Talk:Persian Gulf/Archive 6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

The lead

I have recently added material that is reliably sourced and neutral to the Persian Gulf article. Pejman.azadi and a few others have engaged in a tag team effort to undo my edits. I agree that the Persian Gulf is the correct name. However, it is a fact that some people (mostly Arabs) use Arabian Gulf. I have provided several very reliable sources for this. I do not sanction the usage of "Arabian Gulf." Yet, we must portray this fact. Indeed, the fact is portrayed in the article, but not in the lead. Per WP:LEAD, it must be presented in the lead as well. There was a pseudo compromise. The so-called "compromise" did not establish consensus. Please see WP:CONSENSUS. "When consensus is referred to in Wikipedia discussion, it always means 'within the framework of established policy and practice'. Even a majority of a limited group of editors will almost never outweigh community consensus on a wider scale, as documented within policies." The compromise was against Wikipedia guidelines, specifically WP:LEAD.--Agha Nader (talk) 20:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Agha Nader that the name Persian Gulf is correct. I also know that this lead was a cause of a lot of headaches some months back! I have reworded Agha Nader's lead in order to appease Pejman.Azadi and some others. It's just a rehash of what's written here - That Arabs call it the "Arabian Gulf". --Persan en Japon (talk) 10:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
It's funny that some Arabs, make Persian IDs on wikipedia, and try to suggest themselves as " rational Persians! " and proceed some of Arabian nationalistic, anti Persian thoughts. I think Persian civilization has been humane enough not to be mocked by these childish tricks. (talk) 21:25, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Were you referring to me? I'm Persian and this whole Arabian Gulf issue causes me a lot of anger as well. However, I realized that the best way to fight it is to accept that Arabs call it another name, but educate others as to why using the Arabic term is incorrect. This is a better way to protect the name Persian Gulf than hiding the fact that Arabs call it something else. --Persan en Japon (talk) 09:46, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
I added the word controversially in the lead as a way to find a common ground between the opposing sides. Let's be fair: Arabs call it the Arabian Gulf, so it should be mentioned. However, I think that the Arabic term is controversial because it was never approved by the United Nations or all the countries which border the Gulf. Furthermore, the term Arabian Gulf began to be used in modern times from the 1960s because of political reasons.
I definitely agree. The term Arabian Gulf, no matter how 'wrong', 'illegal', or repulsive to some editors, must be included in the lead. Please see WP:LEAD. The lead would be misleading if it just mentioned the Persian Gulf. This is because there is insurmountable evidence, by the most reliable of sources, that some people use the term Arabian Gulf.--Agha Nader (talk) 06:05, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Adding the sentence "Some refer to the gulf as the Arabian Gulf or simply as The Gulf",violates the WP:LEAD.
    "briefly describing its notable controversies" means according to "verifiability and other policies",one may mention new nationalistic Arabian name-changing policy in the lead by briefly referring to the "Naming dispute" section ,but the sentence "Some call it ..." is not showing controversy , and is weighting the pseudo-name near-equal the legitimate name in the important lead section. --Alborz Fallah (talk) 08:42, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
If the sentence "This body of water is sometimes controversially referred to as the Arabian Gulf by Arabs", is going to be inserted in the lead ,then the correct form should be something like this :"Although "Persian gulf" is the established international name , but sometimes controversially referred to as the Arabian Gulf by Arabs".--Alborz Fallah (talk) 08:54, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Indian Ocean: Can we at least get the geographical aspect of the lead corrected before we debate the proper lead? As I mentioned before, the Persian Gulf is referred to as an "arm" or "extension" of the Arabian Sea, not the Indian Ocean. Here are two examples from different encyclopedias: Encarta[1] and Columbia[2] encyclopedias. Can the person who locked this change this first? --Persan en Japon (talk) 09:46, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't think the " Arabian sea" or the "Indian Ocean" is the main topic of the debate.The real contravery is "how to mention the new naming policy of some Arabian goverments in the lead of this article".If you want to change the Indian Ocean , then do it! No one is against that!--Alborz Fallah (talk) 09:54, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
I cannot change it as it's locked! Can the person who locked it, fix that part? --Persan en Japon (talk) 11:27, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Alborz Fallah, I would not object to this "Although 'Persian Gulf' is the established international name , it is sometimes controversially referred to as the Arabian Gulf by Arabs".--Agha Nader (talk) 14:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Me neither: Shall we vote on it? --Persan en Japon (talk) 16:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
