Talk:Persian Gulf

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is not a forum for general discussion of Persian Gulf. Any such messages will be deleted or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Persian Gulf at the Reference desk, discuss relevant Wikipedia policy at the Village pump, or ask for help at the Help desk.

This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please discuss substantial changes here before making them, making sure to supply full citations when adding information, and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.

Discussions on this page may escalate into heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here. See also: Wikipedia:Etiquette.

Persian Gulf received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived.  It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Version 0.5      (Rated Start-Class)
	This Geography article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. It has been rated Start-Class on the assessment scale (comments).

This article is within the scope of multiple WikiProjects. Click [show] for further details.

WikiProject Iran (Rated C-Class, High-importance) IranWikipedia:WikiProject IranTemplate:WikiProject IranIran articles Iran portal v • d • e This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iran, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Iran on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.  C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale. This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked Accessibility: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: | b1 <!--Referencing & citations--> = <yes/no> | b2 <!--Coverage and accuracy --> = <yes/no> | b3 <!--Structure --> = <yes/no> | b4 <!--Grammar and style --> = <yes/no> | b5 <!--Supporting materials --> = <yes/no> | b6 <!--Accessible --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion.  High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Arab world (Rated B-Class) Arab worldWikipedia:WikiProject Arab worldTemplate:WikiProject Arab worldArab world articles v • d • e This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arab world, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Arab World on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.  B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. WikiProject Iraq (Rated B-Class) IraqWikipedia:WikiProject IraqTemplate:WikiProject IraqIraq articles Iraq portal v • d • e Persian Gulf is part of the WikiProject Iraq, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Iraq on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.  B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.  ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Saudi Arabia (Rated B-Class, Mid-importance) Saudi ArabiaWikipedia:WikiProject Saudi ArabiaTemplate:SaudiSaudi Arabia articles Saudi Arabia portal v • d • e This article is within the scope of WikiProject Saudi Arabia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Saudi Arabia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.  B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.  Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Geography   GeographyWikipedia:WikiProject GeographyTemplate:WikiProject Geographygeography articles Geography portal v • d • e This article is within the scope of WikiProject Geography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of geography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.  ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.  ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Geography To-do list: Here are some tasks you can do: Requests: To help assess the quality and importance of geography articles, please see: Category:Unassessed geography articles and Category:Unknown-importance geography articles. Cleanup: Geography Philosophy of Geography History of geography Holarctic Geostatistics Kriging Geographic Information Systems Urbanism Wikipedia:Requested pictures/Places Valley Expand: TOP PRIORITY: Lists of basic country topics (one for each country) - these are general reference companions to the main articles on each country. Are your favorite countries covered yet? The lists completed enough to be transferred to article space can be found at Portal:Contents/Lists of basic topics#Geography and places. List of geography topics (replace redirect with an article index, see List of psychology topics as an example) List of geographers Stubs: Needs categorization and article improvement Tied-island Cycle of erosion Outer Continental Shelf Other: Needed articles Geographical feature Glossary of geography terms List of map-changing events by date Regions of North America (See Regions of Africa) Regions of South America Regions of Oceania Demographics of Asia (See Demographics of Africa) Demographics of Oceania

Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

[edit] Just so we are all on the same page

It is the consensus of a great deal of discussion and mediation that the term Arabian Gulf is in fact to be included in the Lead, as it is explained in the body of the article. This consensus will be upheld, which is to say that any edit removing it will be immediately reverted.
If you are unsure as to where to view the inclusion discussion, please ask.
- Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:56, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] name dispute

I think include the correct spelling in arabic language and the name in persian language 2 is better idea or else remove both of them . --Prof.Sherif (talk) 14:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Is that what the slow-motion revert war is all about? As a non-speaker, I need some input as to what exactly is occurring. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

there is no reason to remove the Arabic name of this gulf from here, it`s only an info to be added here, otherwise u feel very sensitive against (الخليج العربي Arabic Gulf).. Muhends (talk) 16:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I am thinking that a lot of folk tend to keep substituting a different spelling, so it should be discussed here. As you keep adding - in Arabic - the words Arabic Gulf, you are essentially undermining the legitimate name of the article. If you wish to protest that naming, there are many ways to do it. Changing the foreign spelling is not among them. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] introduction

This article is about the Persian Gulf and not the naming dispute. Hence the introduction should be free of all fake names (that is the sentence "Historically and ....recognized internationally.) Moreover there is a section on naming dispute. Therefore after waiting a bit I will remove that sentence from the introduction. --Xashaiar (talk) 17:05, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I think you are looking at this in the wrong way, Xashaiar. Part of the article is about the naming dispute, and since the Lede is an overview of the article as well as an introduction to the article, its appropriate to include it. I'd also point out that the Lede is the result of a very, very hard-fought consensus arising out of mediation. There are going to have to be extraordinarily compelling reasons to change it. Your edit, which simply added the historical (and not currently existing) name wasn't acceptable. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:37, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

