, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Read the sources - they're fairly clear. And again, no WP policy or guideline exists to stress that it must be bolded. Italics is fine, as with Falkland Islands and other such articles where controversy exists. SouthernComfort 05:34, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Tthe term "Arabian Gulf" is offensive to many, not just Iranians, because of its political nature and the fact that it's a politically constructed name meant to promote Arab superiority and Pan-Arabist ideas. Persian Gulf contains none of those connotations. Kirbytime 05:52, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

In my view, the decision to bold rests on how "official" the nomenclature is. In this case, "Arabian Gulf" seems to have little broad political support, but is rather used as a cudgel by various nations. I would include it in the WP:LEAD, but as part of the description involing the nationas who say "Arabian Gulf". The difference from the Falklands is that in that case the ISO designation is in fact "Falklands (Malvinas)". -- Gnetwerker 05:57, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

The way I think of it bold-facing has nothing to do with officiality. It has to do with popularity and usage. See Dubya, for example. Aucaman^Talk 06:06, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

So would i be correct in understanding that, embolidng aside, everyone would be happy with the 'also called the Arabian Gulf by some' with this explained elsewhere in the page, and naming dispute linked to? Robdurbar 07:27, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

The wording is currently fine. There is a section on it, how much more do we need to emphasize on the matter? - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 10:59, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Stub

I've categorised this article as a stub to highlight that, beyond the naming content and a list that gives way too much prominance - considering the article's length - to British rule in the Gulf, there is baisically no content here. Let's get the article extended before worrying about whether a term is bolded or italicized. Robdurbar 07:22, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup

I have moved the long section on the "British Residency" into another article, and cleaned up the Naming Dispute section language. However, the article still needs cleaning, in particular, the WP:LEAD which is too long and does not summarize the content (of which there is little). -- Gnetwerker 21:27, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Arabian Gulf, again

If we're going to move a mention of the Arabian Gulf to the bottom of the page, the least we can do is put it in bold so people can see it, as there have already been several instances of users trying to add the mention back to the top. Someone please point me to discussion that led to moving it to the bottom and leaving it in italics only. — TheKMan^talk 19:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Please look 3 paragraphs above this comment -- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 20:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for my belated discussion on this topic, but I believe the formatting change should be made for my reasons stated above. — TheKMan^talk 20:07, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Persian( Arabian ) Gulf

All encyclopedia's(e.g. Britanica) mention both names, Persian and Arabian Gulf, right in the beginning. Why should wikipedia be different?

Omitting Arabian Gulf from the beginning of the article is like omitting it from the whole article, why?

There are many other similiar naming disputes like Sea of Japan (East Sea) or English Channel(La Manche), where both names are mentioned at the beginning of the article, and both are bolded, why should the Persian(Arabian) Gulf article be different?

Unfortunatly, there is a political agenda behind this. Wikipedia should not bow to this. I think its really silly enough that the Iranian's went that far to make website's such as this [29]. I really mean no offense to my Iranian friends, but this is simply childish. jidan 21:33, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

the arabian gulf can be mentioned in the dispute section. that is the only place where it should be mentioned. that is like telling the turks that they have to have constantinople in bold letters in the istanbul article just because greeks insist on calling it that. it makes no sense.Iranian Patriot 23:41, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Arabian Gulf Resolved

I came across this article in Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/History_and_geography. I believe that the situation has been resolved. The current arrangement of titling the article by its most common name but also devoting a section to its most common alternative name is the most responsible solution.--M@rēino 15:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

People Calm down and be rational

Wikipedia is not a nationalists site, it should be Neutral,

i really dont see why would some Iranian think that Putting the term Arabian Gulf in the main Article is Naltionalistic thing?, its an alternative term USED by more than one states members of the UN,

the UN has official papers in it has the Term Arabian Gulf ( yes it does, go to www.un.org and search for the term Arabian gulf you will get around 470 pages, and the term persian gulf you will get 920 pages) so its mentioned in the UN papers !

I as an Arab know History and know that the Term Persian Gulf is the most commonly used term and its been used for at least the last 2500 years

BUT

this does NOT mean that this Gulf been Called Persian Gulf Always, this is misleading and not true, this body of water had OLDER names, such as the Bitter Sea called by the Babylonians, and an older name is also the Lower Sea called by the older civilization of Sumer.

Sumerians were not Iranians and Were there 2000 years before persians has their first great Empire.

my point is that this Gulf had different names through History, Latest one in the 60s Arab decided to change the name ( iam not talking about right or wrong, iam talking about Facts that i know" and changed it to Arabian Gulf due to some relation problems with Persia under the Shah who supported Israel and the rest of the bla bla bla....etc.

so saying that this Gulf has only one name is Wrong.

even Encyclopedia Britannica has the Term Arabian Gulf mentioned in Bold under the main Topic name which Persian Gulf,

its a FACT that this Term is used , not by one nation But by more than 10 ( i wanted to say 21 as the members of the Arab league but to be sure its more than 10).

since its USED officially then its A fact that its been used,, Igonoring this FACT is Pure Denial,

i hope Wikipedia stay Neutral and present FACTS,

ultra Senstive people should accept facts, and try to controle their Nationalisim , specially in sties like these, you dont know maybe with this paranoia and unltra sensitivity you will send the wrong msg.

take care

I believe this Arab gentleman is right that different people should have the right to have different names for geographical places. However, in the neighborhood of the Persian Gulf there is 1)the Arabian Peninsula, 2)the Arabian River (Shatt al-Arab), and 3) the Arabian Sea. There is also the Gulf of Kuwait, the Gulf of Bahrain and the Gulf of Oman. Should the good old Persian also have the right to have a body of water named after it, or do Arabs need to take it all?

Ioj 06:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Those UN documents you are talking are written by Arab states within the UN. The UN uses the term Persian Gulf and Persian Gulf only in its own documents. And by your logic, if a group of countries started calling the Arabian Sea the Iranian Sea that makes it ok? The fact is, the term arabian gulf was invented to create tension between Iran and the Arab world by the british, and now the Arabs, who obviously still want that tension, are insisting on keeping this term. It makes no sense to me at all, i dont get the logic.Iranian Patriot 00:10, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Not All written by Arab States, some of them are UN Reports and they do mention the Arabian Gulf.

its a FACT that the Arabian Gulf Term does Exist and used not by small groups or anything, but used by Countries (not one country but Countries) and yea if Countries started calling the Arabian Sea Iranian sea then its a FACT that a new term is used officially and must be put here , THATS WHY THIS IS CALLED ENCYCLOPEDIA and it should has all the informations., and some of you Guys are Denying it, it seems like your pride and nationalisim has huge effect in your thinking.

as i mentioned earlier this extra or ultra sensitivity is so sending the wrong msg, each time i type Arabs gulf it sends me here! wtf! FYI there is a gulf called ARABS GULF and its different from the "persian" gulf. Arabs gulf is in the Mediterranean Sea west of Alexandria, in Arabic there is difference between Arabian Gulf and Arab Gulf, they are not the same, some people ignornat about terms and Arabiclanguge started linking the two gulfs , we call the persian gulf arabian gulf not Arab Gulf, Arabs gulf is a gulf in egypt.

i admire your and other Iranians' courage defending the "name" of the persian gulf, but at the same time propaganda sites such as persiangulfonline.org are spreading all sort of hatred and racisim against Arabs and Islam, they deleted my msg and kept all the hatred and stupid statements they aready has there, i tried to explain to them that talking about history and maps is irrelevant and ignorance, History is known and our government know it, they decided to change the name . so if Iran and iranians want to defend that and bring Arab states in calling that gulf Persian gulf they should discuss the reasons of the change NOT ancient History, we are not that ignornat we know history, something called by a certian name in history will not prevent future communitites from changing its name. examples? Istanbul/Constantinople, Shat Al Arab/Arvamdarod and the current example Lower Sea/Bitter Sea/ Persian Gulf/ Basra Gulf/ Arabian Gulf, all these are names used by BIG significant communities through history denying any of them is Denial, sure you can make a whole paragraph stateing your own opinion about right and wrong, but facts are facts and should not be effected by nationalisistic ideas.

also i dont see Iranains making such Crisis about Shat Al Arab? and what about the ignorant statments in the Ajam topic? if Ajam means dumb then why would it be mentioned in the Shahnameh??

it seems like many Iranians in Wikipedia are Anti-Arabs and too nationalisitc, too bad for wikipedia Ioj 05:10, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

this is not a matter of being anti-arab. i personally, as an iranian, respect arabs and their culture very much. however it's not acceptable to use an encyclopedia as an instrument for promoting the campaign of a small group of people/countries that are trying to change the historical name of a region of the world. i'm amazed why some people label the actions of iranians in defending the historical and legal name of the persian gulf as "nationalist emotions"! ! the name was already there(!), and then a nationalist arab leader started the new term "arabian" gulf just 40 years ago and since then arab states have gone as far as passing different legislation to promote the new name. ok, now let's be fair and take a second to review the history of the issue in your mind. who do you think is acting on "nationalist emotions"? Barnetj 18:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The alternative name IS mentioned so please stop saying that we are denying its existence. To completely erase the name is wrong as you mentioned but this article IS NOT doing that as the name is very clearly mentioned and its existence is acknowledged. However, the attempt to make this "alternative" name look as legitimate as the original name is completely wrong. This alternative is ONLY used in a few countries (all of them Arab) and it is not internationally accepted; UN does not recognize it either (has mentioned on more than one occasion that the only acceptable name is Persian Gulf) The other name however is used in the whole world and not just among Persian people and not just historically but even today. The difference is very clear. I don’t appreciate you implying that Iranians are racist since it is very offensive. It is easy to accuse a group of people but it is not wise to do so. Please avoid personal attacks. Gol 04:43, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Iranians dont make a fuss about the Shat al Arab waterway and the Arabian Sea because we respect you people enough to not change things on you! obviously we arent getting the same respect back! i find it extremely funny how arabs accuse us iranians of being racists and chauvinists when they are the only racists and chauvanists apparently. it amazes me how you only see the arab issue of this. Iran recognises everything with arab names in them so dont call us racists! but arabs refuse to tolerate anything iranian. like you said, you guys already have an arab gulf, why create tensions with iran? THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS THAT ARABS HAVE ALWAYS BEEN HOSTILE TOWARDS IRAN AND HAVE ALWAYS HAD HATRED TOWARDS IRAN! you know this, and i know this.Iranian Patriot 16:32, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Gol well i see its mentioned after a pathatic war from the iranian members here which they partially lost, its not mentioned in the first paragraph as the unrecognised name "Arvandrod" in Shatt Al Arab title, and that "Arvandrod" is the only title in the Persian section !! how you will explain that, its clear that Nationalisim from the iranian side is working hard in manipulating facts to their advantage. if its accpeted as a FACT and IS used by COUNTRIES then it should be mentioned in the first paragraph.

Iranian Patriot iranian dont make a fuss?!!! you sure? go check shatt al Arab and see whats written there from the title "Arvandrud/shatt alrab" and in the persian section it only arvandrud and shat al arab between brakets!!, how biased and pathtic is that?, you want facts to be presented here or just propaganda which is obviouse?.Ioj 12:31, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Ioj, don't you agree that the whole naming dispute about the persian gulf, was started and flamed by "arab nationalism" (i.e. Gamal Abdel Nasser in 1960s)? how could one not agree with that? this whole dispute has nothing to do with iranian nationalism, it's all about arab nationalistic propaganda. don't get me wrong, i'm not saying this as an offense to arabs or anything; i respect arabs very much and have many good arab friends. i'm just trying to state facts without feelings. Barnetj 18:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Merge of Persian Gulf States

I would suggest that Persian Gulf States be made a redirect to this article, as everything under that title can and should be discussed here. Of course I am not saying this of the Persian Gulf Arab States article, as that smaller region has a cultural distinctiveness which merits its own article.--Pharos 04:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. That article is only a stub and has the potential to be expanded (trade, navigation, etc.). Kaveh 17:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

But my point is that trade, navigation etc. should properly be discussed at the main Persian Gulf article. We don't have a Southeast Asian States article; all of that information is satisfactorally at the Southeast Asia article.--Pharos 22:46, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Persian Gulf will be remained Persian Gulf forever

Persian Gulf will be remained Persian Gulf forever

The historical name of the Persian Gulf is a familiar name for all the countries in the world, particularly the countries of Middle East. Commenting on the issue, Egyptian Dr. Mostafa Alfaqi said, "In the decade of the 1950s, the cabinet of Iran's then prime minister Dr. Mohammad Mosaddeq was overthrown and his foreign minister Dr Hossein Fatemi was killed. The Shah, with his tense relations with Iraq on the Arvand-Roud (Shatt-ul-Arab) assumed the role of the region's gendarme in opposition to the government of Jamal Abdel Nasser. Therefore, the Arabs asked for the change of the name of the Persian Gulf to the Arabian Gulf when they saw that the Shah of Iran was supporting Israel and was against Arab nationalism."

It seems natural that some low-minded and prejudiced persons would want to change the authentic and historical name of the Persian Gulf, but it is not expected from intellectuals who should be clarifying public opinion with historical truths. Considering this fact, the prejudiced reaction of a person such as Jamal Abdel Nasser to a historical truth thousands of years old is regrettable.

According to another narration, the forged name for Persian Gulf was fabricated and presented by a Jewish Syrian, Eli Cohen, who was one of the members of the Iraqi Baath Party in Damascus. As Iran and Egypt did not have friendly relations then, and as the Shahanshah of Iran was supporting Israel, the suggestion was welcomed by Cairo. Cohen was later accused of espionage, arrested for spying for Israel and executed in Damascus.

Considering all this, it seems improper that some news and official circles of Arab countries prefer prejudice to wisdom and use a false name for the Persian Gulf. The Persian Gulf was called by this name even before the advent of Islam. If there was any need to change the real and historical name of the Persian Gulf, the Prophet Mohammad would definitely have changed it. So, what is the reason that some Arab countries chauvinistically call for the change of this real and historical name, merely because it bears a Persian name?

How is that some Arab countries, neglecting all the historical truths, insist on using the false name, but expect Iranians not to inform those centres that use this false name? Iranians call those interested parties to use the real name of the Persian Gulf is not the result of racial prejudice, but it is a logical measure that is accepted by any wise and fair person, as it is accepted in international circles, including the United Nations, and all are suggested to observe it.

http://pejman.azadi.googlepages.com/thepersiangulf&itsname

http://azadi.pejman.googlepages.com/home

http://pejman.azadi.googlepages.com/iran

PERSIAN GULF FOREVER

the Gulf is %100 Arabian

I have discussed the issue of Greater and Lesser Tunbs in the talk page and was the only one providing evidences and i was so tolerant but some admins prefert blocking my nick and reverting my edits, so no need to talk if the article will not be changed , User:MARVEL

 This is 100 % PERSIAN GULF

This Gulf Is Persian Gulf because more than 73 milion people 
is living in this region are Persian.

This Gulf is Persian Gulf because of Historical documents.

This gulf is Persian Gulf because of legal validity in its 
documents in the United Nation's official Documents.

This is just a big figment in some smal arab countries that 
they use an Apocryphal name. 

This gulf will be remained Persian Gulf ForeverThe Persian Gulf 09:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Persian Gulf is Pure 100% Persian Gulf

Arab people should learn more and should study more about geography and they should learn that Persian Gulf is Persian gulf as the UN and American and also european believe that.