I said "If the sentence is going to be inserted in the lead, then it shall like ..." then if there is a vote, then first it maybe about the necessity of mentioning it in the lead, then about the how to mention it! Indeed when you write "a few others have engaged in a tag team effort to undo my edits", I was just defending my edit and not proposing a vote. --Alborz Fallah (talk) 08:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • As I explained to Agha Nader, naming issue is already discussed in detail within the article's body, it doesn't belong in the lead. Besides the fact that the name "Arabian Gulf" is not a common name in English, and therefore not covered by WP:lead of the English Wiipedia, placing the controversy in the lead, will only make the article unstable and volatile with both sides trying to add and remove their POVs to and from it. Trust me, it will be a never-ending source of edit-waring and hostility, it's simply not worth it. The current version had broad consensus of both sides and had made the article calm and stable since July, lets keep it that way for the sake of article. AlexanderPar (talk) 18:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Consensus can change. Plus, the old compromise was in violation of WP:CONSENSUS. This is because the compromise created a lead that was contrary to the guidelines set by WP:LEAD. For instance, WP:LEAD states "The lead should... briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any." I have provided sources that prove that some Arabs use the term Arabian Gulf. In addition, there are multitudes of sources that prove there is controversy over the alternate usage. Moreover, the controversy inherently manifested itself in the debates that were held before. Finally, I do not fear the "never-ending source of edit-waring and hostility" that will arise from having a legitimate article. We will not compromise the quality of the article because some editors are disruptive.--Agha Nader (talk) 18:46, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Basically, I agree with AlexanderPar. We are going over and over on the same issue which we got a comprimise at. Seems everything being said here has already been said many times (see old talks) and got similar answers, still some feel reviewing it helps, so here is my 2 cents. Yes, for all reasons Agha Nader say we should mention in the article that some people call it other names than Persian Gulf, we respect those poeple and with proper references we will mention that in the article (as already had been mentioned), feel free to enhance that part. However as said many times before and now by AlexanderPar, that doesn't need to go into the 'Lead'. Adding to AlexanderPar's point, it is also WP:Undue weight and bringing the naming dispute to the Lead is disruptive.Farmanesh (talk) 19:19, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
  • If I might add a comment, it would appear that while there is some agreement as to an alternate statement in the Lead which notes that the Persian Gulf is also referred to as the Arabian Gulf (mostly within SA), there appears to be some debate as to whether it belongs in the Lead. Is the naming discrepancy discussed within the body of the article? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes it is included in the body. --Agha Nader (talk) 00:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I also agree with AlexanderPar and Farmanesh. This issue was discussed extensively and agreed that the name translated from Arabic would not appear in the lead for the English version of the article. That name in English is a literal translation of the name created recently in Arabic which is not relevant in the English language and would be a case of WP:Undue weight. ObserverToSee (talk) 02:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
We are not going to exclude it from the lead just because it was agreed upon. According to WP:CONSENSUS, "When consensus is referred to in Wikipedia discussion, it always means 'within the framework of established policy and practice'. Even a majority of a limited group of editors will almost never outweigh community consensus on a wider scale, as documented within policies." Quite simply, your compromise was invalid. It was in violation of the WP:LEAD, and established guideline and practice of Wikipedia. By the way, there was absolutely no rational reason to exclude the words "Arabian Gulf" from the lead while including it in the body (except of course to attempt to hide it). --Agha Nader (talk) 00:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
and what is your answer to WP:Undue weight?Farmanesh (talk) 02:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Farmanesh jan, I am not trying to add 'Some people believe that correct name is Arabian Gulf.' That is a minority view. What I propose adding is something to the effect of "This body of water is sometimes controversially referred to as the Arabian Gulf by Arabs,[2][3] or simply as The Gulf.[4]" Virtually everybody agrees that it "is sometimes controversially referred to as the Arabian Gulf by Arabs." It most certainly is not the minority view that "is sometimes controversially referred to as the Arabian Gulf by Arabs." Therefore, WP:Undue weight does not apply (since it only refers to fringe views). --Agha Nader (talk) 03:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
To quote from WP:Undue weight: "Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.". I submit that what you're proposing does constitute a case of WP:Undue weight. As a very small demonstration of the point; there are 53 or so other language versions for the Persian Gulf article on WikiPedia. There are (almost) no references to the Arabic name in any of them except for the Arabic version. Out of the entire population of the planet, the Arabic name is used by a very small percentage. To give the Arabic name prominence in the lead of the English version of this article constitutes WP:Undue weight. Why should we do this? Because a very small minority uses the name in Arabic and strives to legitimize it in English? ObserverToSee (talk) 19:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I am happy that you have exposed your motives. You admitted that you trying to keep the Arabian Gulf from becoming legitimate in English. It is not our job to 'protect the true name.' Your evidence--if we can call it that-- of it being undue is extremely lousy. By the way, almost every person agrees that it "is sometimes controversially referred to as the Arabian Gulf by Arabs." That is a majority view, not a fringe view.--Agha Nader (talk) 22:32, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I have to admit, I did not expect this type of response from you. You are totally ignoring the fact that looking at the total population of the planet, it is a very small minority that uses the Arabic name for the Persian Gulf. Why are you ignoring that when determining if WP:Undue weight is applicable here? Regardless of what you think you've determined as my motive for involvement here, that does not change the facts. WikiPedia is here to promote truth and neutral point of view. As quoted above, giving prominence to a name promoted by a very small minority is WP:Undue weight. It doesn't matter if all of us agree that this small minority uses the Arabic name. The fact that the minority is very small is what makes the difference. Surely you can see that if your own motives are pure. ObserverToSee (talk) 23:02, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