2. I am not the person you are talking about. If you click on the link you have posted and alternatively called "Your edit" and see the right hand side of that edit-diff-page and read the user name of the person who has had the edit you are talking about, you see in clear Latin alphabet that the user is not Xashaiar. 1. You look at the things from a not even wrong way and not me!--Xashaiar (talk) 17:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Whoopsie, you are right, that isn't your edit. I've stricken through it, but the remainder of the post is spot on, and addresses your concerns. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell})

[edit] Added material rewritten

Some material seems to be added that I think doesn't really meet our criteria for inclusion. Drawn mostly from this reverted edit, the following info is brought here for discussion, and to seek a consensus prior to inclusion:

• Subsection change: "Colonial era" to "Post-Islamic era" - as the area is still predominantly populated by those who practice Islam, it isn't really post-Islam. The section does discuss and detail the colonial period of the area by the Portuguese until they were expelled. Additionally, I am somewhat concerned over the tone of the reference, which seems less interested in addressing historical points and more in re-writing it. As such, I am not sure that the source is ideal for use as a neutral one. I will address the topic in the Reliable Sources noticeboard.

• Removal of the SeeAlso: "see also|British Residency of the Persian Gulf" - I am not going to point out that there is a tendency for 'Iranification' in this and other articles, but we need to remember to maintain neutrality. The Persian Gulf does not - and has not ever been - the sole property of the modern state of Iran.

• The excessive wikification of the word "Persian" - As per WP:MOS, we link things once.

• The state of tourism and trade in the region, namesly the bits about the high profile of the UK in the region. As the edit repairing the article asked that cited material not be removed, I am at a loss to understand why the info was removed.

Towards this end, I am offering a rewrite, as presented by this edit, that melds both edit and reverted edits, so as to incorporate the best of both, and eliminate the crap that doesn't need to be there. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:29, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

A) Then how there is Pre-Islamic? Post-Islam means after the flourish of Islam to that area.

B) It has been already linked in between the text, and there is no need of {{see also|X}} in the middle of the sub-section.

C) When Darius the Great (c. 549 BC – October 486 BC) says: "I am a Persian; setting out from Persia, ...", how can I remove Persian from his wording?

D)That is for 2006 and should not be included to history section, as the proportion of material in relation to article should be balanced as per the wiki rules.

-Thank you --Wayiran (talk) 14:34, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

No, thank you for coming here to discuss the issues, Wayiran. :)

Addressing your first point, adding 'Post' to a term usually means after something is "after, later or subsequent to"^[1]; as Iran is still an Islamic country, 'post' is inaccurate. The subsection was called the colonial period, which accurately describes the period where Iran was under the sway of another nation-state. Perhaps you are reflecting some of the moral umbrage that post-colonial folk sometimes get.

As for the placement of the seealso, I don't see the previous linking that you refer to. I do agree that it shouldn't be in the middle of the text but instead at the top of the subsection.

This is a deeper issue, and I think that a separate section might become necessary, but my initial take is that because this is an article on the Persian Gulf, and not Darius, we should limit the introduction of history of the latter into the former. I understand that there is shared history (like a Euler or Venn diagram), but I think that limiting the amount of overlap will help to keep the article from getting muddy and bloated.

2006 is still part of the region's history, though I can understand your point. I think an additional subsection, 'Recent history', might be a useful way to discuss more recent (say, within the past 10-20 years) events.

Thoughts? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Arcayne, you have no right to mass-revert another user's dozens of edits, which includes several improvements such as spelling and grammar. If you are disputing issues relating to the content, then fix those issues in question, don't make sweeping reverts.--Kurdo777 (talk) 00:10, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Arcayne's edit was quite correct in this case. The previous edit had major problems and it should have been reverted (if you think some spelling modifications are needed, you can do that as a minor edit). Don't mixed them with controversial edits based on crappy sources like www.persiangulfonline.org. Alefbe (talk) 01:12, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

No, it wasn't "quite correct", neither was your edit. I removed the line in question about the Assyrian king, if there are other questionable parts in his edits, correct them, you have no right to make sweeping reverts, undoing other editors' hard work. --Kurdo777 (talk) 04:19, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Respectfully, you are mistaken, Kurdo. Perhaps you might find it beneficial to read the reasoning behind the collective removal - "mass" removal suggests a malicious intent which I can assure was not there - of items that were either not supported by citation, were off-topic, or seemed inappropriate for the article. If you wish, please feel free to address the points above. If you need me to, I would be happy to reiterate them again.