The Greater and Lesser Tunbs and The island of Abu musa are Iranian islands in the Persian Gulf

The Greater and Lesser Tunbs and The island of Abu musa are Iranian islands in the Persian Gulf

The Persian Gulf

The Persian Gulf is a crescent-shape groove which has demonstrated the encroachment of the Indian Ocean waters (Makrân Sea, also known as Gulf of Oman) in an span of 900 km long and 240 km wide in the inferior folds of southern Zagros mountains. The Persian Gulf and its neighboring countries constitute almost one ninth of the 44 million square km span of the Asian continent (1). The Persian Gulf has been a valuable waterway since the beginning of history and as the venue of the collision of great civilizations of the ancient East, it has a background of several millenniums (2). Since centuries ago, the Ilamites used the Port of Bushehr and the Khârg Island for dwelling, shipping and ruling over the coasts of the Persian Gulf as well as transaction with the West Indies and the Nile Valley (3). In the Latin American geography books the Persian Gulf has been referred to as More Persicum or the Sea of Pars (4).

The Latin term "Sinus Persicus" is equivalent to "Persicher Golf" in German, "Persico qof" in Italian, "Persidskizalir" in Russian and "Perusha Wan" that all mean "Pars" (5). and le golf perse in French

Prior to the stationing of the Aryan Iranians on Iran's Plateau, the Assyrians named the sea in their inscriptions as the "bitter sea" and this is the oldest name that was used for the Persian Gulf (6).

An inscription of Darius the Great found in the Suez Canal, used a phrase with a mention of river Pars which points to the same Persian Gulf.

The Greek historian Herodotus in his book has repeatedly referred to the Red Sea as the "Arab Gulf" (7), and Straben, the Greek historian of the second half of the first century BCE and the first half of the first century AD wrote: Arabs are living between the Arabian Gulf and the Persian Gulf (8).

Ptolemy, another renowned Greek geographer of the 2nd century has referred to the Red Sea as the "Arabicus Sinus", i.e. the Arabian Gulf. In the book `the world boundaries from the East to the West' which was written in the 4th century Hegira, the Red Sea was dubbed as the Arabian Gulf.

Today, the most common Arabic works refer to the sea in south Iran as the "Persian Gulf", including the world famous Arabic encyclopedia `Al-Monjad' which is the most reliable source in this respect (9).

There are undeniable legal evidences and documents in confirmation of the genuineness of the term Persian Gulf. From 1507 to 1560 in all the agreements that Portuguese, Spanish, British, Dutch, French and Germans concluded with the Iranian government or in any other political event everywhere there is a mention of the name Persian Gulf (10).

Even in agreements with the participation of Arabs there is a mention of "Al-Khalij al-Farsi" in the Arabic texts and "Persian Gulf" in English texts, such as the document for the independence of Kuwait which was signed between the emir of Kuwait and representatives of the British government in the Persian Gulf.

The document, which was signed on June 19, 1961 by Abdullah As-Salem As-Sabah, has been registered in the Secretariat of the United Nations according to article 102 of the U.N. Charter and can be invoked at any U.N. office (11).

Since the beginning of the 20th century, the name "Persian Gulf" has been used in geography and history books with less reference to the "Fars Sea". Such a change has suggested the idea that the "Fars Sea" had been an old name substituted by a new term "Persian Gulf" (12)

The beginning of 1930s was a turning point in the history of efforts for changing the name of Persian Gulf when Sir Charles Bellgrave, (?) the British diplomatic envoy in Iranian island of Mishmâhig, which today known as Bahrain opened a file for the change in the name of the Persian Gulf and proposed the issue to the British Foreign Office. Even before the response of the British Foreign Office he used the fake name (in an attempt to retake Bahrain, the Tunbs, Abu Musa, Sirri, Qeshm, Hengam and other islands belonging to Iran and to disclose and thwart the plot of disintegration of Khuzestan) (13).

Besides all the disputes that have been made over the name of the Persian Gulf, the United Nations with its 22 Arab member countries has on two occasions officially declared the unalterable name of the sea between Iran and the Arabian Peninsula as the Persian Gulf. The first announcement was made through the document UNAD, 311/Qen on March 5, 1971 and the second was UNLA 45.8.2 (C) on August 10, 1984. Moreover, the annual U.N. conference for coordination on the geographical names has emphatically repeated the name "Persian Gulf" each year (14).

Although using the "Arabian Gulf" instead of the "Persian Gulf" has no basis and will not be accepted in any culture or language, however, it will not diminish our responsibility in expressing the reality and eliminating ambiguities as the main and oldest inhabitants of the region.

HISTORICAL SITUATION OF GREATER AND LESSER TUNBS, ABU MUSA "The Greater Tunb Island is limited from north to Qeshm Island, from west to the Lesser Tunb, from south to Abu Musa and Raas al-Khaima and from east to Oman (15). The island is called the Greater Tunb, Gap Tunb, Tunb-e Mar, Greater Tunb-e Mar, etc..." (16).

In the Islamic era up to the recent centuries the Greater Tunb Island was part of the states of Fars, Kerman, Mokran and Hormuzgan.

In 1884 it was part of the Persian Gulf ports. In 1949 together with 29 other islands it was a village under the district of Lengeh. In 1951, it was part of the village Mazdouqi in Lengeh district of the city of Lar. In 1954, it was a village in Abu Musa district of Bandar Lengeh port city. In 1958, Abu Musa and Great Tunb districts jointed together and formed a large district with Kish Island as its center. In 1976, it became part of the city of Kish. In 1982, it became part of the city of Abu Musa. In 1991, the Great Tunb Island was part of the Tunb district of the city of Bu Musa (17).

The Greater Tunb Island due to its far distance from the Strait of Hormuz has no strategic importance by itself. However, given Iran's strategic situation, it is considered an important link in the defensive line of Iran in the Strait of Hormuz (18).

The Lesser Tunb Island is neighboring the city of Lengeh in the north, Abu Musa Island in the south, the Greater Tunb Island in the east and Faroo and Faroogan islands in the west. The island is rectangular in shape (19).

Footnotes:

1- Institute of Political and International Studies, selected Persian Gulf documents, volume 1, page 5 2- Ibid, page 5. 3- Mehdi Azimi, "Persian Gulf Political History", Port and Sea, Nos. 41-41, page 2 4- Institute of Political and International Studies, series of articles of seminar on Persian Gulf issues, page 135 5- Institute for Political and International Studies, selected Persian Gulf documents, volume 1, page 18, Institute of Political and International Studies, series of articles of seminar on Persian Gulf issues, page 136. 6- Seyed Hassan Mousavi, "A brief discussion on historical-political geography of the Persian Gulf...", sociology and humanities of Shiraz University, page 118. 7- Institute of Political and International Studies, selected Persian Gulf documents, pages 18-22, Institute of Political and International Studies, series of articles of seminar on Persian Gulf issues, page 137. Seyed Hassan Mousavi "A brief discussion on historical-political geography of the Persian Gulf..." sociology and humanities of Shiraz University, page 118. Mehdi Azimi, "Persia Gulf Political History", Port and Sea, page 22. 8- Institute of Political and International Studies, selected Persian Gulf documents, volume 1, page 22. 9- Ibid, page 146. 10- Institute of Political and International Studies, series of articles of seminar on Persian Gulf issues, page 148. 11- Institute of Political and International Studies, ibid, page 149. 12- Pirouz Mojtahedzadeh, "Persian Gulf in return for history", political and economic, Nos. 105-106, page 26. 13- Pirouz Mojtahedzadeh, "Persian Gulf in return for history", political and economic, Nos. 105-106, page 27. 14- Pirouz Mojtahedzadeh, "Persian Gulf in return for history", Nos. 105-106, page 28. 15- Iraj Afshar Sistani, Abu Musa Island and the Greater and Lesser Tunbs, page 105. 16- Iraj Afshar Sistani, ibid, page 11. 17- Iraj Afshar Sistani, ibid, page 119. 18- Iraj Afshar Sistani, Abu Musa Island and the Greater and Lesser Tunbs, page 121. 19- Ibid, page 123.

http://azadi.pejman.googlepages.com/home

http://pejman.azadi.googlepages.com/thepersiangulf&itsname

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Abu_Musa"

The "Arabian Gulf" debate

I am neither Persian nor Arab, speak neither Persian nor Arabic, and am firmly convinced that the most common English name of this body of water is the "Persian Gulf". Yet the usage "Arabian Gulf" is simply so widespread, as evidenced by the links given above, that it must be described as an alternate name. --Saforrest 19:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The Persian Gulf is The Persian Gulf and during the history it was Persian Gulf so it does not need to any debate

Persian Gulf in Persian Khalij-e-Fars خلیج فارس

الخلیج الفارسی من الازل الی الابد

Persian Gulf

arab gulf or arabian gulf does not exist in any part of international map. For arab people,it is better to find a way to solve their palestine problem. The Persian Gulf will not change and it will be Persian Gulf forever.

For more information please visit:

http://pejman.azadi.googlepages.com/thepersiangulf&itsname

http://azadi.pejman.googlepages.com/home

http://plasma.nationalgeographic.com/mapmachine/index.html

THE FOREVER PERSIAN GULF! I'm an arab and I can tell you that this a conspiracy to slowly but surely change this historical body of water from its correct term of Persian Gulf to arabian gulf. please, don't give in to our arab propaganda. you can't all of sudden start changing names just because you feel like it. -sarollah sorry, I meant to make a new post not edit the last one...not quite sure how one would that though. just wanted to make clear that this not related to post titled "Persian Gulf in Persian Khalije-Fars" salaam/peace brothers

Persian Gulf is Persian without any doubt

Persian Gulf is Persian without any doubtIf anyone desire to change any name, They can change Washington DC to Washington DJ with respect to all DJs. Or change LosAngles to Tehrangles because Iranian people live there. In this case you are busy with your Names' Game. It will be good for yourself if you think it is good for other people.

Persian Gulf is Persian

If anyone desire to change any name, They can change Washington DC to Washington DJ with respect to all DJs. Or change LosAngles to Tehrangles because Iranian people live there. In this case you are busy with your Names' Game. It will be good for yourself if you think it is good for other people.

zandweb 12:27, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Persian Gulf and Arabian Sea

This bitter argument about whether to call the Gulf "Persian" or "Arabian" is one of the saddest and silliest arguments I have heard for a long time. Everyone knows Arabia is on the west coast and the province of Fars (ancient Persis) on the east coast. Traditionally, however, the Gulf has been known (at least in English, Greek and Latin) as the "Persian Gulf." However, there is absolutely no need for Arabs to feel left out for, after all, the larger body of water just outside the Straits of Hormuz is commonly known as the "Arabian Sea."John Hill 07:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Sumerian Gulf

YOU'RE ALL WRONG. IT IS THE SUMERIAN GULF! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Arabistani (talk • contribs) 19:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Iran(Persia) is fine

Iran(Persia) is totally fine. I was in bookstore yesterday and I checked three Atlas of the world and 2 globes and 4 out of these five sources, used Iran(Persia). It is a good idea to remind people that Iran is the same country that was called Persia just 80 years ago, (not only in ancient times as some editors like to claim.) Also please remember that in case of Iran, The name change was not result of any change in Iranian government or territory(in fact nothing change in 1935 when the name changed, same ruler, same territory, same people, same everything) it is therefore not the same as the case of Rome/Italy or Ottoman/turkey, Baluchestan/Pakistan etc. In most cases name change is the result of a huge political or territorial or cultural change. Not the case in Persia/Iran situation.Gol 09:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Persian/Arabian Gulf

• Why is the other name of the gulf:"arabian gulf, always removed, although its a wide used name, and officially recognized by some soverign states?
• The name is disputed, why isn't this mentioned in the introduction?

Jidan 17:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Simply because this article is mostly written by Persians (take a look at the history). I have nothing against our brothers in Iran, but I live in Bahrain (the only island nation that is located in the middle of this gulf), and I never seen this gulf called "Persian", even in our English media. —MK (talk) 16:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The other name IS mentioned in naming dispute section. But some editors like to claim that it is equally legitimate and recognized as Persian Gulf and therefore should be mentioned in intro or even the title!!! This is simply a lie. The official name off this Gulf and one sanctioned by UN as the official and ONLY name is Persian Gulf and there is no alternative for it as far as UN is concerned. The other name is only used by a few countries and all of them Arab, and only for the past 60 years. Persian Gulf is used in the whole world, not just Iran, and both today and historically. The difference is clear. There is no dispute over what is the official name. This is why the title and intro only mention that official internationally recognized name and the naming dispute section mentions the other names. Gol 22:35, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi rose, for you I am even ready to call it Gol Gulf :-) The thing is, this is an encyclopedia... Jidan 20:25, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Protection

Seeing as this article is protected, I would like to ask, how can we settle this dispute peacefully?? If it's a content dispute, let me know what the dispute is and I will listen - I am impartial here, and am offering to help. Thanks, --SunStar Net 00:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi SunStar, its nice to see a non-iranian user for a change who is interested in this debate. The thing is that this gulf, just like Sea of Japan (East Sea) or English Channel(La Manche), has two alternative names, Arabian Gulf and Persian Gulf. The Iranian users don't want the arabian gulf to be mentioned as an alternative name and see it as a declartion of war by the arabs against them, which is really stupid. To give you a glimpse of what I mean, type in google "arabian gulf", the first site you are going to get is this http://arabian-gulf.info/, which interestingly also links to this exact article. Jidan 20:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

It is not accurate to say that Arabian Gulf is as legitimate and acceptable as Persian Gulf. UN has never sanctioned the term Arabian Gulf and has mentioned more than once that the Persian Gulf is the only name for this gulf. Also the term Persian Gulf is used in the whole world, not just Persian countries, The term Arabian Gulf is used only in a few Arab countries and even in those countries it is only used since 1960s. The difference is clear. This is why the official, and UN sanctioned name, is mentioned in the title and intro, the other name is mentioned in the naming dispute section. It is not right to deny the fact that some countries use "Arabian Gulf"(and the article has never done that) But it is a lie to say that it is as legitimate as "Persain Gulf" and should be mentioned in the title. It is only used in a few Arab countries and never recognized by UN. Gol 05:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

There is no alternative to the Persian Gulf, there is just the Persian Gulf. If tomorrow Iran starts using the term Persian Sea instead of Arabian Sea, that does not make Persian Sea an alternative name.Khosrow II 05:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

A comment about this; the reason Arabian Gulf should be mentioned is because this encyclopedia is a global one; it can be mentioned, provided you properly source them. Yes, only a few may mention it; but it's probably worth mentioning it. --SunStar Net 00:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

It's already mentioned under Persian_Gulf#Naming_dispute as the result of a previous compromise, but as discussed and agreed to previously, the mention shouldn't be in the lead as that would be assigning undue weight to a name which is controversial, not commonly used in English, and not internationally recognized. --ManiF 01:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Just because couple of pan-Arab goverments decided to call a gulf, that as far back as recorded history can take us, has always been referred to as the Persian Gulf, "the arabian gulf" doesnt make this name a legitimate name. Nevertheless, the name "arabian gulf" is already mentioned in the dispute section and certainly is not worthy of being mentioned in the first paragraph. - Marmoulak 06:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