It is not undue weight to say that it "is sometimes controversially referred to as the Arabian Gulf by Arabs." Even if only a tiny minority uses the name Arabian Gulf, it would not be undue weight to mention that they do. You see? We are not adding that some believe that the real, correct, 'true' name is Arabian Gulf. We are just saying that some Arabs call it the Arabian Gulf, and that is a fact held by the majority. --Agha Nader (talk) 23:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
By putting it in the lead, you would be providing a name used by a very small minority "prominence" which is where the WP:Undue weight comes in. No one, at this time is arguing that the name should not appear in the body where it is not as prominent, although a case can be made for that as well given the letter of WP:Undue weight. The lead as it currently stands provides for the necessary neutrality. ObserverToSee (talk) 00:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
WP:Undue weight does not apply. It only applies to contentious minority views. What I wish to add is a not a minority view. You seem to think that you can censor the 'false name' by excluding its utterance. --Agha Nader (talk) 00:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
The wisdom of WP:Undue weight is very apparent here. Regardless of how you choose to apply it, giving "prominence" to the name used by a very small minority in the lead, violates the neutrality. Indeed, if other sources for knowledge had such a wise policy or guideline in place, this would not be an issue anywhere. ObserverToSee (talk) 00:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Prove that it is giving prominence to the term Arabian Gulf. It is saying that it is controversially used. By the way, are you a sockpuppet?--Agha Nader (talk) 00:34, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Interesting that you would ask me if I am a sockpuppet. It reminds me of another editor who asked if I was editing under another name when I first started participating here. I choose to ignore this striking similarity both in your arguments and methods and not resort to what you've decided to do. I'm not sure if you've actually read everything in the above discussions before deciding our compromise was not valid. I think you owe it to yourself and everyone else here to do so. It's very clear that putting the Arabic name in the lead is providing it additional prominence resulting in WP:Undue weight. ObserverToSee (talk) 00:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Agha Nader, you have been warned repeatedly here and on other article discussion pages to find some more lasting method by which to restrain your incivil tendencies. Asking someone if they are a sock-puppet is both a personal attack and an uncivil thing to ask. If you think someone is a sock-puppet, use WP:SPP and WP:RFCU to verify one way or the other, and let an admin do the accusing. You have been here long enough to know the protocol. Statements like those do not promote a professional editing atmosphere. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 01:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
You are wikistalking.--Agha Nader (talk) 01:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Er, did you just miss that previous post about not making personal attacks? this page has been watchlisted for over a year. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 02:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
You are stalking, I have reported you. Do you have anything to say about the current discussion?--Agha Nader (talk) 02:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Nothing I haven't already said. Please let me know where this "report" is located. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 03:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • User:Agha Nader you started changing a topic with long discussed comprimise and as we respected you and your point of view we did engage in a civil talk. While I didn't agree with your points but saw the merit of it and answered to it. However in above talks you have changed from being a person who engages in civil dialouge to one who attackes personally and also doesn't assume good faith by calling people sock-puppet. I think by this manner you just reduced our civil disscusion to an unacceptable level. Also you did a disservice to your own claims. I think we are done by current discussion as you ran out of legitimate reasoning. Farmanesh (talk) 05:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
There is absolutely nothing uncivil about anything I have said. I asked Observer if he was a sock. I have suspicions that he is, but I have not accused him of it (this is because I assumed good faith). It is you who has "ran out of legitimate reasoning." For it is you who has made several baseless arguments that I have responded to. First you say there was consensus (I proved that the compromise was in violation of WP:LEAD and WP:CONSENSUS. Then you said it was undue weight (I rebutted by saying that no evidence has been provided by that it is a marginal view that some people controversially use the term Arabian Gulf). Of course, you did not respond to my rebuttals (you ignored them and repeated yourself). Sure, I directed one of my posts to Arcayne but that is because he has stalked me. --Agha Nader (talk) 05:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