I can understand the knee-jerk reaction to remove anything immediately that disagrees with your point of view, but this is the main reason why we have discussion pages; via discussion, we find the things we have in common, and by noting those commonalities do we find ourselves more receptive to cooperation, compromise and (lasting) consensus. Revert-warring doesn't cement your view (not that I am assuming good faith and not suggesting pov) into place in the article; if it is not a consensus view, the edit will not remain. The only - I repeat, only - view that outweighs consensus is where such conflicts with policy. Seek to create a consensus by expressing your views and addressing (politely) arguments against those views. Sometimes you will win, and often you will lose - just like everyone else in Wikipedia. The key is to be gracious in losing.

So, seek a consensus for material that was boldly added, then removed. The time to discuss is now, as per WP:BRD. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:08, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Image

Can we add this

Arabian Gulf street in kuwait city

KashGire (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:22, 10 April 2009 (UTC).

Not sure we can, as it is only named for the Persian Gulf, and isn't the Persian Gulf (any more than King Cyrus Pizza Palace or the Che Guevarra Monkey Farm and Petting Zoo are indicative of their namesakes). - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 12:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Well let me tell you something, Persians DO NOT call it persian gulf they call it Gulf of Persia (خليج فارس) and in Arab states we use Arabian Gulf In schools and banners from kuwait to the Kingdom of Morocco even Sudan call it arabian gulf so why not we mention in the article how ppl call this gulf and show them the full face of the issue... and for your information Turks ruled the Region for

5 centuries and they call it Gulf OF Basra and there is for sure other names in Arabian history but Less well known, so the image may show how we call our gulf, Regards --KashGire (talk) 14:58, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

But that's just it; it isn't you're gulf, my friend. It is called the Persian Gulf by the wider group at large, and that is who we write for. I am not saying that we denigrate the usage of "Gulf of Persia" any more than we denigrate the usage of the term, "the Arabian Gulf" or simply "the Gulf"; we simply note those terms used by the widest groups of people. If folk in Iran call it the Gulf of Persia, bully for them. But they are not a statistically large enough group of people to warrant calling it such within the article. I guess, i am not sure what you are arguing about....care to elucidate? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:05, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Let's put the picture why not..? and about persins Yes they use only the term of "Gulf of Persia" from very old time but we didnt use this name ever the funny thing is the persian do not have persian name for the word of "Gulf" they use the arbic word (khaleej).. in fact 20% at least of persian language are arabic or from arabic they forgot their old language..any way I want to add the image and there is no need for Touchiness about Arabian Gulf term that how some ppl (Arabs) call it, and we will put it in the name dispute Section.. thanks --KashGire (talk) 22:03, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

You have already got your answer. But 1. consider reading more, for example WP:FORUM. 2. 90% of Arabic language (1% for what quran offers) is the work of Persians (see pages Ebn Mughafa, Sibawayh). So non need to advertise a language to people who themselves developed it. 3. You say "we didnt use this name". This is wrong as the article does mention what "you used to call that body of water before the famous defeat. --Xashaiar (talk) 23:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Persian word for "Khalij" is Shaakhaabeh (already mentioned in dictionaries 400 years ago). Arabs as far as I know use the word Bandar for port, and Arabs of Iraq use a lot of Persian words as well. There is no reason for the image as this is not a WP:forum. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 01:03, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

If this picture is included, it could be a good idea to contrast it with a shot of a sign of the "Forever Persian Gulf Street" which runs from Khomeini airport into Tehran. Quite possible that the one has even been named in direct reaction to the other.--84.190.36.246 (talk) 09:58, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Excelllent idea. Clearly one of the key points in this article is that there is indeed a lively dispute over the name(s). Clearly several of these names are used in different fora by different groups, to greater or lesser annoyance of others, and equally clearly such varied usage has strong cultural and political-strrategic drivers. I can't think of a better illustration of all that than to post both this picture and the one of the Tehran street sign, if someone has it!ProfTirak (talk) 16:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

This article is about Persian Gulf the waterway, not highways in Tehran or Kuwait. Such images would be clear violations of WP:NOTSOAPBOX, and WP:Undue. --Sina111 (talk) 17:41, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Sina; such arguments belong elsewhere, not here in this article. Now, does anyone actually have information about fauna and flora of the PG, or does everyone want to argue about who built the Gulf? Keep focused, people. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitrary break

Now the argument is that the image's provenance isn't solid. This problem should be taken to the RS noticeboard; more experienced heads need to look at this claim. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:21, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Should I post there, or does someone else want to do it? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Persian gulf not Arabian gulf

I'm a Arab and live in an Arabian country. Unfortunately in my country(Saudi Arabia) said it Arabian Gulf.Please delete Arabian gulf in Arabic Wikipedia and Write Persian gulf.I'm apology to Persian(Iranian) for it.This is thorough to PERSIAN GULF. --A.H.A.T.T.S.B (talk) 16:17, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Two phrases

I have argued with Kurdo777 about two phrases in the article:

1. "referred to as the Arabian Gulf by certain Arab countries" What are these certain Arab countries?
2. "some Arab states of the region started adopting the term "Arabian Gulf"" What are these Arab states (again)? and which region does it refer to? Is it gulf region, middle east region or Arab region?