@SunStar: exactly. Also "Arabian Gulf" is offcially used by 22 states and is widely used in the english media, try google! I propose the following introduction, taken from Britannica [30]: Persian Gulf, also called Arabian Gulf, Arabic Bahr Faris, Persian Khalij-e Fars, shallow marginal sea of the Indian Ocean that lies between the Arabian Peninsula and southwestern Iran. Jidan 20:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Good point, Jidan, your introduction seems like a good one so far... --SunStar Net 21:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Arabian Gulf is not a legitimate name and it was recently removed from one of the most presitigous magazines, the national geographic after they tried to publish it next to Persian Gulf . The pan-arabist created name Arabian Gulf Can be explained in another paragraph after first mentioning that it was coined by arab nationalists because of their anti-Iranian feelings. The name Persian Gulf is the historic name as well as the much more widely used name. Also I am sure somebody can call the US as Arabia and make it widespread, but it does not mean such a name should be used in the first paragraph. Arabian Gulf is an offensive name propogated by Arab nationalists, Ba'athists and the like-minded and no matter how much oil money is pumped into it, it lacks history. Also historically Arabian Gulf has been the name identified with the red sea. --alidoostzadeh 03:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm an American, and not iranian, and I can say I have never heard it called the "Arabian Gulf". All of our maps in the english-speaking world are consistent with persian. --Shamir1 06:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree that is the case and this is an English wikipedia. Although millions if not billions in oil money is pulled into it to do historical falsification and with an increasing crookedness in scholarship all over the world, they are unfortunately people doing their best to falsify historical names. I don't know I just see more academic disintegrity everyday. Either way Arabian Gulf from ancient time is just another for the red sea (Strabo). Persian Gulf is also used by Strabo to refer to Persian Gulf. This is an ancient convention and there is no way a recent nationalistic madeup name deserve first paragraph. --alidoostzadeh 06:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Again, agreed. Wikipedia is not a soap box, the term Arabian Gulf is an alternative to the Red sea and it is an incorrect reference if used for the Persian Gulf, Wikipedia should not promote incorrect alternative names to things. It is clear from the article that there is a dispute but the name stands as Persian Gulf according to UN and as recognised by most as it has always been --K a s h ^{Talk | email} 11:54, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

The fact that a few states use Arabian Gulf is clearly acknowledged. The name is mentioned in naming dispute section. However some editors claim, falsely, that the name is as legitimate and frequently used as Persian Gulf! To see that their claim is a lie just ask anyone who lives outside of Arab countries, they all use Persian gulf, or sometimes just Gulf, but not Arabian gulf. Also see which name UN has sanctioned and recognizes as the ONLY legitimate name. The intro and title should be about the UN sanctioned and globally used name. The naming dispute section should be about the other alternative names.Gol 18:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Not just a naming dispute

In 1977, the third UN Conference on the Standardization of Geographical Names (UNCSGN) adopted resolution III/20 entitled "Names of Features beyond a Single Sovereignty". The resolution recommended:

 "when countries sharing a given geographical feature do not agree on a common name, it should be a general rule of 
 cartography that the name used by each of the countries concerned will be accepted. A policy of accepting only one or some 
  of such names while excluding the rest would be inconsistent as well as inexpedient in practice."

A map from 1667, depicting both the Red Sea(Mer Rouge) and the Arabian Gulf(Sein Arabique)

Why can't we be direct and clear about this and just admit its not just a naming dispute. The Iranians want to show to the world that this gulf is under their control; one way of doing that is calling it Persian Gulf. I just hope non-Iranians editors will join in this discussion, since they are the ONLY key to a NPOV article regarding this dispute. CheersJidan 02:32, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Update: I forgot to comment on the map above. The map above was made by Claude Jollain in the Year 1667. It depicts both the Red Sea(Mer Rouge) and the Arabian Gulf(Sein Arabique).This shows

• 1)Recognization of the europeans of the name Arabian Gulf
• 2)Its not an ancient name of the Red See, as some have said. Jidan 03:12, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the "evil Iranians and Zionists" are to blame.Azerbaijani 02:44, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Where is the relavent text with the map. Note I already brought one form of deceit from the arabian Gulf website. Again Meractor did not write Sinus Arabicus in his map. Now you are persuming Hondius did based on a link. But I have the text scanner by Hondius from the same alleged source here [31]. Note it is clearly called Persian Bay. Every single atlas that has been published has a relevant text. Can you guys show any text whatsoever that has mentioned Arabian Gulf. Note if Hondius calls it Persian Bay in his text then either Sinus Arabic is forgery or a mistake or refers to the Shatt al-Arab, or Arabian Sea or even Red Sea (but misplaced due to printing) or even the name of another river. As per the name, once you guys calling Plaestine by Israel then we can settle this issue as well. Do a google search for sinus Arabicus and you will not see one textual evidence referring to Persian Gulf. Also the UN has officially recognized it as Persian Gulf as that is what it uses in all of its documents. And relavent reliables books have said the Arabs have adopted the name Arabian Gulf as political stance, not historic stance as there is no support historically in any Arabic text for such a name. And so far there has not been brought one textual evidence with any of these so called maps whose authenticity is disputed. I am waiting for actual textual evidence that goes along with any of these maps. Note also: [Note also [32]. The word used here is also sea (sein). That is why the map is not Arabian Gulf and as all texts say, Arabian Gulf is forgery of 1950-1960 Arab nationalism. From the day of Prophet Muhammad til the era of ultra-racist arab nationalism, not a single arab has called the Persian Gulf as Arabian Gulf. --alidoostzadeh 02:48, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

And here another old map from an antique book depicting the name of this water body as Arabian Gulf(Sinus Arabicus).

Can please sombody put these two maps back in the article! It continuesly being removed by ultra-nationlist. Jidan 01:18, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

This is supposedly Hondius's map but he refers to the Persian Gulf as Persian Bay. Hondius's atlas has full textual context. So far you have failed to bring one evidence that any of these maps (wether forgery or not) are not referring to Arabian Sea or Shatt ol Arab or some other parts of the body. Without any textual evidence, there is nothing to talk about since we have already brou

ght several books that say the name change was a product of the last century. And there is no Arabic sources that has mentioned it as Arabian Gulf prior to the last century neither. Here is a good run down of Arabic sources on the issue: [33]. --alidoostzadeh 04:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Its written black in white over the whole disputed water body Arabicus Sinus, where sinus is latin for gulf or bay. I have found academic websites containing dozens of antique maps naming this water body arabian gulf by different authors.I will also check the library for antique maps. I will collect all these maps and post them in this article and in the naming dispute article. I will also translate articles in arabic written by professors, which talk about the historical facts of calling this gulf the arabian gulf, since in english there isn't any. Then I am going to open an RfC and arbitration to pull neutral users to this. I just don't have the time right now, but I will later. The removing of those maps from the article is the trigger... Jidan 02:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how many maps you put. I have the text from Hondius with the map, which calls the Persian Gulf as Persian Bay. There is also enough academic reference to show the name change was a product of the last century. None of the recent maps brought so far have provided any textual evidence and sinus in lain means sea, as well canal. So it could easily show the Arabian Sea which is connected to the Persian Gulf. Again note Hondius's text[34] whose map you have displayed above. Note the page numbers as well. In the text it is persian Bay. Mercator has called the sinus Arabicus as red sea as shown in the other maps. So whereas you can bring the map by Hondius, in the text he calls it Persian Bay and that settles the issue and not your interpretation of the map. Thus Sinus Arabicus has no textual backing. So until you can provide one text, none of these maps can help your cause as they can reference Arabian Sea, Shatt ol Arab, Red Sea, be a mistake/forgery and etc. And indeed the text from Hondius where the above map is taken shows that Hondius clearly calls the Persian Gulf as Persian Bay. --alidoostzadeh 02:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

And note I was right, check out this link: need for subterfuge. There were number ciphers, symbols described, not as a written description, but in the translation of the word for the symbol. The cartographers had a more difficult time. They had to make an extremely accurate map, so that those fleeing could escape safely, but they could not give the same information to those persecuting them. On this particular map of Claudius Ptolemy, the land called Arabia Felix was very visible with a small cordiform projection inserted near the Oman Peninsula. But as usual, the Red Sea area, so faithfully colored in so many earlier maps,4 (here in the area where the red and white islands are located) was now in a new location, south of the Arabian Sea or Sinus Arabicus.. So as the Hondius map with the text shows, the text clearly refers to the Persian Gulf as Persian Bay. Sinus Arabicus is the Arabian Sea and sometimes it is referred to as the red sea. [35] --alidoostzadeh 03:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Arab nationalists have started using fake maps such as those brought forward by Jidan, however these do not refer to any Gulf by the name they try to use it as. I am rather glad that no neutral Academic would accept such disgraceful attempt to change history --Rayis 12:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Some could be fake, but the fact is that none of them reference the Persian Gulf. They either reference Arabian Sea, Shatt ol Arab or the river following from Arabia to the Persian Gulf. That is why there is no textual evidence whereas all of the evidences require textual evidence. [36]. 1) there has been brought already ample number of western texts which show the name change was from the last century in Arab countries. 2) there is not even one evidence even from Arab sources which calls it Arabian Gulf from the last century. 3) There are maps that have connected the Gulf of Oman to the Persian sea and use one name for both. In the end we saw how Arab nationalists feel about Iranians when genocidal Saddam breathed his last words of hatred against Iranians. --alidoostzadeh 02:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I was turning the pages scanned in this website [37]. All pages from 854 to 859 were available except page 857. Also, all pages were double-sided scanned except page 856. This made me think, why the hell would page 857 be missing!!!! At first I assumed good faith, i.e. it must be a blank page or something, then I realized that page 857, is actually... the Horror page for most Iranian nationlists, it is the page showing a map with this gulf being named Arabian Gulf(Sinus Arabicus):

This is a very good example of how far iranian nationlists are ready to go, hidding and distorting histrorical facts, for their own agenda. Jidan 01:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

: First of all, don't label other editors, that's a violation of WP:NPA and WP:AGF. The issue of the map was alerady addressed and you're avoiding the point that Hondius clearly uses Persian Sea or Persian Gulf throughout the same book that this map is supposdly coming from. That just doesn't make any sense, and directly puts into question the authenticity of this map. As pointed out already, there is no textual evidence here, whereas all of the evidences require textual evidence. --Mardavich 02:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Mardavich. If I were Jidan I would stop labeling. Acutally it is he that is distorting historical facts. I already said look at the textual evidence besides the map. The map was already there and I thought Jidan would actually understand that the map is from the text. Thus it is Jidan who is actually doing the distortion by not providing the users with the relavent text and only providing the map. The text does not support the conclusion that Jidan is trying to derive from the map. That is the pan-arabistic nationalistic manipulation of historic fact where they do not mention the text. There is no Arabian Gulf in the text. Sinus Arabicus could be a river from Qatif area, Arabian sea, Shatt ol Arab or anything else. But it isn't the Persian Gulf since the text clearly has referred to it as the Persian Bay and that is the end of the story. And that is what that counts since the text clarifies it. Furthermore we have enough evidence from main stream Western sources that the distortion was a recent phenomenon. Besides that, there is not a single Arab source as well. --alidoostzadeh 03:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

aha..i see, you are the owner of this website [38] and the one who scaned the pages. Well, then please explain to me the following: you botherd to go all the way to the library, then you bothered to find the book, and then when its time to scan it, you scanned all pages between 854 to 859, except page 857...why? My explantion is that you are trying to hide it, if not, then please post it again in this website, and this time with page 857. Hondras is not the only cartographer who used "arabian gulf" in his maps. You have two maps above by two different cartographers, and here are more [39]. You say although the map shows arabian gulf, in text he says "persian bay". Can you please tell me which page and line? Jidan 05:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

"Persian bay" is first mentioned on line 10th of page 855. --Mardavich 05:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Nope I didn't scan the page and also the map goes with the textual evidence thus since the map was available, the owner of that site probably decites to put the textual evidence up and focus on that aspect. I think the actual forgery is done by those who do not bring the textual evidence like the mentioned site you named. As per that site (Arabian Gulf) that you brought: 1)If you go under collection and then view a map and then click on map index. Click on the one from 1740(Jacques Nicholas Bellin) Then do a zoom. On the legend on the bottom left corner of the image it clearly says on the text Et Golfe de Perse. So this map is out of the picture. And just these two examples Hondius (the site does not mention that the texts say Persian Bay) and this 1740 map is enough to discredit the site. Indeed the site lacks a single textual evidence. This is actually just pure forgery since all these maps come with texts like the Hondius text. So the relavent textual evidence is the most important. Here are two quotes of Hondius: The kingdome of Persia is situtate between the Turkish empite, the Tartarians, the Zaghatheans, the Kingdom of cambala, and the between the Hircarnian or Caspian sea, and the Persian Bay(pg 855). Babylon is situate betweene the Persian bay and Mesopotamia, and on the right and left it is enclosed with the deserts of Susia and Arabia,...(pg 858). Note there are maps that mention the Oman sea as Persian Sea and some maps can bring Arabian sea to the Persian Gulf. Note also Zereshk has brought Mercator's original map (Hondius just published Mercator's map) where Mercator calls it Persian Gulf.[40] It is kind of illogical to think Hondius thought of anything else, or else he would not mention it as Persian Bay explicity in his text. Note the evidence I brought also from map site that says: But as usual, the Red Sea area, so faithfully colored in so many earlier maps,4 (here in the area where the red and white islands are located) was now in a new location, south of the Arabian Sea or Sinus Arabicus.’’ [41] --alidoostzadeh 06:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

As usual, your answers are always large and informative, but please number them, so that I can answer them without confusion. You put forward 3 points and my answers are (according to the order you put them):

• 1) Jodocus Hondius used Sinus Arabicus(Arabian Gulf) even in his text. The pages you have scanned are in english, but Hondius wrote all his maps and books in Latin. Also,Hondius died in 1612, while this book was published, as seen in the first page, in 1635. Everything was translated to english from Latin, except his map, which as you see above, is still in latin. If you looked at Hondus original book in latin, we will find "Sinus Arabicus"(arabian gulf) as depicted in his un-translated map.

• 2)Regarding this site [42], the problem is that we have multiple maps, with different cartographers calling this water body "Sinus Arabicus", so it cant be a mistake. If there was only one cartographer and one or few maps, then we could say it may have been a mistake.