So Nader, are you suggesting that asking Observer if he is a sock is not as uncivil as if you shouted it from the rooftops? So, if I asked if you were a thief because your behavior 'reminded' me of one, the accusation in and of itself could not be considered uncivil or a personal attack? Let's not split hairs. If you want to accuse someone of bad behavior, there are places to do so - not in the article discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arcayne (talkcontribs) 07:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
What am I missing here?! Where has Farmanesh been rebutted by you and repeated himself? If we're reading the same talk page, it seems that it is you, Agha Nader, who's repeating and ignoring valid points about WP:Undue weight and insisting that additional prominence be given to a name that is used by a very small minority. Resorting to baseless insinuations does not strengthen your argument. Repeating your insinuation and stating your suspicion openly amounts to an accusation. Again, I choose not to do the same for you as I do not wish to be uncivil. The lead of this article is currently neutral as it is supposed to be. ObserverToSee (talk) 06:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I just had a first look at this page and was shocked by the lack of information. Note from WP:No Angry Mastodons-"always bear the big picture in mind: we're here to provide information for nonspecialists." There are (unfortunately!) still millions of people in the world who are confused about the most basic ethnic divisions in the Middle East, e.g., the difference between Persians and Arabs. Such people might come to this article hoping to figure out some of that history, but because of this intense dispute about a very small matter of the presentation of names in the lead, they will not learn anything. I would just call upon all parties to reach SOME consensus -- even if you're not 100% happy with it -- as quickly as possible so this article can be unlocked and expanded. User:snarkhunter22
I completely agree with you, very correct. This article have had this same dispute for much longer before the first time I ever saw this article and seemingly it will continue to face it. We have reached consensus as you propose before after very long discussion with involvment of many editors which kept the article peaceful, stable and unlocked for long time. Now someone again started the discussion (actually first unilaterally made the changes s/he liked and only later started to talk about it). We have properly responded to him/her and considered his/her points.
I think it is time for an administrator to have a look at this talk and unlock the page. Farmanesh 22:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I have enumerated to Farmanesh several reasons as to why undue weight does not apply. Unfortunately she ignored them. So I will present further evidence to her. If scholarly sources use the term Arabian Gulf in addition to (or in lieu of) Persian Gulf, then there is more than a marginal minority who use the term. Farmanesh claims that the mere utterance of Arabian Gulf is in violation of undue weight. She equates the proposed addition of material that claims that it is "controversially referred to as the Arabian Gulf by some Arabs," to material (which I do not propose) that claims the Arabian Gulf is an alternate name used by many. For it is an universally accepted fact that it is "controversially referred to as the Arabian Gulf by some Arabs." If a bunch of academic sources feel it is necessary to mention the conflict, then surely it isn't undue weight for Wikipedia to do so as well. And of course, the lead should summarize the article.

  • National Geographic writes "Historically and most commonly known as the Persian Gulf, this body of water is referred to by some as the Arabian Gulf" [3]. Why would National Geographic write that if it is is a fringe view?
  • This article discusses the controversy [4].
  • Quite frankly, this notable article uses the term Arabian Gulf. [5].
  • Another example [6]
  • Another scholarly work that uses Arabian Gulf [7]

The undue weight argument is inherently flawed anyway. If it is notable enough to bear a section in the article it should be in the lead by WP:LEAD. Even works that aren't necessarily focused upon the name conflict, they mention that the Arabian Gulf is used by some. That demonstrates that it isn't undue weight to mention the Arabian Gulf.--Agha Nader 07:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

What you are saying here is that there are some cases who use other names than Persian Gulf, well that is not disputed. However when you give 5 cases of usage of other names, there are millions of case for usage of Persian Gulf and thats where WP:Undue weight applies.
However what I said now and what you are saying are not adding anything to this discussion, these have been extensively discussed before. The reason wwe are here to discuss again is to see if there is any new reasons to change the comprimise which apparently there is none. That is why I propose admins to look to our discussion and unlock the article.
If you happen to bring any new points, we would be happy to discuss more. Otherwise we are just repeating ourselves and also many others before us.Farmanesh 22:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

The Lead (arbitrary break)

Someone please correct me if I am wrong, but as I see it, these are the main points of the discussion thus far:

1. the Persian Gulf is the more common term for the body of water in question;
2. the body of water is also referred to as the Arabian Gulf (whether this is an occurrence solely within SA needs to be cited);
3. the naming discrepancy is discussed within the body of the article;
4. We have citations for both uses;
5. the article for the Arabian Gulf notes the Persian Gulf naming dispute as well as Red Sea;

It seems rather clear that the argument about this is pointless. Governments have been bickering about this for at least a century and been trying to revise maps for nearly that long. Redirects may be a eventual solution, merging the data from the Arabian Gulf into the main article for the Persian Gulf, though I can foresee problems with doing something similar with the Red Sea article. For now, however, is there something with noting in the Lead something similar to this:

(existing version) The Persian Gulf, in the Southwest Asian region, is an extension of the Indian Ocean located between Iran and the Arabian Peninsula.