When I substituted most for certain and some and cited a reference, I found my edits undone. Naming of this body of water is Arabian gulf by the fact in most Arab states. The way these sentences written doesn't agree with Wikipedia style guidelines. Egyptian lion (talk) 02:07, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

First of all, a lead is suppose to be a summery of the article, not a place for references and in-line tags. Secondly, the current version of the lead is based on a long-standing WP:consensus, that if we were to change, would open a can of worms. Lastly, to say "most" do X or Y is not encyclopedic language, and usually considered subjective and POVish. So in these situations, usually the more vague and encyclopedic terms like "some" or "certain" are used, as it is impossible to prove or disprove such assertions one way or another. For example, we know for a fact that many factions in Lebanon, Iraq, or Libya use the term Persian Gulf , and many more people in other Arab countries use Gulf. According to Wikipedia policy, "exceptional claims require exceptional sources", so in order to define and prove "most" do, we would need several academic sources, or we would have to violate WP:OR, which is why we should stick to the current wording ("certain"), which is not definitive, and in line with WP:NPOV, and most importunately, it is the long-standing WP:consensus, and the result of a long mediation. --Kurdo777 (talk) 03:31, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I think we need a neutral third party because actually consensus can change:

Consensus is not immutable. Past decisions are open to challenge and are not binding, and one must realize that such changes are often reasonable. Thus, "according to consensus" and "violates consensus" are not valid rationales for making or reverting an edit, or for accepting or rejecting other forms of proposal or action.

I just want to say that I talk about states not factions. The Arab league members are 22 states and all of them use the name Arabian gulf. The article itself mention the word states not "factions". It is easy to prove use of such name without violating the WP:OR because original researches are not needed to prove that. The article itself cites newspaper references which are not ORs, one of them state that "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."" Why the consensus builders chose what is for their wishes and ignored what is against? I don't call for changing the article title, but denying facts won't vanish them. Using terms like "certain" and "some" give impression that the use in the Arab states is limited, while it's used in all Arab TV stations, books, magazines and all national and educational publications in addition it's used in the publications of the Arabic section of United nations. Besides some phrases like (Some states in the region) can't be encyclopedic because the region isn't defined. Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia and no person or group must act as if they own articles. Egyptian lion (talk) 21:43, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

You are wrong. I am sorry but you do not speak for Arabs. Neither the term Arabian Gulf is " used in all Arab TV stations, books, magazines..." as you falsely claim, nor have the 22 Arab states adopted a policy or resolution on the issue. As a matter of fact, many statesman from those "22 Arab states" use Persian Gulf (Iraqi president, several Iraqi and Lebanese minsters) , and Persian Gulf in Arabic generates 1.5 million results on google [2]. So as I already explained to you, adjectives like "all" or "most" are a unencyclopedic and only a reflection of your own point of view. --Kurdo777 (talk) 03:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

First Google results are Arabian gulf (Arabic: الخليج العربي). In addition, the majority of other result are newspaper articles which are critical of the use of the name or cite news about Iranian comments or acts which promote Persian gulf name. It is easy to check by clicking on [ Translate this page ] beside each result. Egyptian lion (talk) 06:30, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Some are, some are not. Don't tell me that you that you actually checked the content of every one of the 1,510,000 google results, and did a head count. This is the problem with your line of reasoning, you just throw sweeping terms like "majority", "all", "most" out there, without much concern for factual accuracy. --Kurdo777 (talk) 10:12, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

1.5 million results are too many to check with google translator. But I am sure 1.5 million of them are not all related to Iran. Furthermore, as Bosworth said: " (Bosworth, C. Edmund. "The Nomenclature of the Persian Gulf." Pages xvii-xxxvi in Alvin J. Cottrell (ed.), The Persian Gulf States: A General Survey. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1980.) (pg xxxiii).. Excerpt: Not until the early 1960s does a major new development occur with the adoption by the Arab states bordering on the Gulf of the expression al-Khalij al-Arabi as weapon in the psychological war with Iran for political influence in the Gulf; but the story of these events belongs to a subsequent chapter on modern political and diplomatic history of the Gulf.". So you can't put a ^[which?] for that. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 10:05, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