The problem is, that you ali, and most iranians, simply cann't accept the fact, that this gulf did have many names. Your writtings imply that this gulf was called "persian gulf" since the creation of this planet, and anybody who doesn't agrees with you, you label him an arab nationlist. For example, among the names this gulf was known in the last 200 years are:

• Gulf of El Qatif (after, Qatif), an impotant port
• Gulf of Basra (after Basra), an impotant port, and was used by islamic geographers since the 9th century such as Masudi.The ottomans and Sinbad the Sailor, also called it gulf of Basra :-)
• Gulf of Oman, omani sailors where dominant in this gulf
• Arabian Gulf,
• Persian Gulf

If you search this website http://www.arabiangulfmaps.com/, you will find those maps (there are 29 maps listed there). Among the famous european cartographers who call this waterbody the arabian gulf are Gerardus Mercator, Jodocus Hondius, John Speed, Petrus Bertius, Claude Jollian, Peter van Den keere, and Johannes Janssonius. This is all verfiable[43]. You can go to any library or ask any profeessor if you think they are fake. Infact, if you still insist that they are forgery, as a comprimise we can email more than one neutral professor in universtiy and ask them if they are forgery. Salam...Jidan 21:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but telling people to ask their professors is not the correct way of verifying information on Wikipedia. The maps on that website are fake I am afraid. --Rayis 22:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

You are wrong and now you are starting to ASSUME as you have not seen the Latin and are making wild conjectures. The Latin if it exists does not say Sinus Arabicus since the Old English is from 1642 and is word by word translation of Hondius. Because the Hondius Atlas book is scanned from the original English from a website that has old atlas and it is in Old English. I have the cover page as well. That is why as you can see it is in Old English. The problem you can not fathom is that the Western sources have explicity said the name was recent falsification. You can not find Arabic source either.. I already discredited the Arabian Gulf site by these two examples. One example clearly calls it Golfe De Persian and yet the owner claims it as Arabian Gulf. Also Hondius uses Persian Bay. Also the maps have watermark. And finally the owner does not provide one line of textual evidence with any of his maps besides being discredited by my two examples. Right now you lack textual evidence and if you are making claims in Latin, then bring it forth. Note One of the Maps say Gulf of El Qatif to Sinus Arabian (Arabian Sea) very clearly from that same site.(Peter van den Keere 1609). Thus Sinus Arabicus is the Arabian Sea. I already posses enough Western and Arabian source that neutral that mention the name change took place in the Arabian countries in the last century. Without even a single textual evidence there is really nothing t argue against the sources. Whereas I just brought another western source that calls the Sinus Arabicus as Arabian Sea. Also Hondius uses Mercator's Map which we already have seen (thanks to Zereshk). And the Hondius text clearly says Persian Bay. --alidoostzadeh 01:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I can clearly see what both of you are trying to say! Ali needs to show explicit documentation and one single map by Jida is also not "documentation". Furthermore, using maps from the website Arabian Gulf Maps is not wise either since the owner of the website is an Arab. Maps can be doctored - I'm not saying that the maps in the above mentioned website are doctored, but we don't know for sure!

Historical, Geographical and Legal Validity of the Name: PERSIAN GULF

Historical, Geographical and Legal Validity of the Name: PERSIAN GULF

Geography, as the most ancient human knowledge is an applied science which has different aspects. It studies the reciprocal relation of man and nature and provides the results to the users in the form of documents in writing, books and maps. The names of features and phenomena including natural or man made ones have been considered by geographers for a long time, therefore similar features are distinguished by it. The name of a feature can not be observed on the land like the feature itself. Thus, by mentioning the case on maps, Atlases, and books, it will be protected during different eras as a part of historical, cultural identity and saved as mans heritage. For the same reason, any change, destruction, or alteration of the names registered in historical deeds and maps is like the destruction of ancient works and is considered as an improper action. Therefore, the names of geographical features profiting from a unique historical identity, should not be utilized as political instruments in reaching a political, tribal, and racial objective, or in any clash with national interests and other's values. This paper provides a short study of the historical background of the name PERSIAN GULF so that it might cast light on realities.

Persian Gulf's name in UN: http://www.un.org/Depts/Cartographic/map/profile/mideastr.pdf

http://pejman.azadi.googlepages.com/thepersiangulf&itsname —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.247.189.210 (talk) 05:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC).

Geographical Specifications of PERSIAN GULF

Geographical Specifications of PERSIAN GULF The Persian Gulf is located in the southwest of the Asian Continent at 23 to 30 degrees northern latitude and 48 to 56 degrees longitude on the south side of the vast country of Iran, with a length of 1259 kilometer. Karoun, Zohreh, Jarrahi Mond, Dalki, Hendijan, Kol and Minab are the largest and the most watery rivers that flow into the PERSIAN GULF from the Iranian Plateau. The PERSIAN GULF is a projection of water from the Indian Ocean into a part of the Iranian Plateau. The whole northern part of it is covered by the Fars Province in Iran. T hus, if we were to presume that the sea did not have a name during history and those geographers and specialists were to select a name for this gulf, doubtlessly, they would find no better name than PERSIAN GULF, because Iran (PERSIA) is the largest country adjacent to this water body which possesses the longest coast. Besides, with a population of more than 70 million it is larger than any country located at the south margin of Fars.

http://pejman.azadi.googlepages.com/Iran

Persian Gulf is every Iranian's Identity

Yes, The Persian Gulf is our history and every Iranian should save and protect this holy name.

The Persian Gulf's name shows Iran's power in this region.

The Persian gulf is not only a name, but also this holy name shows Iran's Sovereignty over the Tunbs & Abu Musâ Islands .

The most important areas in this region belongs to IRAN.

The most geopolitical regions and islands in this gulf belongs to great Iran.

The most important Islands such and Kish, Abu Musa, the Tumbs and Siri belongs to IRAN.

So this Gulf is named in history and UN as the PERSIAN GULF.

This name is Holy Name for Iran and all of IRANIAN.

IRANIAN want peace for all of the world but if any arab people want to change this holy name to the another name, they should know they will be enemy of Iran and Iranian and the Iranian have prompt action for them.

arab people and arabian governments should know that can not change this holy name by the oil money!!!!

arab people and arabian governments should understand this name is our identity and they can not buy this name and they should respect it and should be careful because they don't have any history in this region and they are trying to buy maps and names on historical maps by the money!!!! but they don't know the history and world's mind can not be bought by the money or oil!!!!

If they want to show their name in the world, they can help the palesitian people!!! by inviting them to the peace, because all the world's people know Israel is a historical land and historical country and arabs want to change it to a islamic country and if arabs had a unity of purpose they could help to their arab friends in palestin!!!! but they sholud know Israel is a country and they should respect it, so they should change their thought and they should change their policy.

For Example I can refer to read this article from World Press Organization:

Omission of 'Persian Gulf' Name Angers Iran

Worldpress.org correspondent December 28, 2006

French Education Minister Gilles de Robien (left) attended a ceremony in Abu Dhabi last month to inaugurate the Persian Gulf campus of the prestigious Paris-Sorbonne University. While there, de Robien announced that a group of French experts would arrive shortly to study the possibility of opening a branch of the Louvre museum. (Photo: STR / AFP-Getty Images)

France's celebrated art and antiquities museum, the Louvre, has deleted the word "Persian" from descriptions of the Persian Gulf in its map guides. It is an act against established United Nations guidelines, and can be viewed as a diplomatic gesture of frowning at Iran while winking at the Arab world.

Cultural discord has dominated Arab-Persian relations throughout history and one of the biggest recent debates has been over the naming of the Persian Gulf, which is essentially considered the geographical border between land of Persia (Iran) and much of the Arab world.

Although "Persian Gulf" has always been the official name for this strategic body of water, most Arab countries have hesitated to use it in recent decades and instead have invented the name "Arabian Gulf."

Now, with the rise of increasing international condemnation facing Iran due to its nuclear program, it seems that more and more Western countries have taken sides in an act which Iranian observers and journals regard as "manipulating Persian cultural and historical heritage."

In virtually every map printed before the 1960's and in most modern international treaties, documents and maps, this body of water is known by the name "Persian Gulf," a term whose historical existence can be traced back to the documents of pre-Christian Greek geographers, Strabo and Ptolemy.

By the 1960's with the rise of Arab nationalism (Pan-Arabism), some Arab countries, including the ones bordering the Persian Gulf, adopted the term "Arabian Gulf" to refer to the waterway.

Before Iran's revolution of 1979, which led to the establishment of an Islamic Republic, the name "Persian Gulf" still maintained its official credibility. However, after the political isolation of Iran in the post-revolution period and with the decreasing influence of Tehran on the political and economic priorities of the English-speaking Western World, including petroleum-related businesses, there has been an increasing acceptance of omitting "Persian" from the name on maps or even renaming it "Arabian Gulf."

The matter is widely criticized in Iran and according to the Iranian press, "hurts the hearts of tens of millions of Iranians who, aside from any political clashes and ambiguity, simply love their country."

The Louvre's decision to delete the word "Persian" comes amid intense negotiations aimed at exporting Europe's cultural crown to the heart of the Arab world.

For more than a year talks have been underway between Paris and Abu Dhabi to open a branch of the Louvre in the United Arab Emirates. Reportedly, the prestigious museum is set to receive $1 billion to put its elite cultural pieces on display at the branch.

In France, the negotiations have faced questions, such as from the French daily Libération, which queried whether the project was the "most novel and controversial deal in the history of French cultural politics." Many believe that the proposal is much more of a political step rather than a cultural fusion between the East and the West.

"My feeling is this is a project more determined by political than artistic considerations," Philippe Régnier, editor of the French Journal des Arts, told the British daily, the Guardian. "It is about France's presence in the region and its economic concerns. This isn't a project piloted by the museum or its curators, it has been taken over by the ministry of culture."

Apart from the recent negotiations, the Louvre has handsomely benefited from money donated by Arab fundraisers. The museum is expected to open an Islamic art wing in 2009 which has already received $20 million from Saudi billionaire Prince Walid bin Talal. It has also recently received a donation of around $7 million from Sabah Al Ahmad Al Sabah, the Emir of Kuwait, as reported by Agence France-Presse.

Omission of the word "Persian" in the Louvre's newly printed guide was swiftly followed by Tehran's official objection.

"We have recently become aware of this," said Iranian foreign ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Hossieni. "Certainly, our embassy will object to this and will pursue the case."

This is not the first time Iran has vehemently protested over the naming of the waterway separating Iran and the Arabian Peninsula. In 2004, Tehran firmly objected to the move by the National Geographic when it printed the words "Arabian Gulf" as an alternative name (in smaller type and in parentheses) for the Persian Gulf in its atlas.

Apart from the official objections made by the government, Iranian people worldwide protested the act by signing numerous petitions to remove the alternative name.

To further their campaign, Iranian Web users designed and launched a "Google bomb," which appears at the top of Google's search results for the term "Arabian Gulf." The Web page reads: "The gulf you are looking for is unavailable. No body of water by that name has ever existed. The correct name is Persian Gulf, which always has been, and will always remain, Persian."

The then-Iranian foreign minister, Kamal Kharazi, described it as a "victory for every Iranian" when National Geographic officially apologized and the offending phrase was removed.

The United Nations on many occasions has requested that only "Persian Gulf" be used as the official and standard geographical designation for the body of water. The United Nations Secretariat has issued two editorial directives, in 1994 and 1999, affirming the organization's position on the matter. The use of the name "Arabian Gulf" was described to be "faulty" by the eighth United Nations Conference on the Standardization of Geographical Names, held in Berlin from Aug. 5 to Sept. 2, 2002.

The addendum to the United Nations' editorial directive further states that: "The full name 'Persian Gulf' should be used in every case instead of the shorter term 'Gulf,' including in repetitions of the term after its initial use in a text."

I can say to arab people dont try to change the country's name and region's name to palestin or arabian gulf, because these are historical name and they have legal validity in UN and they are named and are called Persian Gulf and Israel in the world and also in UN.

so: PERSIAN GULF WILL BE REMAINED PERSIAN GULF FOREVER

This is Persian Gulf , arab gulf does not exist

This is Persian Gulf , arab gulf does not exist

The gulf you are looking for is unavailable. No body of water by that name has ever existed. The correct name is Persian Gulf, which always has been, and will always remain, Persian.

The Persian Gulf (Persian: خليج فارس khalīj-e-Fārs; in arabic: الخليج الفارسي al-khalīj al-fārisī), in the southwest asian region, is an extension of the Gulf of Oman located between IRAN (PERSIA) and the other Persian Gulf's littoral states.

Arbitrarily changing an internationally recognized name, is not only unprofessional but also a hostile act, directed at an entire nation/civilization, not to mention denying historical as well as international facts.

Louvre Museum has been created to provide a professional accurate and picture to the people around the world who might not otherwise be able to obtain it from the other sources. The Louvre Museum should not take sides between interest groups unless it want to be involved in the political arena, which is neither wise nor professional, and if they still insist doing this, at least they should make it explicitly clear to their visitors that they are political players and not just a museum.

Historical, Geographical and Legal Validity of the Name:

http://unstats.un.org/unsd/geoinfo/gegn23wp61.pdf

http://pejman.azadi.googlepages.com/thepersiangulf&itsname

"Arabian Gulf" does not exist in any part of the World.

"Arabian Gulf" does not exist in any part of the World.

"Persian Gulf" is an appropriate name for a gulf located in south of Iran, in Middle East.

Persian Culture is an ancient and historical one and nobody can deny it. Considering Persian Culture as ancient and historical culture is undeniable. So, never do replace the name of "Persian Gulf" with a new and improper title like "Arabian Gulf".

http://pejman.azadi.googlepages.com/Iran — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.247.189.210 (talk • contribs)

Response to anon

Firstly, the name of the Persian Gulf is not "holy". There is nothing religious about it. Secondly, involving the issue of Iran's occupation of UAE islands or questioning the Palestinians' right to nationhood is designed to stir up nationalist sentiment. It has no place in this editorial issue.

The fact is that all the Arab states in the Gulf region refer to the Gulf as the Arabian Gulf, in both Arabic and English. That might hurt Iranian sensibilities. It may or may not be inaccurate. It may or may not be an act of Arab nationalism. The fact remains that some governments and peoples refer to it as the Arabian Gulf. This should be reflected in the article. I would not suggest renaming the article to Arabian Gulf, but simply pointing out the alternative name for the Gulf should be mentioned in the introductory paragraph.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 13:03, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Kind of agree. For example see Turkish coffee. Even though its name is by far Turkish coffee, alternate names in neighboring countries are also mentioned in the lead with a mention "depending on location". It would be simply academic to mention "(sometimes also referred to as the Arabian Gulf, depending on location)". Just my two cents :) Baristarim 11:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, this is not Turkish coffee. The name Arabian Gulf is already appropriately mentioned and discussed under the naming dispute section, undue weight should not be given to a name that's controversial, and not commonly used in English language or any other language outside of the Arab world. The issue was already discussed to death at Talk:Persian_Gulf#Protection. --Mardavich 11:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Ahvaz is a Persian name not arabian name so can not be called alahvaz !!!

The important fact is:Iranian want peace for all the world's people

But Please respect to the old Persian history and also respect to the International rules.

1)arabs like to call Persian name to arabic language such az Ahvaz to alAhvaz!!!!, Mehregan to mehrejan !!!

2)arab people should learn Iran is a Persian country and if some our persian-arab are iving in south of Iran, they are Iranian and they believe that this is Persian Gulf.

3)renaming a point of the world to the another name, in the same time that UN is naming it in its original name is wasting the time, so this is better to respect to the International rules.

4)arabs should respect to the Persian Gulf's name because this is an historical name and they should proud of this HOLY NAME.

5)The Persian Gulf is used by European countries, USA ,Canada and also UN.

6)It be recommanded to arabs to have more study on history,so learn more about name and naming rules.

7)There is a question to arabs, Is this possible to renaming the Atlantic Ocean to the American Ocean???!!!! If so you can change it !!!!!