(proposed version) The Persian Gulf (also called the Arabian Gulf and the Red Sea), located in the Southwest Asian region, is an extension of the Indian Ocean located between Iran and the Arabian Peninsula.

- Arcayne (cast a spell) 09:20, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

In proposed version, note that the red Sea has been sometimes called "Arabian Gulf" and not the Persian gulf(as the Read Sea)!--Alborz Fallah 09:48, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Right, but all three terms refer to the same body of water, correct? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 11:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
No my freind, Red Sea is completly different than Persian Gulf. Red Sea has been called Arabian Gulf in few historical case but it has nothing to do with Persian Gulf.
Beside Red Sea mistake, your proposal has the WP:Undue weight problem which has been discussed many times before and again in some extent now.Farmanesh 22:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • It has been argued that WP:Undue weight does not apply here. In fact it applies very strongly as the letter of this policy/guideline is very clear that a view held by a tiny minority can not be provided undue prominence. This can not be ignored. Quoting further from WP:Undue weight: "We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views". The fact that a very tiny minority of the world population has the view that the Persian Gulf has an alternate name can not be disputed and everyone agrees. It has been suggested that this article is in violation of WP:Lead. If it is, it is perhaps because undue prominence has been given to a view of a tiny minority by including a detailed description of the naming dispute in the main article. I think we should follow as noted above and have the naming dispute presented in its own section only and reference Persian_Gulf_naming_dispute only. Further, National Geographic may not have the same properly defined policies/guidelines such as WP:Undue weight where they can be influenced by small minorities through various means of pressure. The lead should not change and if anything, the section for the naming dispute needs to be redone to follow WikiPedia rules such as WP:Undue weight. Thankfully, this is WikiPedia and WikiPedia rules prevail. ObserverToSee 21:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Thankfully, this is Wikipedia, and not ObserverToSee-Land where you can ignore facts. I absolutely love how you provide no evidence that it is a fringe view and ignore the plethora of scholarly works that show that it is not.--Agha Nader 22:51, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Why a tint of incivility again? Why do you have to resort to this? The points are very clear. They can't be ignored. As quoted, a tiny minority's point of view can not be given prominence. Justifiably and wisely so that the situation we have now in other sources of knowledge doesn't arise here in WikiPedia. We can't ignore this and we all should strive to keep this article neutral regardless of any personal feelings. ObserverToSee 23:03, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
What incivility? Show me evidence that it is a fringe view.--Agha Nader 23:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I've already explained this several times. I'll do it yet again. Please don't continue to ignore this. What you have been repeating about a large number believing that Arabs call the Persian Gulf by an alternate name is not relevant with regard to WP:Undue weight. The fact that Arabs are a very small minority who call the Persian Gulf with an alternate name is what makes the difference and makes it a view of a tiny minority. What needs to be proven here? ObserverToSee 02:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
The scholarly articles I sourced are not Arab. --Agha Nader 02:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Consensus has been made between various users. Inserting Arabian Gulf means insering Persian Gulf in Arabic publications as well as the fact that the naming was political. The issue has been discussed already. Also please mind personal attacks. "Thankfully, this is Wikipedia, and not ObserverToSee-Land " is considered a personal attack. --alidoostzadeh 02:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
You have just violated WP:AGF. For I did not attack Observer. You assumed this. I reminded him that this is an encyclopedia, and his assertions are meaningless unless they are backed by evidence. I also find this statement to be amusing "The issue has been discussed already." As if consensus can't change! I quote WP:CONSENSUS, "Consensus is not immutable. It is reasonable, and sometimes necessary, for the community to change its mind." Moreover, this issue is different than the previous discussion because I propose adding that it is controversially referred to as the Arabian Gulf: an important distinction.--Agha Nader 03:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Agha Nader, it looks like you have totally ignored the point again. What point is there in the discussion then? WP:Undue weight applies here. It doesn't matter if there are articles out there that say Arabs use an alternate name for the Persian Gulf. What matters is that Arabs are a very small minority in using the alternate name for the Persian Gulf. Very simple. ObserverToSee 04:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Clearly, Arabs aren't the only ones who use the name Arabian Gulf. Guess what? I'll let you in on a little secret. Some scholars use it too! What a shock! I found these secret articles:
  • This article discusses the controversy [8].