As per examples: For instance, in the Atlas "Alaragh fi Alkhawaret Alghadimeh" by Dr. Ahmad Souseh (Baghdad 1959) including 40 maps among the Arabian sources of the Middle Ages. In the maps presented by Arabian countries to the International Court of the Judiciary for settlements of border claims, the name of PERSIAN GULF has been mentioned. In Atlas of Alkuwait fi Alkharaet Alalam" some maps have been used where there exists the name of PERSIAN GULF. In Atlas of "Alkuwait Ghara fi Alkharaet Altarikhieh" published by the efforts of Abdollah Yousef Alghanim in 1994, there are about 200 maps mentioning the name of PERSIAN GULF. The book: "Osoul Alkuwait Almanshour Alalam" (1991) published in the Netherlands also contains 15 maps where the name of PERSIAN GULF exists. In the book: "Alkhalij alfars Abar Altarikh va Alghoroun" (written by Mohammad Mirza, 1976 Cairo) there are 52 maps drawn out of Arabic sources, mentioning the name of PERSIAN GULF. In Atlas of "History of Islam" (1951-55 America and Egypt) the name Persian Gulf has been mentioned 16 times. In Atlas of "Khalij (Gulf) in the Historical Maps" (1999) excluding three maps which were drawn after 15th century, seem to be included beside the other maps (all of which mention the name of PERSIAN GULF) upon persistence of the honorable person collecting them, where the name has been forged as: Arabic Gulf. In next maps, the same cartographers have corrected the name to Persian Gulf. The Arabic Bank and Beyt Alquran in Bahrain published a large wall calendar in 1996 containing the historical map of Bahrain in which all the maps contain the name of PERSIAN GULF. So these are sufficient examples of Arab countries or institutions using the correct name. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 10:13, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I think you didn't read the discussion from the beginning Nepaheshgar, I don't call for article title change or discuss what the body of water should be called. Roll up and read my point. Egyptian lion (talk) 14:25, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't change to something odd or new. If you read the referenced lead of this article you will find that my edits weren't to be reverted. In addition, this source supports my reverted edits but it is used to support only a particular point and ignore the apposite. Wikipedia has rules and policies that we all should stick to in order to maintain and improve its creditability. Denying facts won't vanish them. And remember:

1. Assume good faith.
2. Wikipedia contributors are editors, not authors, and no one, no matter how skilled has the right to act as if they are the owner of a particular article.
3. Be neutral.

Egyptian lion (talk) 19:12, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

You can always ask for a third opinion or start a request for comment. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:03, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I asked for a third opinion you can find my request in the active disagreements section. Egyptian lion (talk) 19:45, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• Hello, one of those third opinions here. Looking at this argument, I can see a few things. It looks like the dispute is about what to call the Gulf in question. I would say that "Persian Gulf" is the most common name in English speaking regions, and it's the one that should be used in the opening and elsewhere. It would be wise, in my mind, to have a section discussing other common names, such as "Gulf of Persia", "Arabian Gulf", et cetera. Irbisgreif (talk) 21:10, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello Irbisgreif, actually I have been thinking about the same new section to discuss the other names and the claims behind every name. But actually the discussion that I requested a third opinion for isn't about what should this article be named. It's about my reverted edits that I tried to use more precise and factual words which didn't please the wishes of some parties. I want to ask if I can, as a Wikipedia user, to contribute here and provide referenced facts or there are certain articles which are exclusively edited by privileged editors? Perhaps that is the question about this dispute. --Egyptian Lion ^✉\_✐ 21:36, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

(I relisted the dispute.) — Athaenara ✉ 23:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I de-listed it (as Irbisgreif previously did after offering a 3rd opinion) because (as Unschool pointed out) there are more than two editors involved in this dispute. However, if only two are involved, clarify it here (was "disagreement about tone and style" an adequate description?) and feel free to list it again; otherwise WP:RFC may be the way to go. — Athaenara ✉ 04:12, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

The following message was posted on my talk page (diff); I'm forwarding it here to reply:

"Hello, actually the dispute is between two parties only: me and Kurdo777. Nepaheshgar isn't a part of the dispute. He thought, just like Irbisgreif, it is about naming. This user reverted my referenced edits about two vague phrases in the article which I wanted to word them in a more realistic way (according to the reference). Because I know that this issue is highly sensitive I didn't want to involve in an edit war. Did I make the right thing? I hope that you have read the discussion between me and him from the beginning to understand the dispute. Thank you --Egyptian Lion ^✉\_✐ 06:37, 28 August 2009 (UTC)"