8) It is necessary to know that Iranian are living in Khoozestan province are Iranian, both of them Persian and arabs are Iranian and more that 71 milion people are living in Iran are Persian and this Holy name is regard to their long history on this area and also from political point of view this gulf is called as the Persian Gulf in UN official documents and Canadian documents and US government's documents and also European official documents.

for more information please view these websites:

http://unstats.un.org/unsd/geoinfo/gegn23wp61.pdf

http://www.iranchamber.com/geography/articles/persian_gulf_history.php

http://azadi.pejman.googlepages.com/home

http://www.un.org/Depts/Cartographic/english/htmain.htm

http://www.iranchamber.com/search/search.php?q=persian+gulf

http://www.un.org/Depts/Cartographic/map/profile/mideastr.pdf

http://pejman.azadi.googlepages.com/thepersiangulf&itsname

http://www.persiangulfonline.org/

http://pejman.azadi.googlepages.com/Iran

Also you can search on the web about Persian Gulf for example in Google, Yahoo, ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.247.189.210 (talk • contribs)

Please keep it down. Do not make this personal, seeing issues as us/them is not healthy for Wikipedia. This is not a forum and please sign your name using the four ~. Cheers! Baristarim 12:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

"arabs like to call Persian name to arabic language such az Ahvaz to alAhvaz". So what? The French call London Londres, the British call Cote d'Ivoire the Ivory Coast. No-one is accusing anyone else of being "unholy" or breaking international law.

If you have a problem with my user name, then complain to an admin.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 12:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't have any problem with your Id, but it seems you have a big problem with the Persian gulf's name !!!! if so please read more and learn more. I can explain more for you in this regard for example I can rename your cities to another name or I can deny your identity,....so learn that Persian Gulf is our Identity, why you want to try to change this name? So What?!!!!

Anyway I explain the logic, history and International rules for yoy, you can learn it or not !!!! but the Persian Gulf's name is Persian Gulf and it will be remained Persian Gulf forever.

Read these recommended websites you will learn the facts about persian gulf.

I am not advocating a change in the name of the article or even claiming that one or the other names for the Gulf is right. I am saying that as Arabian Gulf is used officially in Arabic and English by the Arab states in the Gulf region as well as some non-Arabs, this should be mentioned in the first paragraph. There's very little point in filling up the talk page with links to all the sites that mention the Persian Gulf. I could respond by a whole load of links to references to the Arabian Gulf, such as the Arabian Gulf University in Bahrain. It really doesn't get anyone any further.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 12:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I made a simple Google search and saw that "Arabian Gulf" - wikipedia gets more than 1 million hits in English [44]. "Persian Gulf" - wikipedia gets 1,3 million [45]. And the addition makes clear that "it is also known as X in Y countries", so there doesn't seem anything wrong with adding it, particularly since there is a Brittanica reference that also uses that terminology as such. Nobody is stealing the Gulf, but it is also true that there has been such a dispute to the point that there nearly as many references to it as the "Arabian Gulf" as the "Persian Gulf". Just my two cents :) Is there a particular reason why it shouldn't be mentioned "aka X in Y" in the lead sentence? Baristarim 12:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Go back and read the history of the name and this discussion page and you'll see why. The name Arabian Gulf gets many hits because it's mentioned in many news articles discussing the controversy, that doesn't make it a legitimate alternative name. --Mardavich 13:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok then.. I was venturing into some dangerous waters anyways (no pun intended :)).. Baristarim 16:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I had a search on google and I saw that the Name of 
Persian Gulf the most wide usage in google, this is no need      
other  Apocryphal name is used by local smal countries 
and this is not legal.

also in United nation the Persian Gulf is used in more than 7000 times in official documents but Apocryphal name arabian gulf is used only in arab countries in their letter to UN in 27 times, this show arabs want to show Apocryphal name in their letters but the Persian Gulf is used more than 7000 times in official documents in UN.

Persian Gulf will be remained Persian Gulf ForeverThe Persian Gulf 09:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Persian Gulf does not need to any evidence, because it is clear that is Persian Gulf

I was viewing your chalenges, I'd say that no need to mention this is Persian Gulf.

Arbitrarily changing an internationally recognized name, is not only unprofessional but also a hostile act, directed at an entire nation/civilization, not to mention denying historical as well as international facts

Please consider that the Persian Gulf's name is the only registered name in UN .

No need to mention that it is not too hard to find the result of Persian gulf in Google just type " Persian Gulf".

I respect to your idea and I'd like to help you to find the only fact.

Thank you in advance for your kind consideration.91.98.8.54 08:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The Persian Gulf University (PGU)

The Persian Gulf University is located in the coastal city of Bushehr.(Coast of the Persian Gulf)

It is a state university under the supervision of the Ministry of Science, Research and Technology. The Persian Gulf University was established in 1991. It started its educational work as a "technical & engineering school" with the two majors of mechanical and civil engineering.

It was originally under the management of the Shiraz University. Later on, after opening new academic departments in 1994 and and 1995, it was turned into "Bushehr University".

In 1996 Bushehr University was properly renamed "Persian Gulf University" because of its geographic location and closeness to the magnificent coasts of the Persian Gulf.

Today,the Persian Gulf University (PGU) consists of five faculties offering undergraduate courses leading to Bachelor's degree (B.A. or B.S.) in 20 disciplines, postgraduate courses leading to Master’s of Science in five specialties, and also one undergraduate course leading to higher diploma.

In line with the aforesaid regional, cultural and economic potentials, PGU is planning to open more fields of study leading to higher diploma, some 20 disciplines leading to B.A. or B.S.,13 specialties towards M.A. or M.S. and 4 specialties leading to PhD.

PGU's academic staff consists of almost 130 full-time members whose responsibilities are to teach, engage in research and direct the courses of study for over 4000 students in both day and evening sessions during two semesters in each academic year. PGU's Administration is directed by the Chancellor Prof. H. Tajik and the four Vice-Chancellors for: Academic Affairs (Dr. Mehranpour), Research (Dr. Fiouz), Students and Cultural Affairs(Dr. Diyanat), and Administrative and Financial Affairs (Dr. Mussavi).

Chancellor's Office: Tel: +98-(0)771-4545187 Fax: +98-(0)771-4545188

Address: Shahid Mahini Street, Bushehr 75168 IRAN-PERSIAN GULF

http://www.pgu.ac.ir/english/index.htm82.99.246.113 18:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Persian Gulf in UN documents and Google search.

Dear User: Baristarim,

I'd like to say the Persian Gulf's name is the only registered name in UN.

So Arbitrarily changing an internationally recognized name, is not only unprofessional but also a hostile act, directed at an entire nation/civilization, not to mention denying historical as well as international facts.

For my reasons you can read these web sites:

http://www.un.org/Depts/Cartographic/map/profile/bahrain.pdf

http://www.un.org/depts/dhl/maplib/docs/escwa.pdf

http://unstats.un.org/unsd/geoinfo/gegn23wp61.pdf

http://www.un.org/Depts/Cartographic/map/profile/iran.pdf

http://www.un.org/Depts/Cartographic/map/profile/oman.pdf

http://www.un.org/Depts/Cartographic/english/htmain.htm

http://www.un.org/Depts/Cartographic/map/profile/mideastr.pdf

http://Pejman.Azadi.googlepages.com/Iran

And also about the Persian Gulf's name in Google search:

I'd like to say if anyone type arabian gulf in google search he/her will be faced to the truth! ====> Arabian Gulf" does not exist in any part of the World. "Persian Gulf" is an appropriate name for a gulf located in south of Iran, in Middle East. Persian Culture is an ancient and historical one and nobody can deny it. Considering Persian Culture as ancient and historical culture is undeniable. So, never do replace the name of "Persian Gulf" with a new and improper title like "Arabian Gulf".

Thank you for taking the time.82.99.246.1 19:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The wide use of the term "Arabian Gulf"

This sentance: "also known as Arabian Gulf in Arab countries" is always removed by Iranina editors. The reason givin by them is undo weight: [46], [47].

Well, how "undo weight" is this:

• Its the offiicial name used by all 22 Arab countries including the 6 countries that lay on that gulf [48].

• Brittanica Encyclopdia mentions it in the beginning and with bold [49]

• BBC uses it [50]

• CNN uses it [51]

• The United Nations uses it [52] (for more here [53])

• The U.S. Whitehouse uses it [54],

• The USA embassies uses it [55], the USA congress uses it [56]. The US dept of state uses it [57]

• The british Foreign & Commonwealth Office use it [58]

• NASA uses it [59].

• Amazon.com has more than 3000 books in english with this name: [60]

• etc...[61]

This is more than enough weight not to just include it at the introduction, but aslo to change the title to Persian/Arabian Gulf.The main reason why this term is totaly wiped off the introdcution is this [62] Jidan 19:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The UN does not use it. Those are articles provided by Arab countries within the UN. The UN cartography section is clear on the official name. [63]. As per US: As recognized by the United States Board on Geographic names, the name of the body of water that lies between Iran and the Arab states of the Gulf Cooperation Council is the Persian Gulf. For political reasons, Arabs often refer to it as the Arab or Arabian Gulf(The Persian Gulf at the Millennium: Essays in Politics, Economy, Security, and Religion edited by Gary G. Sick, Lawrence G. Potter, pg 8). I am really getting annoyed with chauvinistic behaviors of some pan-arab nationalists in the last 40 years attempting to change a historic name from more than 2000 years ago. A falsified name like the Arabian Gulf that has never been used in Arabic documents prior to 50 years ago has no historical legitimacy despite all the Arab Shaikh money poured into it. An attempt at changing the historical name of a body of water is an ugly act of historical distortion. I hope people trecognize the racist behavior of Arab countries in distorting a historical name and note the complete resprect for historical terminologies in these countries. I think the recent protests at the death of Saddam Hussein shows clearly the racist mentality that has grasped the Arab speaking countries and unfortunately academic scholarship in this day and age can easily be bought. --alidoostzadeh 02:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

First of all, don't label other editors as "Iranian" or anything else. That shows bad faith on your part, and this ethnically-biased and bad faith habit of yours, labeling all the editors who disagree with you as "Israelis and Iranians" has been previously brought up and discussed by several admins on the admins notice board [64]. Labeling opposing editors is not the way to conduct an honest debate and build en encyclopedia. As for your argument, a few selective links showcasing articles or books written by Arab journalists and correspondents do not constitute the basis for commonality to include Arabian Gulf at the introduction. The name is already mentioned and discussed at the appropriate section, the naming dispute. Anything more is giving undo weight to a name that's neither internationally recognized, nor commonly used in English, outside he Arab circles. --Mardavich 20:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

A)The fact that the Arab countries recognize the term is irrelevant. We are talking about international waters here, not local lakes or rivers. Nationalism and racism do not determine the names of bodies of waters. If everyone country was allowed to choose its own name for any geographic place, then there would be chaos.

B)Regarding Brittanica, British Common Wealth, and the BBC, all are British and it is a known fact that the term Arabian Gulf is British in origin and even to this day, Britain is one of the nations that advocates that name, due to its past interactions with Persia (Iran) during colonialism and present day, with deteriorating ties.

C) CNN does not use the term Arabian Gulf. In that article, it clearly says that the Arabian Gulf is another gulf with in the Persian Gulf, which is near to it. There are many gulfs in the Persian Gulf, including the Gulf of Bahrain, and others.

D) The UN sources you list are not UN documents, they are letters submitted to the UN by delegates, most, if not all of whom, are Arabs.

E) The USA does not use the term Arabian Gulf officially, and it has clarified that the term Persian Gulf may only be used within its documents. However, US military personnel in the Arab Persian Gulf countries due use the term Arabian Gulf, because the term Persian Gulf is either banned or the government of those countries asks that the term Arabian Gulf be used as one of its conditions.

F) Regarding your NASA link, again, the NASA experiment was conducted in the UAE with UAE personnel. It is known that the term Persian Gulf is illegal in the UAE.

G) The Amazon source cannot even be brought up as evidence, as it is just as useless as doing a Google search on Arabian Gulf and trying to use that as evidence.

H) Again, using a source regarding an Arab country.

So far, all you have been able to bring up are Arab sources or sources related to or in favor of Arab governments. The term Arabian Gulf is not only racist, but politically motivated. There is no historical background to the term Arabian Gulf, not even in Arab countries. There is already a section for this dispute, and the term Arabian Gulf is mentioned there.Azerbaijani 20:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

"Its the offiicial name used by all 22 Arab countries including the 6 countries that lay on that gulf" - what nonsense. Plus, that link doesn't say anything on this matter anyway. Some Arab states may refer to as that, but not officially and not collectively. --Rayis 20:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• Sorry to butt in, but there seems to be more accusations (some of them weird) in what has just been said. Labelling all the British as some sort of imperial agents is also ethnically-biased IMO. Are you seriously labelling BBC as a some sort of an imperial agent? BBC is one of the most reliable sources out there + the same goes for Brittanica. I know the UN stance on this issue, but BBC is not crap either. "Regarding Brittanica, British Common Wealth, and the BBC, all are British" (? - English spread to the world thanks to them, it is like telling the Romans that they can't speak Latin correctly :)) If it were a US government site I can understand, but not quite for BBC or Brittanica.
• In any case, I am sure that there are politics behind the name game (in fact I know :)), but I personally have heard the expression Arabian Gulf a lot, and the entailing controversy for a long time. What I have also noticed was that the Arabian Gulf usage has been increasing in the last two decades (again the reasons can be easily disputed for hours)
• I would personally oppose a RM to move it to Arabian Gulf, but can't exactly see what harm it would do to have a "aka X in Y" in the lead or "the use of X has been gaining ground since ZZZZ" somewhere in the intro. That's all. I will try to do more research on this though. Baristarim 21:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• How about trying to file a RfC? Maybe the involvement of more neutral editors are needed.. Baristarim 21:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Reasons why the alternative name should be in naming dispute section:

1)Less than 20 countries use Arabian Gulf (contrary to claim of some editors not even all Arab countries use this name some of them do) not to mention that many of them only use it in Arabic not english.

2)Who lives next to this Gulf is irrelevant since it is an international body of water and IS NOT owned by any government so the Arabs living next to this Gulf don’t have more rights than anybody else to change its name (this is not a city or a river that the governments can rename) it is up to the international organizations.

3)UN considers its usage faulty and has never sanctioned it.

The "harm" that some editors were asking about is that mentioning it in the intro creates the image that both names are equally legitimate and as frequently used. This is the intention of some editors and it is a LIE!!

On one side we have name that is used in less than 20 countries (all of them of a certain ethnicity) and is considered faulty by UN and it did not exist 50 years ago!

On the other hand we have a name that is used by the whole world(not just a certain ethnicity)and is sanctioned as the ONLY legitimate name for this body of water and is used both today and historically.

The difference is clear. Gol 03:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

At Baristarim: The term Arabian Gulf is itself a British concoction and its use has been encouraged by Britain for decades since the early 20th century. Today, the British government is one of the countries at the forefront of having the name changed, and its close ties with Arab governments and the organization's within Britain that get heavy funding from Arab governments is a huge factor in the decision of the BBC and other British organizations.