  • Quite frankly, this notable article uses the term Arabian Gulf. [9].
  • Another example [10]
  • Another scholarly work that uses Arabian Gulf [11]
Don't tell anyone about them. We'll just ignore them. --Agha Nader 04:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Again and again, just b/c a limited number of articles use it, it should be mentioned in the article but as they are very limited cases (compare to many many who use Persian Gulf) it would be WP:Undue weight to have it in the lead.
Even one of the links you gave yourself up there [12] which is an encyclopedia article, mention it in the body of the article and leaves it out of the lead section. At least please accept the encyclopedic standard of the link you yourself provide to us! Farmanesh 04:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Limited eh? How many do you need? I love how you skew the facts! That source has only a one sentence lead! In the second sentence it describes the controversy. Oh, Farmanesh, have you stooped to this low? Are you willing to mislead your fellow editors?--Agha Nader 05:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Agha Nader your condescending tone is uncivil. Your statements; "Guess what? I'll let you in on a little secret." and "What a shock!" are not the type of things someone says in a civil constructive discussion. Regardless, again, it doesn't matter how many people you find who say Arabs refer to the Persian Gulf with an alternate name or you find some scholars that refer to the name, in the total number of the planet's population, those who call the Persian Gulf by the alternate name are a very small minority. Again, it's very simply. Please stop ignoring this and respond with civility when you do. ObserverToSee 05:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
My tone was jokey if anything. Far from hostile, buddy. What am I supposed to respond to? Your unsourced assertions? The fact is that Wikipedia has to represent a world view. And there are people who use Arabian Gulf. It would be helpful to note this fact in the lead. Any how, your undue weight argument is flawed as I noted above.--Agha Nader 06:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't know where you got the idea that you and I were on joking terms here about this subject. Addressing me as "buddy" is not appropriate either. WP:Undue weight is the reason why what you are proposing should not be done. The neutrality of the article should not be compromised. Unless of course, you are contending that the Arab point of view is anything but a very small minority point of view considering the entire world's population. Your arguments don't hold any water for WikiPedia unless you can make a valid case that the above is not true. ObserverToSee 07:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I don’t know how to react to that kind of hysteria. That is such a stretch that I can’t respond to it. I’m going to use humor. And all I can say is to lighten up. I’m going to continue to use humor. I do not agree "that the Arab point of view is anything but a very small minority." Why cant we be friends, why cant we be friends, why cant we be friends?--Agha Nader 01:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
It's easy to react -- with civility. Friendship does require mutual respect. You have not shown much of it and have even claimed that you have "exposed" me in your talk page (summary comment). Humorous indeed! Possible Hysteria? We can agree to disagree, but I don't understand your refusal to accept a simple fact! ObserverToSee 02:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I am glad that you see, and appreciate, the humor now, pal. I find your understanding of undue weight misguided. You see, 300 million Arabs, does not represent a "very small minority." In fact, they may represent a majority of the relevant population.--Agha Nader 03:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Define what you see as a "very small minority". 30%? 20%? Are you contending that all 300 mill Arabs live by the Persian Gulf and that all of them use the alternate name? Where do you come up with the 300 mill figure? "Relevant population" is the entire worlds population by the way not just those around the Persian Gulf. ObserverToSee 03:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Agha Nader: I cannot log-in to the website that you provided. I don't doubt that they utilize the term Arabian Gulf. However, were these articles written by Arabs? Foreigners who reside in Arabic countries who are forced to use the term Arabian Gulf in their scholarly work? It's worth noting that in most Arabic countries, when a scholarly paper/document/book/magazine is to be published, the term Persian Gulf cannot be used. --Persan en Japon 14:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Agha Nader: The source you have given us from [13] as a support to your claim does have a lead. The lead is clearly seperated from the other paragraphs with Bold titling. One long sentence or 2 doesn't make the difference, there is a lead and then there is a body of article. In the lead they only use Persian Gulf and in the body of article, in the section titled "Physical Geography" and not in the lead, they mention other names. It is the encyclpedic way to do it, the same as we have done here in our longer article on the same subject. I invite you to put your mind-gaurd away for a minute and look to the source you gave us again, judge for yourself.
On your personal attacks which you called them "jokey", few paragraphs before you used similar tone and you saw the negetive reaction of many editors (have another look), maybe first time it was "jokey", but continueing it may not be considered proper. Please reconsider.Farmanesh 15:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The Lead (arbitrary break 2)

Breaking away from the incivility from a user or two which is muddying up the situation, I was wondering if someone could explain how using Persian Gulf (also referred to some as the Arabian Gulf) violates the undue weight part of the Neutrality policy of Wikipedia.