I think it's fair to simply relist the dispute. Perhaps something like "Disagreement about whether or not this edit was against article consensus and should have been reverted as such" would be an adequate description for WP:3O's purposes. — Athaenara ✉ 08:52, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I relisted the dispute. --Egyptian Lion ^✉\_✐ 20:17, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Having a look for third opinion, I agree with Egyptian lions edit here [[3]] It is a good edit, in that it slightly better clarifies the situation and adds a citation to support the comment, a good edit. Off2riorob (talk) 15:26, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I also think that the comment is of little value to the lede and could be removed altogether, this this body of water is sometimes controversially referred to as the Arabian Gulf by certain Arab countries or simply The Gulf, although neither of the latter two terms is recognized internationally. could be removed altogether from the lede and the article would not suffer at all. Off2riorob (talk) 15:30, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I spent sometimes to read some discussions through the edit history of the article. It appears to me that the current lead is the result of consensus after many hot discussions and meditations. Therefore, we should not touch the wording and style of the current lead because this fragile stabilized lead is the result of all old discussions and mediations of different involved parties in this article.--Where is my vote? (talk) 16:52, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

This user changed the request wording. --Egyptian Lion ^✉\_✐ 18:01, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

That is out of order, the question was framed in an ok neutral way. I suggest you revert it back and leave him a friendly note requesting him to leave it alone. Off2riorob (talk) 18:07, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted his alteration to your question and left him a note on his talkpage. Off2riorob (talk) 18:23, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Previous consensus is irrelevant in this situation. This edit by Egyptian Lion is not contentious at all, it clarifies the statement and adds a citation to support it. Off2riorob (talk) 18:28, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Naming Dispute

There is a strong bias in the naming dispute section. There is way too much information (that is already in the dispute's own article). It also does not mentions that there are several other names for the (insert whatever name here) Gulf, such as The Basra Gulf (in Turkey). It also makes several unbased claims, such that "the name "Persian Gulf" was confirmed again as the legitimate and official term to be used by members of the United Nations", when the source itself explicitly says that the UN does no such thing, and only makes recommendation on the internal use of geographical names in the UN. There is no such thing as an internationally recognized name (in Portuguese and other Latin languages it would be "Persic Gulf") since any country can call any geographical feature in any way they like (the UN document also makes it explicit). There are no "global official names" for geographical features, and the section has a very strong POV in the sense that Persian Gulf is the CORRECT name, when no such thing exists as a correct name, only a "more commonly used" name. To sum it up:

• There is no such thing as a single global correct name for a geographical feature
• There is no such thing as a internationally recognized name for a geographical feature
• UN resolutions, definitions, etc. on names for a geographical feature are only valid as a reference for internal UN usage (the same for any country or organization)
• Any country if free to call any geographical feature as they wish

Also, there is a serious problem with the references, several of them are not resolutions by the UN, but documents submitted to it (such as [[4]], which is cited as 4 different documents), which hold no value as a reliable source. I know it is a sensitive issue, but the section is in desperate need of a NPOV rewrite. What do you thing? Uirauna (talk) 16:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

What is wrong with that link, a united nations group of experts on geographical names? It looks fine to me, and I would disagree that the "article is in desperate need of a NPOV rewrite. Off2riorob (talk) 16:53, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

What is so desperatly pov about it? Off2riorob (talk) 16:54, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

As I said: "several of them are not resolutions by the UN, but documents submitted to it". The source, claiming to support:

"At the Twenty-third session of the United Nations in March-April 2006, the name "Persian Gulf" was confirmed again as the legitimate and official term to be used by members of the United Nations"

and several other claims, is actually a working document submitted to the UNGEGN, and IS NOT a document FROM the UGEGN. If I submit a document to the UNGEGN it is not a valid source, unless I AM MYSELF and expert. So the article makes unbased claims.

About the POV, the section (as well as the introduction) clearly shows the "Persian Gulf" as being the "correct name" and Arabian Gulf as being the "wrong name", when there is NO SUCH THING as correct or incorrect name for a geographical feature. Just like Bodensee is also called Lake Constance. If you actually look at the results from the UNGEGN meeting ([[5]]), it says:

"An expert from the Asia South-West Division (other than Arabic) summarized working paper No. 61, which outlined the history of the name Persian Gulf. The Convenor recognized the careful historical content of the paper and noted that countries could not be prohibited from using or creating exonyms."