Also, you mention that the term Arabian Gulf has come into usage mroe in the past two decades. That is true, and the reason is that Arab governments such as the UAE have started funding universities and museums all over Europe for the sole reason of having them to use the term Arabian Gulf of just the Gulf instead of the Persian Gulf. Most recently, the Arab funders of the Louvre museum FORCED the museum to remove the term Persian Gulf and only use the Gulf instead. The curator of the museum has expressed his severe dislike at this action and currently I believe the Iranian government and some other officials are taking action to reverse to change. Its all about money, nationalism, and racism, all of which the Arab governments have, and they are directing all of it against Iran, much like they did to the Ottomans (also because of the British), during WWI.Azerbaijani 05:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

This is not the place to discuess which name is right (for that go to Persian Gulf naming dispute). This gulf, just like Sea of Japan (East Sea) or English Channel(La Manche), has two alternative names, Arabian Gulf and Persian Gulf. Jidan 01:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

It does not have two alternative names. I already said this, but I'll say it again. Nations do not get to choose to call international waters whatever name they like. There are historical reasons behind the two names of the Sea of Japan or the English Channel, but the term Arabian Gulf has no historical background, it was introduced as a political tool.I will repeat myself: Nations do not get to choose to name any international body of water whatever they want for whatever reason, if that was the case, everything would be chaotic.Azerbaijani 01:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Read my post above. And regarding your comment Arabian Gulf has no historical background, it was introduced as a political tool, again, you are discussing which name is right, and for that you have to go to Persian Gulf naming dispute. Even if it was called by the arabs the gulf of Micky Mous, but its official recognized by soverign states and used internationaly, it still has to be mentioned in the introduction. Jidan 02:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Jidan, this may come as a shock to you, but guess what, many nations have their own names for many bodies of water, but none of them are pushing those names to replace internationally recognized names. Iranians, for example, have another name for the Caspian sea, but tell me, is that name mentioned in the Caspian Sea article as an alternate name? You are not listening to me: Nations do not get to pick and choose whatever name they want to replace internationally recognized names for bodies of water. That goes for ethnicity too.Azerbaijani 03:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

How is the Sea of Japan (East Sea) or English Channel(La Manche) different from this case? Notic also thet Sea of Japan has also a Sea_of_Japan_naming_dispute. Jidan 20:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I have already addressed that. Arabian Gulf has no historical basis, its a political tool. In the case of Sea of Japan and the English Channel, there have been alternate names for hundreds of years. The different names are not politically motivated and are not the inventions of the 20th century. They are alternate names, but the Arabian Gulf is not an altnernate name, its a political tool, and has its roots in pan Arabism, colonialism, imperialism, nationalism, and racism, all within the 20th century.Azerbaijani 20:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Whether it has histroical basis or not (which it has[65]) is totatlly irrelvant. It usage is what matters. Jidan 19:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't really understand the reason for objections to the mention of the Gulf's alternative in the introduction (in addition to the Arabian Gulf, the article should also mention that the body of water is also commonly called just "the Gulf"). Whatever the motives of the governments using the name Arabian Gulf or the veracity of the name, the fact is that it is commonly used in Arab countries and among non-Arabs. No-one wants to change the name of the article and I think there is a consensus that the Persian Gulf is the most used and most accepted name. But alternatives must be mentioned in the first sentence, as is the case for other water bodies subject to naming disputes.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 12:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Because it is NOT really an ALTERNATIVE in the international domain. If you use it alongside "Persian Gulf" you are giving it undue weight. It is already mentioned that some Arab countries use some other name (mostly internally) for the body of water. So that POV is represented. Behaafarid 13:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I know of no Arab who refers to the Gulf as Khaleej al-Farisi. It is always Khaleej al-Arabi or Arabian Gulf. This is the Arab alternative. You cannot get away from this fact.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 13:14, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

May be you should enlarge your circle of friends (with a different POV perhaps) There are a lot of Arabs who call Persian Gulf the Persian Gulf. Even on Arabic Wikipedia!.Behaafarid 13:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Arabic Wikipedia gives both alternative names, both in the article title and in the introductory paragraph (both are emboldened). See [66]. The article mainly refers to the Arabian Gulf, not the Persian Gulf. It says (my translation): "Arabian Gulf (the common name in the Arab world) or Persian Gulf (international designation) or the Basra Gulf (approved by Ottoman Turkey documents), is one of the centres of maritime trade through the Strait of Hormuz on the Indian Ocean for 7,000 years." If you prefer the Arabic Wikipedia version, I am willing to change it to that.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 18:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what Arabic wikipedia does. This is English wikipedia. There is no source in Arabic until 50 years ago that calls it Arabian Gulf. This will be mentioned in the first paragraph before the name. Since it is important to get the ugly history behind this distortion. [67]. --alidoostzadeh 20:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

If tomarrow, I run for Canaidan prime minister, and all Canada start calling the whole Arabian countires the Terrorist Nations, does that make Terrorist nation a correct name? Or even an alternative. Ofcourse Canadian will never say that. --Arad 00:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Persian Gulf's name and its wide usage in the official documents and governmental documents

 Persian Gulf is an International name and term, it has 
 within International legal validity, any another 
 local name is an Apocryphal name.

United Nation is using only the Persian Gulf's name :

http://www.un.org/Depts/Cartographic/english/htmain.htm

http://unstats.un.org/unsd/geoinfo/gegn23wp61.pdf

And about Amazon Site:

http://www.amazon.com/Persian-Gulf-Atlas-Historical-Maps/dp/9648403449

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLJ,GGLJ:2006-40,GGLJ:en&q=persian+gulf+in+amazon

Do you Want more?!!! Ok here!!!!

Persian Gulf in NASA:

http://visibleearth.nasa.gov/view_rec.php?id=2363

Persian Gulf in CNN: 
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2002/iraq/deployment.map/

Persian Gulf in the White House:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html

Persian Gulf in Canadian Ofiicial immigration site:
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/offices/notices/abu-dhabi.html

Persian Gulf in Canadian Embassy in uae!:
http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/abudhabi/menu08-en.asp

Still want more?!!! ok here!

Persian Gulf in US Congress:
http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?frd/cstdy:@field(DOCID+bh0000)

http://lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/bhtoc.html

Persian Gulf EIA:

The Energy Information Administration (EIA), created by Congress in 1977, is a statistical agency of the U.S. Department of Energy. Our mission is to provide policy-independent data, forecasts, and analyses to promote sound policy making, efficient markets, and public understanding regarding energy and its interaction with the economy and the environment.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/aboutEIA/aboutus.html

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/pgulf.html

Persian Gulf in History:
http://pejman.azadi.googlepages.com/Iran

Please consider the Persian Gulf's name is using 
in all of the world and if any another name is using 
in local small arab countries, 
it is Apocryphal name 

Persian Gulf in The National Academies Press:
 http://www.nap.edu/catalog/9057.html

 Kind Regards,The Persian Gulf 08:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Again Pesian Gulf and again and again.... Persian Gulf Forever

I would like at first to thank you dear user: Azerbaijani for your kind action and useful information on this case.

Secondly I'd like to say that all of organizations that changed this Persian Gulf's name to the another Apocryphal name such as National geography or Louvre they have changed again it to the original name as the Persian Gulf.

So it seems all educated people knows this fact that arab or non arab can not buy the legal facts and historical facts by money, because the historical evidence and legal validity can not be bought by oil money.

Persian Gulf's name does not need to approve or any other evidence because this name is a unique name and if everyone wants to change it he/she is wasting his time and can not gain any thing.

I have another news from the Louvre Museum.

This aricle is in French and is translated to English by Google.

I will insert both of them here with its website link.

This is my news to everyone that think this name can be bought by money and what's a big mistake !!!!

http://basile.canalblog.com/archives/2006/12/14/3425112.html

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLJ,GGLJ:2006-40,GGLJ:en&q=pejman+azadi

Thursday December 14, 2006

Louvre chooses the name of "Persian Gulf" after the sharp protests of Iran

The Persian Gulf 12:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Persian Gulf , the UK government learn this fact: the Persian Gulf will be remained Persian Gulf Forever.

arab governments can not change this name by the UK supporting never ever.

This is a very dirty political game, UK governments should learn that Persian Gulf is
Persian  Gulf and they can not change this name by arab supporting.

Actually UK government was Persian enemy during the 19 th century and also now they 
are trying to another conspiracy.

Persian GUlf will be remained Persian Gulf Forever.

The Need for "Arabian Gulf"

There must be a lot of money involved in this. I am neither arab nor persian but from what I have researched, "Arabian Gulf" is not an alternative but rather something that arab nations are investing huge sums of money to make alternative. There is a lot of money being wasted by these nations to try to change this name to "Arabian Gulf" to satisfy their nationalistic thirst.

These Arabs have sucked a lot of things from Persian culture to their name and this is one of the few last things that is left. And all they left is Islam. And they will try anything to destroy the rest of this old and prestigious culture. --Arad 02:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

There is no dispute, THIS IS PERSIAN GULF

NO dispute, this is Persian Gulf. If tomorrow, me and 1000 (or even, let's say 100 million) people from my city started calling US the Junk Food Nation, does that make Junk Food Nation and alternative for US? US will remain US for ever and Persian Gulf is forever Persian. --Arad 02:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Persian Gulf Has been always Persian Gulf in the whole history.

All the people in the world even arabs know that the southern sea of the great land of Persia (IRAN) is Named and known by Persian Gulf. It's all because of western policies to stimulate arab people to think that Persian Gulf is arabian gulf. They are in a huge mistake. Because no one can change or deny history.Hamidreza tk --Hmrtk 20:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Interesting addition

According to the research by Dr. Farhang Mehr, Mohammad the prophet of Islam called the Persian Gulf "Bahre Farsi" (Persian Sea).

Furthermore: This was the term used during the time of the prophet Mohammad and the four Right Guided Caliphs, which constitutes a "Sunna". Given the Sunna, one may question the permissibility of any change in the name of the "Persian Gulf" as it would constitute an innovation or Bed'a which is Hara'm. [68]

--Rayis 14:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Astaghfer Allah, this is a geographic name and has nothing to do with Islam...tell the Zoroastrian pseudo-scholar to do his homework before making empty claims. Arabs live on the shores from all sides of the gulf. It was always an Arabian Gulf. 213.42.2.11

Persian Gulf has NOT been always Persian Gulf

this is amusing how some people try to change historical facts and falsly accuse others for doing so !!!

first of all this body of water has not been always persian gulf, it had different names through history and this is a FACT.

civilizations lived on the coasts of this gulf for thousands of years and they were not all Persians,

the sumerian called the body of water the "lower sea" and the Babylonians called it the "bitter sea" and then the persians called it "Persian sea", and the changing continued after that, it was called "Basra Gulf" by the Ottomans and Arabs Now calls it Arabian Gulf.( there are good evidences that Arabian Gulf name was used long time before 1960s from the maps showed above by one of the members here)

the point is that it had different names and Wikipedia as a nutral source of information should recognise that and not bow to nationalisim, and "many" iranians has to read historical books ( neutral ones) before they start shouting here like igonrant nationalists. Ioj 07:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

your comments do not deserve any attention. one reason is that you say "civilisations.." this is just nonsense. there has been only one civilisation in the region. thats THE PERSIAN CIVILISATION. but for your information, the reason why people are trying to say that the name is persian gulf is more than what you call nationalism. what is accurate is the point. we all know how much money is involved in this so-called naming problem. and when it comes to history we think in persian scales and not arab scales. in this scale, name is what it s: the persian gulf.

LOL instead me giving you a history lesson (which may seem useless for someone as ignorant as you) but i will give you a quick one and please go read and teach yourself or even search here on wikipedia about "Other" civilizations that existed on that Gulf, what you said is the nonesense and very nationalisitc "persian scale" lol. and i can prove it, in brief, there were many civilizations existed on that gulf some thousands of years before the persian come, i did not talk about money or policitics, and all the fuss about even the mentioning of another "name" is clearly nationalistic thing, and this is not a persian nationalistic site so your "persian scale" is for yourself, here all articls supposed to be NUTERAL and based on FACTs not igonrant nationalicitc Bullshit. understand?.Ioj 14:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

arab giving history lesson to a persian!!! that's total nonsense. we persians dont need history lesson WE ARE THE HISTORY.

Persian Gulf has been always Persian Gulf during the History!!!

From the historical point of view this gulf has been always Persian Gulf and this is very clear that politics and money can not change this clear fact that this gulf is Persian Gulf!

Only Persian Gulf

any another name instead the Persian Gulf is an Apocryphal name due to the UN documents.

No need to mention that the Persian Gulf is the only registered name in UN and it is the only official name in the world.

Don't play with HISTORY AND LEGAL NAMES BY the money and politics!!!

Please add io:Persiana Gulfo

io:Persiana Gulfo - Thank you. io:User:Joao Xavier

hi all

who would beleive new country like united arab emirates start to forget their past!!!!

before 40 years ago the had nothing to drink and eat and all the sudden they start to have very old history! and sheikh mohamad dont even remember he was ejucated in Iran army university in shah time and he just mention he is ejucated from uk!!

now he made a history about fals arabian gulf because he think he is sheikh and have enough money to change the history!

maybe he or people like him who had nothing to offer from history of 40 years old small country need to capture and insult others priority and when you have nothing to make you rich try to steal others culture and every thing.

lofthanza pilot called persian gulf as arabian gulf last month which i traveled back to dubai... nokia company changed persian gulf to arabian gulf in his advertisement!!

in school they teach their children fals history about what they realy never been any ways.. and what have we done beside talking and signing pettition.

what can we do realy to stop them even if our goverment dont support us?

i am sure they wont be same who they are now, as this country was not made by british and usa only it was made by poor labours which they die daily and get paid 600-800 dirhams per month only in country that un direct slaves are ligal its normal to think their their ansisters which tried to destroy our culture since ever they entered to Great Iran... ?

shame on who ever change my persian gulf to false arabian gulf in any ways.

persian gulf will remain persian gulf for ever..

Nobody can not change this name! because Persian Gulf will be remained Persian Gulf Forever!!!

Hi to all,

I'd like to say that this is a very dirty political game and all of the world know that this is due to political problem of western countries with Iranian governments and this will be solved when Iran one day would be free and all of these problems will be ok, so don't be worry this name will be remained PERSIAN GULF and NOBODY CAN NOT CHANGE IT!!!!