If the matter is hotly contested (there is an actual article on this matter within Wikipedia), it therefore clearly indicates that inclusion is noteworthy.
If more than a very small group of people claim the name, then it is not undue weight.
If both historical and contemporary documents utilize both terms, it is not undue weight to use both terms, and in fact is encyclopedic to include both.
Without rancor or personal attacks or incivility, please explain why these shouldn't be included. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if anyone who believes the alternate name should not be in the lead has displayed any of the rancor, personal attacks or incivility in this recent discussion. Please let us know which part you view as such from this side! The point that the alternate name used by a very small minority (Arabs) with respect to the entire world population should not be provided prominence due to WP:Undue weight has been extensively discussed above several times. I don't want to be a further participant in "muddying up" effort that you have alluded to. I have included 2 quotes from WP:Undue weight in bold above that is totally relevant to this discussion and spell out why. Please scroll up and see. I'll be happy to repeat yet again, if you wish. Regards ObserverToSee 22:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Stop acting like Arabs are the only ones who use the term Arabian Gulf. There are plenty of scholars who use it and I have quoted them. There are over 300 million Arabs in this world! You act as if they are a handful of people (" very small minority (Arabs)"). 300 million is very small? If we consider relevance to the Persian Gulf, they would be a majority! After all, how relevant are Croatians to the Persian Gulf, when compared to Arabs? No matter, Wikipedia must present a world view. Like it or not, Arabs do in habit this world. --Agha Nader 22:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
What part of 'keep it civil' was unclear? Be professional and polite, or begone. While Nader has interacted rather poorly with his fellow editors in introducing this viewpoint, I agree that adding the Arabian Gulf alternate naming does not violate Undue weight. As I noted before, the (Real Life) naming convention dispute has been going on quite some time, and because of which, 'Arabian Gulf' is notable, and therefore not a violation of Undue weight. In fact, failing to include it could easily be considered a violation of the neutrality policy, as more than just the 24 million folk who populate S.A. use the term.
However, as there seems to be considerable rancor regarding this matter, I strongly suggest that someone seek admin assistance in this matter, or a Request for Comment. That way, someone neutral in the matter can weigh in and judge the arguments solely upon the arguments (though incivility will bring some significantly harsh penalties to those who fail to contribute to the RfC civilly). - Arcayne (cast a spell) 23:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
You are the uncivil one. For it is you who makes ill-considered accusations and threats. I find "What part of 'keep it civil' was unclear?" to be particularly rude. There was not a single uncivil sentence in my response. But, I do agree that "failing to include it could easily be considered a violation of the neutrality policy."--Agha Nader 23:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Whenever you are uncivil you are going to get called on it. You will either learn, or get blocked. There isn;t a third choice. You've stated your viewpoint, now let others weighing on the naming thing. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 23:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Ditto.--Agha Nader 00:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Agha Nader: I cannot log-in to the website that you provided. I don't doubt that they utilize the term Arabian Gulf. However, were these articles written by Arabs? Foreigners who reside in Arabic countries who are forced to use the term Arabian Gulf in their scholarly work? It's worth noting that in most Arabic countries, when a scholarly paper/document/book/magazine is to be published, the term Persian Gulf cannot be used. --Persan en Japon 00:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't think your question is terribly relevant. I will indulge your curiosity though. The authors have 'Western' names and the articles are published in the West. For instance, [14] by D.T. Potts published at Oxford.--Agha Nader 03:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
All questions as they relate to the article are relevant, Nader. Please remember that, and assume good faith on the part of your equals. He has noted a problem with J-Stor articles, which aren't really accessible to those without scholarly article access. It is verifiable, but only barely. Perhaps the substitution of another source more readily viewable would be helpful.