Do you understand now? Thank you. Uirauna (talk) 18:11, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Not really, is is some kind of nationalistic point of view? We already have Persian_Gulf_naming_dispute so it looks well covered to me. Off2riorob (talk) 12:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, let me put it simpler: 1st. The section makes unbased and false claims (international recognition, UN saying what is the correct name, etc.). 2nd. It shows one name as being correct and the other one as being wrong, when there is no such thing as a correct or wrong name. Do you agree with me? And please don't assume I am nationalistic or anything, I have nothing to do with the (insert whatever name here) Gulf, I do find it ridiculous to call it "Arabian Gulf" but THOSE COUNTRIES HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO DO SO, even if it is (IMO) ridiculous. Do you agree with the two points I described above, or should I ask for a third opinion? Thank you. Uirauna (talk) 13:28, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

You don't need to make it simpler, thank you anyhow. As I see what they said, is that it is historically P gulf but , hey, locally you can call it what you like. It is a matter of nationalistic points of view, if you want to discuss it with me could you show mw the specific change that you want to make? Reading the section and looking at the citations, it is very very well cited. Off2riorob (talk) 13:58, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

These are the changes:

1. Keep that section as a subsection of the Etymology (since that´s where the name is discussed)
2. Remove all the geographers and history of the name (since that is already covered in the etimology section), that add nothing to the article
3. Remove the "and is not recognized by the United Nations", the sources only show that the UN uses Persian Gulf, not that the UN DOES NOT RECOGNIZES Arabian Gulf (the two are completely different things)
4. Remove the "internationally recognized" in the beginning of the article, since there is no such thing as and internationally recognized name for a geographical feature
5. Remove the "At the Twenty-third session of the United Nations in March-April 2006, the name "Persian Gulf" was confirmed again as the legitimate and official term to be used by members of the United Nations" since it is a false claim (explanation above)
6. Remove the "The United Nations Secretariat on many occasions has requested that only "Persian Gulf" be used as the official and standard geographical designation for the body of water" since the UN actually requests that the term be used as the STANDARD name for the body of water in INTERNAL UN USAGE, and makes no mention to "official"

What do you think? If you disagree with any of the points above please explain why. Thank you.Uirauna (talk) 21:51, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I think as there are some major changes/removals here that it would be best if you asked for a third opinion in the geography section. I will look at somes of the points later as I am a bit busy today, thanks for detailing your points so clearly. Off2riorob (talk) 12:18, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

When I saw the title I got happy because one of the biggest documents in the world is addressing the correct name, but got surprised why other names mentioned too, which are being used by the Arabian countries as they got powers financilly and politically. Just I soggest you if you want to make your wikipedia as a reference encyclopedia, you must use the exact and real name of the places. The real name of that gulf is " Persian Gulf". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.76.152.185 (talk) 09:03, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Organizations and affiliated foundations have applied the correct name of PERSIAN GULF since they have been incorporated, excluding one case, which corrected it through Note No. 5 AD311/1GEN dated March 5, 1971. In confirmation and response to the correspondence of the government of Iran for application of the complete name of PERSIAN GULF in the publications and deeds of United Nations and affiliated organizations, 14 notes and correspondences can be mentioned containing the aforementioned note of Secretariat of United Nations, containing the amendment of Deed IPPD14/UNIDB. From among the other instructions of United Nations, the following samples can be named:

• Note No. LA45.82 dated Aug. 10, 1984 (New York)
• Circular No. CAB/1/87/63 dated 16.02.1987 of Managing Director of UNESCO.
• ST/CSSER/29 dated Jan. 10, 1990.
• AD/311/1/GEN dated March 5, 1991.
• ST/CS/SER.A/29/Add.1 dated Jan. 24, 1992.
• ST/CS/SER.A/29/Add.2 dated Aug. 18, 1994.
• ST/CS/SER.A/29/Rev.1 dated May 14, 1999.

In all the above mentioned notes and circulars, it has been requested that the water body existing at the south side of Iran be stated: PERSIAN GULF. The Specialized Group for Experts on Standardization of Geographical Names, active in the United Nations Social Economical Council also emphasizes the correct use of historical names for features, and is active in dispute settlement related to geographical names. "Naphtali Cadman" the head of Work Group for Toponymy Information has stated that the motivation to change the name of PERSIAN GULF is purely political.

Source: UNITED NATIONS GROUP OF EXPERTS ON GEOGRAPHICAL NAMES, Twenty-third Session, Vienna, 28 March – 4 April 2006, Historical, Geographical and Legal Validity of the Name: PERSIAN GULF. Link --Wayiran (talk) 21:09, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Look, as the UNITED NATIONS GROUP OF EXPERTS ON GEOGRAPHICAL NAMES has said:

"An expert from the Asia South-West Division (other than Arabic) summarized working paper No. 61, which outlined the history of the name Persian Gulf. The Convenor recognized the careful historical content of the paper and noted that countries could not be prohibited from using or creating exonyms."