PERSIAN GULF IS PERSIAN GULF AND WILL BE REMAINED PERSIAN GULF

Aziz

Persian Gulf in Arabic is الخليج الفارسي al-khalīj al-fārisi NOT الخليج العربي al-khalīj al-ārbī which translates as Arabian Gulf.Azerbaijani 18:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

also check here: [69]. --alidoostzadeh 22:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi all, regarding this gulf, it is indeed called الخليج العربي (The Arabic Gulf) in Arabic. The debate we are trying to have here is not really about who has 'control' over it, but the naming in the Arabic language. Indeed, الخليج العربي is what it is called and has been called for a long time. As for the actual gulf itself, it isn't controlled or owned by one of the two sides. And for some of the editors here who are vehemently defending the naming الخليج الفارسي without proper sources, or even proper justification, please stop. There is no reason to start a lame edit war over something like this, the title of the article should follow what it is commonly referred to in English, since this is English wikipedia, but whether you like it or not, the fact is that in Arabic it is called 'The Arabic Gulf'. Thanks. Asabbagh 00:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi. If you mean by long time 50 years ago then that is not long time. In Arabic before 50 years ago it has been الفارسی and you would not find العربی. Check here if you do not believe me: [70]. Thus we are going by the historical name in Arabic texts. The modern name is Arabic text is mentioned later on in the article. --alidoostzadeh 00:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

No, we are not going by any historical name. We are going by the name commonly used to refer to the gulf at this time. Thanks. Asabbagh 00:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Nope, there is not a single Arabic text that has called it Arabian Gulf before the era of modern nationalism. Again since you read Arabic read this article [71]. Note the wiki policy: [72]. The fact is in all historical Arabic texts it has never been called any other name. Arabic language does not necessarily mean what Arab countries do or do not. This is English wikipedia and we follow what historical texts have said about the issue. The name is Arabic in the first line has to do with the common nae Persian Gulf which is mentioned in historical Arabic texts before the era of rabid nationalism[73] in Arab countries. Thus it is just another way of writing Persian Gulf per the historical Arabic texts (Ibn Batuba, Ibn hawqal..) I just mentioned. --alidoostzadeh 00:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

No. The name used in Arabic on this encyclopedia should be the name that is used currently, by most (if not all) Arabs to refer to this gulf. This is not an issue of trying to imprint any Persian or Arabian culture on the gulf itself, not at all. Besides, look at the map, you will see that it the gulf is bordered roughly equally by Arab countries and by Iran. If you go to an Arab country and ask an Arab what this gulf is called, chances are they will say الخليج العربي. One more thing to point out, the Persian and the Arab cultures are extremely related, some would say intertwined, and I do not understand why this issue would cause a heated debate like this... Asabbagh 00:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually the wikipedia policy is to not give undue weight to minority POV. Persian Gulf is the majority POV. I have already explained that in classical Arabic it is also Khalij Farsi. So the minority POV (in the western world and this is english wikipedia) should not be given the same weight. The reason that Iranians get upset over this issue is simple. From the Hadeeths of the Prophet Muhammad till 50 years in Arabic texts it has been Bahr-e-Fars, Khalij-e-Farsi.. but all of the sudden Nasser/Saddam.. come and change it to Khalij 'Arabi in Arabic speaking countries. The reason is simple. Two groups of people Arab countries do not like are Persians and Jews. Persians/Iranians despite being Muslims are disliked in Arab countries and that is why Nasser/Saddam changed the historical name. I am wondering if you would like it if someone calledSaudia Arabia as America or Persia? Personally I find this political manipulation racist as calling Saudia Arabia as Persia. There is also an Arabian sea in the Indian ocean and an Arabian Gulf in western literature used for the Red Sea. Thus the Arabic countries should fix their mistake with this regard and not try to propogate it. Note the historical revisionism with this regard. [[74]]. Interestingly enough they say Israel should be called فلسطین and Israel is a new name. Assuming that to be the case (and I am no expert on that issue), then why the double standard? Anyways the Arabic in the first line has to do with the common name Persian Gulf in Arabic spelling and we are mentioning it based on historical text[[75]]. Later on in the article it has been explained that Arab countries call it now Arabian Gulf but the wiki policy is to give the common and historical name prominence [[76]] --alidoostzadeh 00:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, do not give undue weight to minority POV. I assume that the majority of English sources refer to the gulf as 'Persian Gulf', and that's why the article is titled as such. However, the vast majority of Arabs call it 'Arabian Gulf', and that's why the Arabic name should be shown as such. Writing it as الخليج الفارسي is giving undue weight to minority POV. Pretty much all the analogies you made are false, especially the Israel/Palestine example, since the modern state of Israel is a country established on another country's land, and in no way is this similar to this gulf, which isn't really occupied by anyone. Thanks. Asabbagh 01:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes we have mentioned that Arabs called it Arabian Gulf later on. But the major name comes first. Writing it الخلیج الفارسی is just how Persian Gulf is pronounced in classical Arabic. Thus that needs to be mentioned as well. It does not negate the fact that Arab countries call it Arabian Gulf which is discussed later in the article as a minority POV can not be presented on the first line. But if there is confusion we can simply remove the Arabic in the first line. Nevertheless we have mentioned that Arab countries call it Arabian Gulf later in the article. Unlike the Arabian Gulf which has never been found in any Arabian text..the name Israel is mentioned by Jews . But I was trying to understand why Arab countries change names as it suits their political needs and then protest at the same time. Anyways I think the issue is resolved if we remove the Arabic from the first sentence or leave it as is since it is based on classical arabic texts. --alidoostzadeh 01:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The major name in Arabic is الخليج العربي. I have mentioned before that this is the majority POV. No, do not remove the Arabic name from the first sentence, and in my opinion having it as الخلیج الفارسی does not solve this dispute, for the reasons mentioned in all of the messages I have left here. The point I would like to emphasize, is that if both the current common name (الخليج العربي) and the historical name (الخلیج الفارسي, as has been claimed), are to be mentioned in the article (and I think they both should be mentioned), then the one which holds majority POV is the current common name, and that should be the one mentioned in the lead paragraph as the Arabic name of this gulf. What do you think of an RfC? Thanks. Asabbagh 01:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually the article covers all aspects of Persian Gulf including its history. The major name in Arabic historically has been Persian Gulf until 50 years ago. The current name of Arabian Gulf is also minority viewpoint in English. We need to mention that classical Arabic sources have not called it الخلیج العربی. They have used terms like بحر الفارسی و الخلیج فارسی .. So that is why the classical Arabic sources which are in harmony with western sources and Persian sources are mentioned. We can perhaps under the Arabic of the first line mention classical sources as a reference. Since the arabian gulf name is a minority point of view, (mainly shared mainly by arab countries and not the rest of the world) we need to either remove it or just mention in paranthesis that classical arabic sources..and for the modern name in Arabic countries see below. --alidoostzadeh 02:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Really, I've mentioned what I have to say several times and you still seem to overlook it. I will not explain to you once more. But, I will again propose an RfC. That way we can get a broader opinion. Asabbagh 09:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Been discussed a million times before. Persian Gulf is Persian Gulf, Israel is Israel, no matter how many people call it differently. --Rayis 10:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Rayis, it appears that you have not read any of my comments. Asabbagh 11:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Adding all available names in Arabic

Dear all,

Wikipedia is not a battleground[77]!! I suggest to add all names, used to describe this sea, in Arabic language. As far as I know, these are: الخليج العربي، الخليج الفارسي، خليج القطيف all together as it has been indicated through many different old maps and geographical references. Editors interested in this page are asked to give other suggestions. One-sided POV is refused in Wikipedia. I ask everyone to re-read the Five Pillars and remember that Wikpedia has a neutral point of view. Any disput should go through discussion, and then through this process but not deleting and re-deleting.

This page is going to be under monitor. Many editors and adminstrators get informed about this dispute and they are going to watch editing in this page and realted pages. Users are kindly asked to keep cool head when discussing in this talk page and follow Wikipedia:List of policies. Ralhazzaa 14:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Nope you need to discuss your changed. الخلیج العربی و خلیج القطیف are minority POV's. They can not be added and given the same weight and prominence as the common name. You can those other names later on the page. Read the guidelines about undue weight from wikipedia.[[weight]. --alidoostzadeh 14:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

hold on buddy.. I am not begging you! This is Wikipedia but not an elementary school in Tehran! Your discussion has deep ideological & political background and far away from Five Pillars. If you go back and re-read the discussion and evalute the language used by majority of users (including you!) you will find it biased, which is big violation for Wikipedia's polices. If you, yourself, decided to consider a names used by 300 million Arabic speaker, an official language of the UN, a historical name mentioned before Romans (as you can see in info u deleted!) as a minority POV and Undue weight, then we should apply your standard and ask your people to stop calling your country as Iran. This is a minority POV term as indicated here cannot change a historical fact!! French people should apply your "standard of weighing" and stop using the term "La Manche" as it is a minority POV!! Also, your "standard of weighing" should be applied on banning the use of "Great Britain" anywhere.. it is just a minority POV.. huh? Please have a cool head and try to understand that other people has the right to be correct but not in your way. Please consider a good level and good will through discussion here. Others may have a truth different from yours! Ralhazzaa 04:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

This is the evidence page[[78]]. Lets see that historical name used before Romans! Note Strabo clearly refers to it as Persian Gulf. And there does not exist a single textual evidence for Arabian Gulf. It is good that you read that refutation before you place older edition of maps from the same books who were corrected and correctly used Persian Gulf in their text as well other maps of the older edition. Note in the English speaking world, your POV is a minority. Specially by the directive of the official US national geographic board your POV is minority in the largest English speaking country. The UN English site also clearly says Persian Gulf. As per your personal attack it has been reported to the admin. --alidoostzadeh 05:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey alidoostzadeh, just to let you know, this link has been posted a large number of times on this very page, so really I don't understand why you have to keep posting it again. You still, at the same time, continue to miss the point, which is that it doesn't matter what the common name in English is, the Arabic translation should be reported as the common name in Arabic, and not a translation of the common name in English. So, please, don't respond to this by saying something like ".. but historically it was not that..", because in doing so you are throwing the whole debate out of the window. Thanks. Asabbagh 07:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

If there is a name used by an old Roman historian (Pliny the Younger, 2000 years ago) but not satisfying you, this is not my problem! Greeks called it as Persian Gulf, so ok! This means that there is a name conflict with 2 names, simply. This shouldn't be a serious problem and could be found everywhere when two nations using different languages are sharing a territory as the British used to call "The British Channel" while Frenches saying "La Manche", this will never means that one is fake and other is completely true. May I remind you that we are talking about the "Arabic" name of this sea, not the English or the Persian?!! You keep translating it according to your believing and keep ignoring the true real name in Arabic language. You may find classical literature "written" in Arabic -thus, biased- (mayby by a persian, like al-istakhri) and use it as a reference, while keep ignoring the real, ancient & contemporary name(s) and live translation from English to Arabic. If you still not sure, leave this job to native Arabs, and I don't think you are native Arab to use this right. Also, you shouldn't refute the validity and credibility of ancient maps and books by saying "corrected". This may make you loose neutrality by falsifying human heritage for geopolitical-ethnic purposes. Maps & ancient books kept in museums since generations and used as sources for education and writing the history, besides UN documents in official language, shouldn't be claimed as "fake"! No one in the civilized world will accept this at all... corrected! huh.. We are mature buddy!! Ralhazzaa 07:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey alidoostzadeh! The link you are posting and re-using extesively is Iranian, but just written in English! It is not accepted at all as a neutral reference. Do you want me to create a website in English saying there is no sun in the solar system then rely on it in wirting "Our Sunless Solar System" in Wikipedia? Please show more credibility in using references, and stop saying "fake" and "corrected map/book". This is not good at all ;) Ralhazzaa 07:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Ali. This is not Arabic wikipedia, the Arabic translation should reflect the common English title. That said, the Arabic translation you're pushing for is already there under the naming dispute section, anything more constitutes undo weight as debated and agreed upon over and over. --Mardavich 09:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't you think there is a big gap between Translation and Transliteration? If we should accept your idea, sir, so we should delete the word "La Manche" from the English page of the English Channel and replace it with "Canal Anglais" (nice tune)! or delete the Spanish name of Falkland Islands, Islas Malvinas, from its English page on Wikipedia, or stop using the term Taiwan as it is formally Republic of China and it is not accepted by ROC to mention them as just Taiwan!! right sir? If we are going to include the Arabic name for this sea, then it is الخليج العربي (literaly: Al-Khaleij Al-Arabi). Saying الخليج الفارسي (Al-Khaleij Al-Farsi) in Arabic is really drive me fall of laughing. Why no Algerian is shouting asking the English speaking people to stop saying Algeria and use Aljaza'er? Keep cool and consider live translation instead of machine transliteration, like Algerians ;) I hope no Iranian, in the future, will go to the Arabic page of Tehran and urge to replace the ط with ت as the first letter in the name Ralhazzaa 10:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Pliny also uses Persian Gulf for Persian Gulf and uses Arabian Gulf for the red sea[79]. As per the Arabic name.. it can be removed from the begining or used in its true historical Arabic context.[80]. --alidoostzadeh 02:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Each name should be used in the right and truth! so Persian Gulf should be used for the gulf between Iran and local arabian countries

The gulf between Iran (Persia) and the other local arab countries is named Persian Gulf. and if any other word is used it is wrong word!!! As well the Persian Gulf's name is the only registered name in the UN.

*Sigh*

You know what? This is the exact reason we have wars in the world and people kill each other every day. Instead of looking at what makes us the same, we just see what makes us different. I know this is a cliché, but why can't we all get along?

Why do you all spend so much time and energy arguing about semantics like this? The world is dying and one day could end up so hot it would be uninhabitable if we don't change our ways. I really wish that people would be so passionate about making the world a better place as they are here about arguing about names of things. Imagine would could be done if all the time and energy in this debate had been used to help stop what is left of the slave trade.....who knows what could have been done by now.

I am so ashamed to be human

WP:LEAD

As the "Arabian" Gulf name does exist and is mentioned in the article, it should receive mention in the lead. I'd suggest re-adding the older form with a slight modification: "also known as the Arabian Gulf in Arab countries , though this alternate name is a subject of dispute (source)."

Sound fair? I mean, it is just adhering to WP:LEAD anyway, but still, what do you all think of this compromise? Also feel free to suggest better wording as something seems awkward about it right now. The Behnam 06:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

You came here as part of your stalking my edits, like your edit on Koryun. But read the talk page again, your suggestion is nothing new, and there is a clear consensus against it. ArmenianJoe 07:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The talk page

Someone might want to cleanup the talk page: it really looks ugly and confusing with broken threads, sixty section headings and badly formatted posts. Archiving might be a good place to start :) Baristarim 05:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Just Persian Gulf

I'd like to ask to some body, could you change the name of Gulf of Mexico? could you change the name of Guantanamo Gulf or ....so you could't change Persian Gulf's name by spending money or political games!!! Please be calm and think about what are you doing! this is just wasting your time and money.

I don't know why some users here are enjoying the ignoring and suppressing of information! Why some users here like to play a game against history and real life just for politcial sake of eliminating other's POV and culture?! Is it really good to keep supressing and offending other's rights in practicing their own culture in their own language? If any other nationas, organizations and bodies are already using the terms like something you don't "like", it will not be bad as naming sahred territories is not private right of one nation! If you brought a non-logical example for the Gulf of Mexico, I would like you to have more reasonable comparison like the English Channel/La Manche, or Sea of Japan name that will be better example for shared territories among nations of different cultures. I don't know when this big dispute will settle down and some users will respect other's POV and their cultural rights, besides History to reach a neutral point of view. I don't want to see the day when I'll believe that there is a racial/cultural enmity behind this argument Ralhazzaa 08:51, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

To ip user, judging from your recent edit history, I'd say you should calm down and think about what you are doing here! It's just a waste of your time... (to vandalize pages about ethnic groups you happen to be biased against) Asabbagh 09:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with Ralhazzaa - The Gulf of Mexico isn't a good example. A good example however is the English Channel/La Manche. The French call it La Mache, but the English speaking world (and a majority of other languages) call it The English Channel. Fair enough! But my question to Ralhazza and others is why is there an attempt to change the name of the Gulf to the Arabian Gulf in English/French/German/Japanese/Chinese (amongst others) when those countries already call it the Persian Gulf in their own language? The Arabian Gulf in Arabic is fine, but why attempt to change it in other languages when there already is an equivalent? The French don't attempt to have English/German/Japanese/Chinese speakers switch to "The Manche". Why are Arabs trying to do this for the Arabian Gulf? Why not just use the "Persian" Gulf when referring to the Gulf in other languages other than Arabic when the other languages already call it the Persian Gulf?

User:Ralhazzaa, what is your motivation for editing Wikipedia? Please stop shouting slogans and calling others who resist a U.N. certified name against a name that Gamal Abdoll Naser invented 40 years ago for his Pan-Arabism agendas) racist!

if you want to change this article, you have only one way: "reading the comments and resources of the users who oppose your POV (e.g. Alidoostzadeh) and trying to refute them or even give better sources." In this case you must bring arabic sources that says "Arabic Gulf" in their context before Gamal. Brother!, If you think there of course exist some sources, why not bringing it here? (Please read the talk page archive, and do not try to forge any sources, because we can verify them)

I think, you have not even read the comments of the users who has a different POV than you! This attitude bring you no where. Believe me, there is no racist or any hidden schemes is from this part (I don't know the motive of both the IP user or even you for this kind of debates!, but I am sure of myself and Ali). unless you bring a verifiable sources regarding your claims, you just get reverted and non of the admins of WP can do anything for you. من الله توفيق-Pejman47 16:10, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

User Ralhazza made a statement about Pliny and then it was cleared up and Pliny uses Persian Gulf for Persian Gulf and Arabian Gulf for the Red Sea. I am glad that argument is not being repeated. The fact is this is the English wikipedia and fortunately the overwhelming majority of English sources use the historical name. [81].

As recognized by the United States Board on Geographic names, the name of the body of water that lies between Iran and the Arab states of the Gulf Cooperation Council is the Persian Gulf. For political reasons, Arabs often refer to it as the Arab or Arabian Gulf (The Persian Gulf at the Millennium: Essays in Politics, Economy, Security, and Religion edited by Gary G. Sick, Lawrence G. Potter, pg 8).

"The Arab-Iranian nomenclatural controversy over the Gulf, which was so bitter in the late 50s and early 60s, was a by-product of the late President Nasser of Egypt's brand of Arab nationalism ... 'Arabian Gulf' is in fact a recent Arab appellation for that body of water..." ( Eilts, Hermann F. "Security Considerations in the Persian Gulf." International Security :Vol. 5, No. 2. (Autumn, 1980), pp. 79-113. ). والله سمیع العلیم--alidoostzadeh 16:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

User Pejman, do you think a question like "what is your motivation for editing Wikipedia" is something necessary within your concerns to know personal things about me through this talk page? I don't think it is important for you to ask such funny question in this talk page. You are highly recommended to read Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines and stop personalizing the discussion. Anyway, I'll be civil enough and inform everyone here that I want to improve this article by showing all available facts and other's POV to reach a neutral point of view, while many other users keep supressing such improvement and turning this talk page to a "forum"! If other's POV was not "beautiful" enough for others, then it is not a problem as we are in WP but not in a politically-oriented school for immature students. If you criticize Wikipedia:Etiquette and Wikipedia:Wiki spirit of showing and asking for good & peaceful behavior -as I did- and call it "slogans" and "shouting", then it is not really beneficial to talk with you here before you change you langage, be cool and re-read Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, for special Wikipedia:Assume good faith, Wikipedia:No angry mastodons and realize what does a neutral point of view means. Stop directing this talk to be politcla and personal attacks is not good at all. As you and user alidoostzadeh sure of yourselves, then u shouldn't attack others who are not of your side and try to be cool and neutral. A final word regarding someone's "analysis" for Pliny's discription for Abadan as locating in Greece by considering Karun's River as a Greek island! This is apparentely called: misinterpreting, and obviously not for the sake of improving this discussion by keep falsifying historical ancient references, as it has been already done by you for other ancient maps. If some users here can't stop their one-sided manipulation of sources then it is wasting of time for this discussion and maybe the main article(s) we are discussing will be always tagged by WP admins as "disputed" and its info disclaimed by WP as it is now due to info politicalization and manipulation. I'm not going to remention our POV as it has been described already but you, the other side, still turning your head and ignore comprehensive history of this area. Ralhazzaa 12:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I think Pliny was clear enough when he describes Persian Gulf and Arabian Gulf and he says Arabia Felix (basically Saudia Arabia) lies between Persian Gulf and Arabian Gulf. Again why are you ignoring clear references to Persian Gulf in Pliny and misinterpreting him. There is no dispute but only your mis-reading of Pliny. It is becoming very clear that you are not interested in unbiased view. I think for all readers is clear. Pliny did not have sattelite map back then. Elaues is a Greek city in Aegean. Thus between Tigris and Elaues he means red sea and not Persian Gulf as both of these are to the left of the Persian Gulf. Note Tigris is to the Left of Persian Gulf and not to its Right. Please read it again until you understand this point. [[82]]. Note it says: The one which lies to east is called PERSIAN GULF, and is two thousand five hundred miles in circumference, according to Erasthenes. Opposite to it lies Arabia, the length of which is fifteen hundred miles. On the other side again, Arabia is bounded by Arabian Gulf'. I believe that is very clear. Now again from the link you brought: By descending the Indus, and going up the Persian Gulf. [83]. Excerpt from Natural History, Book VI – Chapter: The Persian and the Arabian Gulfs (Refer to Book VI. 109 - 111 in Loeb edition..)[84]. Again another except: We learn from Ephorus, as well as Eudoxus and Timosthenes, tht there are great numbers of islands scattered all over this sea; Clitarchus says that king Alexander was informed of an island so rich that the inhabitants gave a talent of gold for a horse, and of another* upon which there was found a sacred mountain, shaded with a grove, the trees of which emitted odours of wondrous sweetness; this last was situate over against the Persian Gulf. Note Pliny did not have a sattelite map and the world might have looked different to him. But he is following the correct Greek tradition (Strabo too) of calling Persian Gulf by Persian Gulf and Arabian Gulf as red sea. He is saying Arabia is bounded by Arabian Gulf on one side and Persian Gulf on the other.--alidoostzadeh 01:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

to bring sources for your claims, just complaining about it, don't serve you. And during a debate about a different article, an adim told me this: "We do not balance articles based the personal opinions of pro and con factions amongst editors. A balanced article is one that presents what reliable published sources have said about a subject. We do not go around finding tidbits of information here and there and synthesize these to make a point that has not been published.", I hope you will get the point. Good luck--Pejman47 23:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

To user Alidoostzadeh, it looks that you are using dual standards in reading and/or referring to referrences! What if Pliny said that Arabian Gulf is in between "Egyptian" Sea and Caspian Sea as in here [85]? Do u think they need satellites to say so??!! So, calm down and leave Pliny as he is apparently was tending to mention the Arabian (Persian) Gulf as Arabian. Moreover, Elaues is not a Greek city (or island as u said before, but now become a city!). It is Karoun River that was mentioned by Pliny the Younger. Charax is nothing in Greece as you "may" read here. I am giving you a free gift to read Excerpts from 'Natural History' by Pliny [86]. This is to stop falsifying human heritage! It is over that you falsified dozens of historical maps describing Arbian/Elqateef/Basrah Gulf and supressing all other resourses citing Arabian/Elqateef/Basrah Gulf besides Persian.. Did we supressed any saying of it is also called "Persian Gulf"? now u want to mislead us by intentional misinterpreting of Pliny's historical book that saying apparently Arabian Gulf (u even refuse the idea that it "could be" a synonym for Persian Gulf!). Please stop your intentional misinterpreting and continous falsifying ancinet works as it is not good for solving this dispute here. One more thing, double standards is not working in WP. If u refuse a Roman book by claiming "Author has no satellite map at that time" then it is not good for you to cite it again just partially when it says your POV.. even not to keep citing artless works like "Dr. Cyrus X" or propagandise website set by Iranians bigots want to oscillate the dispute but not to solve it! Classic books and maps are classic becuase they don't have satellites then if u don't like it coz it is not showing ur POV, don't falsify it as u always do with ancient works!!.. and let's throw away all the maps & Geography books before "Satellite Era"..File:Smiley-Dancing.gif Best Regards.. Ralhazzaa

I think you need to stop labeling and read Pliny instead of putting words in his mouth. He is very very clear. The one which lies to east is called PERSIAN GULF, and is two thousand five hundred miles in circumference, according to Erasthenes. Opposite to it lies Arabia, the length of which is fifteen hundred miles. On the other side again, Arabia is bounded by Arabian Gulf'. . I do not think it can be cleaer than that. Read it again until you digest. And no they are not the same to Pliny since he clearly distinguishes them even from your own link and that is why he has a Chapter on Persian Gulf and Arabian Gulf clearly meaning they are different. I do not think Pliny can get clearer than this[87]. Note it is not synonmous when he is using it if you look at it clearly. As per Charax, there is Charax island in Greece [88]. Note again he has a chapter in the same link you gave:The Persian and the Arabian Gulfs and by the quote I brought it is clear Arabian Gulf is not the Persian Gulf. Your quote is unclear but Pliny is clear:The one which lies to east is called PERSIAN GULF, and is two thousand five hundred miles in circumference, according to Erasthenes. Opposite to it lies Arabia, the length of which is fifteen hundred miles. On the other side again, Arabia is bounded by Arabian Gulf. It doesn't get clearer than this. --alidoostzadeh 00:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

it looks a monologue, not dialogue! Why should I talk to myself too much?!... Anyway, dozens of ancient maps, references, documents and encyclopedias are indicating other naming for this sea. One of the UN's official languages, 300 million Arabic speaking people, a huge number of organizations & institutions & companies using a term other than the one mentioned "solely" for this sea. These names are: Arabian Gulf, Elqateef Gulf, Basrah Gulf besides "Persian Gulf" in many languages (Arabic, English, French, Latine, Turkish,...) has been used since cenutries. These are enough to solve this dispute and get rid off all political POVs making all this mess in the article. Useless discussions intend to rediscover America now is wasting of time. Facts can't be supressed by radical bigot mind of any side. WP admins monitoring this talk should close this mess of talk as it is going more to be like trolling sometimes lack sufficient level of Talk Standards. I am not going to continue this monologue all over my life here.. this dispute should be finished by indicating all POVs and available references. Politicizing info here is not acceptable at all, from both sides. WP cites all significant info... so what about names used by ~half a billion people now and used over centuries? I need an answer from WP admins, with regrads. Ralhazzaa 08:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks like someone else responded to you. We are discussing English language here. The name Persian Gulf is the oldest name. Arabian Gulf is a product of the last 60 years. And such facts as you noticed can be suppressed by radical bigot minds (namely Nasser and Saddam). You can't find a single Arabic source that uses Arabian Gulf and the fact is classical Arabic sources have never mentioned Arabian Gulf. The only thing I can propose is that for the intro we can have the classical Arabic name, mentioning (classical Arabic: خلیج فارس and then modern Arabic in parts of the Arab World: خلیج عربی). We can not deny the historic facts of Araic sources. As per Pliny I think he was clear. All available references are there..I have brought 300+ classic references. And also a 30+ Arabic references. The name Arabian Gulf had no currency in Arabic countries until 50-60 years ago and the common name in the English speaking world is Persian. --alidoostzadeh 01:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Ralhazza - It's funny that when shown that your "facts" to be wrong, people speak in monologues. Anyway, yes: The Persian Gulf has been called the Elqateef Gulf and the Basrah Gulf but usually always with Persian Gulf in parenthesizes under it. The only time the name Arabian Gulf was used in historic maps instead of the Persian Gulf has been in maps with errors (as in from the website www.arabiangulfmaps.com). Maps these days have errors as did maps in the past! Clinging to errors on maps as truths when textual proof says otherwise isn't an argument. This is not some fantasy, as the texts which the maps are derived from actually point to his fact. Furthermore, the sources are not from some anti-Arab Iranian (as you'd like to think they are), but neutral non-Iranian scholars. Please refer to here: http://www.azargoshnasp.net/PersianGulf/PersianGulfresponsetositeA.htm for more information. Also, please read the page in full, along with the documented pdf files from secondary sources on the above mentioned website before you comment again.

Finally, let's not forget that it wasn't Iranians who started this debate, but the Arabic people in the 1960s. Why can't a Gulf be called the Persian Gulf and be shared amongst Arabic and Iranian peoples? Why is there a stealth attempt by Arabic people to change the name to the Arabian Gulf today, rather than going through official channels like the United Nations? Persians and Arabs have so much shared history and this kind of debate would lead to anti-Persian and anti-Arab sentiments in their respective countries. Iranians respect the names Gulf of Oman and Arabian Sea, so why can't Arabic people do the same for the Persian Gulf?

Neutrality tag

This is for WP admins regarding the Neutrality tag:

Neutrality tag has been used due to the fact that other POV of Arabs side has been always suppressed, that is: Arabic name for this sea in Arabic is Al Khaleej Al Arabi الخليج العربي but not Al Faresi. Other old names has been used in Arabic for this water body like: Khaleej Al Basra, Khaleej Elqateef, besides to Khaleej el Ajam (Persians). The recent and dominate name for it in Arabic language is the Arabian Gulf as it could be found in the UN records (in Arabic) besides to all Arabic records of organizations (working out of Iran) and governments of all Arab states, and used by ~300 million Arabic speakers. Naming dispute has been ascribed to Nasser (20th century) while dozens of ancient maps and references using other name for it (Arabian Gulf, Elqateef, Basra) has been clearly suppressed by some Iranian users here, which is clear bias for this page in info within. Thus, neutrality tag has been used. Hope discussion can reach a middle point sooner to show up all POVs and reach a NPOV using all refs from all sides. For WP admins, you can read POV of other side (that has been always suppressed here) in the previous talks and comments within this talk page. Ralhazzaa 10:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Arabian Gulf is a new nomeclature as has been shown by Western reference. We can say Old Arabic name (this is the oldest Arabic name): بحر فارس and new Arabic name: خلیج عربی. I have already brought a list of 300+ authors who have used Persian Gulf. There is no textual evidence for Arabian Gulf and few maps in the same book have Persian Gulf and use Persian Gulf in their text and their newer editions use Persian Gulf only. No ancientg Greek maps or reference uses Arabian Gulf as you were shown by Pliny who uses Persian Gulf for Persian Gulf and Arabian Gulf for the read. Couple (just three four authors) of european maps that have Arabian Gulf have Persian Gulf in the same book and use Persian Gulf in the text and their newer editions use Persian Gulf and there is no textual evidence for Arabian Gulf and you can't make OR.The Persian Gulf is the main name in the English language [89]> It has been used by Pliny while Arabian Gulf in ancient European maps refers to the red sea and not Persian Gulf. Also 300 million Arab speakers do not use the name you claim. I know for a fact that many Iraqis do not use it. And no your POV has not been suppressed anywhere specially in the talk page. As recognized by the United States Board on Geographic names, the name of the body of water that lies between Iran and the Arab states of the Gulf Cooperation Council is the Persian Gulf. For political reasons, Arabs often refer to it as the Arab or Arabian Gulf (The Persian Gulf at the Millennium: Essays in Politics, Economy, Security, and Religion edited by Gary G. Sick, Lawrence G. Potter, pg 8). The Arab-Iranian nomenclatural controversy over the Gulf, which was so bitter in the late 50s and early 60s, was a by-product of the late President Nasser of Egypt's brand of Arab nationalism ... 'Arabian Gulf' is in fact a recent Arab appellation for that body of water...( Eilts, Hermann F. "Security Considerations in the Persian Gulf." International Security :Vol. 5, No. 2. (Autumn, 1980), pp. 79-113. ) --alidoostzadeh 11:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)