So there is no right or wrong name for a geographical feature, any country can call it whatever they want. Uirauna (talk) 23:20, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Of course that we can't force the countries to use the correct name, but this inability, doesn't mean that there is no correct name for it. The united nations is not able to perform the human rights in Iran, but it doesn't mean that the human rights is not correct! Look, as the UNITED NATIONS GROUP OF EXPERTS ON GEOGRAPHICAL NAMES has said:

Organizations and affiliated foundations have applied the correct name of PERSIAN GULF since they have been incorporated, excluding one case, which corrected it through Note No. 5 AD311/1GEN dated March 5, 1971...

Under "Background for Application of Incorrect Words Instead of PERSIAN GULF" it says:

Moreover, following nationalization of the oil industry in Iran in 1950 and dispossession of English Companies and discontinuation of relations between Iran and England, the Ministry of English Colonies, for the first time used the incorrect name of this water body.

--Wayiran (talk) 07:27, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

There is a point you do not seem to understand: The reference document linked in the article IS NOT a deliberation by the UNGEGN, but A DOCUMENT SUBMITTED TO IT, thus having no value as the opinion of the UNGEGN. The parts you both quoted were SUBMITTED to the grou, and the one I quoted was the actual ANSWER from the group. Another point that some do not understand is that I do not care how any country call it, just that there is NO SUCH THING AS A CORRECT OR INCORRECT name. Please stop using the wrong source for your affirmations and read my first posts again. Thank you. Uirauna (talk) 14:59, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

It's called Persian Gulf by Iranians and the rest of the world. Deal with it. We don't care what Arabs or Turks (peoples/nomadic tribes who united together to form a nation after the PERSIAN CIVILIZATION) call it. Call it nationalism, bias, or whatever, it's a fact that the Persian Gulf is historically, geographically, politically, economically, culturally, and socially integral to Iran's identity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.80.105.24 (talk) 00:54, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Uirauna, I am afraid you are beating a dead horse here, this article used to be a magnet for vandals and POV pushers from both side, but it has been stable for over a year now, because there was a looooong mediation on this issue, and the current wording is the result/consensus/compromise that was born out of that mediation [6]. Besides the fact that the items you oppose to, are actually sourced, the changes you are porpoising would open a new can of worms, and would take the mediation out of the equation, and make this article unstable again with both sides going at it. I know you mean well, but for the sake of peace and stability of this article, let's let the sleeping dogs lie, and save yourself hundreds of hours of back-and-forth bickering, edit-waring, pointless discussions etc with the likes of the IP above. --Kurdo777 (talk) 15:54, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Kurdo77, I agree woth you on most of the arguments, but if you carefully read my arguments above, you will see that the article itself makes unbased and false claims (such as saying that there is such a thing as a internationally recognizable name for a geographical feature, also saying that the UNGEGN edorses one name over the other and says one name is correct and the other one incorrect) and if we leave it that way the article will simply be plain wrong. I am tired of reverting trolls from both sides as well, but we should aim for acuraccy, not 'peace'. My proposal is simply to remove the "internationally recognized" and move to a "arabian gulf is not widespreadly used, being persian gulf the mostly used name for this geographical feature". In the same way as "Arabian Gulf", the persian gulf is also called "Gulf of Basra" by the Turks, and the article does not seem to have a problem with it. The point is, there is no international board that recognizes geographical names, so, as the UNGEGN said, any country can call it whatever they want, without being wrong or right. I do not mean to cause a war here, that´s why I didn´t even edit the article and came straight to the talk page. Uirauna (talk) 17:59, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you that there are no right or wrong names, or correct and incorrect names. I don't think the article makes any such claims either, and if it does, it should be corrected. But recognition is a different story. The UN, for example, does indeed recognize Persian Gulf as the standard name, it gives no such recognition to the other names. It's the same story with the United States Board on Geographic names, and National Geographic Society. I am against saying "correct" name or using similar terminology, but "internationally recognized" should absolutely stay in, the other names simply do not have the same recolonization as the standard and widely-accepted/used name from any major international body, that's just a fact, and it can be sourced by many secondary sources like this. As for your six proposed changes, for the reasons already given, I am against #2, #3, #4, and #6. But I agree with you on #1 and #5, that part should be reworded or removed. --Kurdo777 (talk) 18:58, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, the US and UN do choose to use one name over the other, but only as means of internal standards as not to cause confusion by using two name for a single feature. It does not recognizes one name as right or wrong, only defines a standard. But for me changing topics #1 and 5# is a good enought of a start, and IMO those are the biggest issues. Could you please propose a rewrite, so there is no chance that someone will think I am simply pushing the issue withou consent and start a edit war? Thank you. Uirauna (talk) 20:15, 25 October 2009 (UTC)