As for who wrote the article, their nationality doesn't matter, unless they are writing propaganda pieces, which, quite simply, wouldn't make it into J-Stor. Persan, you noted that scholars publishing in SA or other Arab-based countries have to alter their work to reflect Arabian Gulf instead of Persian Gulf. While I think I have heard something similar while interning at State, could you provide a citation reflecting that claim, please? Either way, the term PersianArabian Gulf is used, though not as much, outside of Arab countries. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 03:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Enumerate exactly how I failed to assume good faith. Refrain from making ill-considered insinuations such as "assume good faith on the part of your equals." I assumed nothing. I merely was noting that them being Arab or not (which they aren't) is not terribly relevant. I will not tolerate these insinuations and false accusations.--Agha Nader 04:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Arcayne, I think this is a mistype? "the term Persian Gulf is used, though not as much, outside of Arab countries". Persian Gulf is used by the entire world (except for some in Turkey and most Arab states). Every other language refers to the Persian Gulf as such. Only a small minority has an alternate name that is used. There are many sources to reference where the name "Persian Gulf" has been outlawed in the Persian Gulf Arab states, for political reasons to force the use of the alternate name. I'm sure Persan will provide you with some. Regards ObserverToSee 04:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
(outdent)Yes, it is a mistype - thanks for pointing it out; I've struck through the mistake and correctly added the correct term of Arabian Gulf. I think its best to avoid the nationality/partisan issue that tends to plague these topics; after all, they can't even agree on it in the real world! The simple fact is that the Persian Gulf is also referred to as the Arabian Gulf. This contrariness regarding the naming is mentioned within the text, and since the Lead is an overview of the article, it needs to be noted. For the reasons I mentioned above, I think we have to include it, or run the risk of marginalizing the fact that an alternate name in fact exists, and run into neutrality issues. Again, I don't doubt Persan, but if he finds some sources in English (this being the English-language Wiki), we might want to consider adding those, both here and in the naming dispute article. Persan can get double the effect for his citation! lol! - Arcayne (cast a spell) 06:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Agha Nader: Actually, the place/article/funding/audience of research papers is relevant when it comes to issues such as this. This is because scholars write articles with an audience in mind or alter certain parts in order to appease those who fund them. While this can be seen as unscholarly, it is something that happens all the time. This is most likely with scholars who use the term Arabian Gulf - They are either funded by Arabs or write for an Arabic audience. [15] As I have mentioned before, utilising the term Persian Gulf is banned in most Arabic countries especially around the Gulf. "American universities (in the Gulf) have dropped references to Persian Gulf in their teaching materials...(for)...adapting to the sensibilities of their hosts." [16] --Persan en Japon 17:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Let's look at the example you give: Professor D.T. Potts. He is an American professor residing in Sydney whose research area focuses on archaeology and early history of the Near East including Iran, Mesopotamia, The Arabian Peninsla and the Indo-Iranian borderlands. [17] From 1986-1998 he was based in the United Arab Emirates doing his field research. In 1998, he published a book for the Government of Sharjah and in 2003 he edited a book for the Abu Dhabi Ministry of Information. [18] He got funding from the UAE government, and that's why he utilised the term Arabian Gulf. However, if you look at his personal website [19] he mentions that one of his current project is "Studies on the Persian Gulf". [20] He only used the term Arabian Gulf because he got funding from Arabs or was writing for an Arab audience. --Persan en Japon 17:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Your arguments are not proven by the 'sources' you use... at all. You only have two 'sources', which you cite repeatedly. There is no evidence that you have presented supporting the notion that this particular article was written to comply with the supposed laws. Arguments that are not proven by your assessment are "and that's why he utilised the term Arabian Gulf" and "He only used the term Arabian Gulf because he got funding from Arabs or was writing for an Arab audience." And those happen to be your only arguments! Either way it doesn't seem to affect the appropriateness of the disputed names being added to the lead. It reeks of conspiracy theory OR. There is no evidence (despite your useless links) that 'the Arabs coerce academia to use Arabian Gulf.' Although, when it comes to creativity, I give you a check plus plus.--Agha Nader (talk) 05:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I was asked to provide sources for my claims. I did. At least my sources can be accessed by all, unlike yours which cannot! Furthermore, you called my links useless. I guess only your sources (which cannot be accessed by anyone but you) are useful? In any case, the article that I provided says that American universities in the Gulf have dropped references to the Persian Gulf. Professor Potts' own website uses the term Persian Gulf. How is that useless? You were the one who mentioned D.T. Potts uses the term Arabian Gulf. Why would he switch back and forth unless he was writing for different audiences? Finally, what I have written is revelant to the lead because you argued that non-Arabs also utilise the term Arabian Gulf. I've been trying to show that they only do it because they are forced to do so! I still think that the lead should say the term Arabian Gulf, but it should be mentioned that the term is controversial. --Persan en Japon (talk) 13:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Persan en japon, I appreciate you providing the citations I suggested, and I agree that they do show a pattern within some scholarly research funded by or taking place within the UAE. Were that all of it, I think an effective argument could consider the usage in the Lead to be UNDUE weight. However, the naming controversy (with all the attendant map and document revision and, in some cases outright forgery) has existed for over a century. for that reason alone it should be reflected that the body of water is known by an alternate name. I rather think we have to do this. Doing so conforms to the neutrality clause of Wikipedia, and has the side benefit of forcing us to do what the countries in question cannot seem to accomplish; it forces editors normally at nationalistic odds to work together in a common article for the common benefit of both. I think that calling it controversial should be limited to the body of the article. Please feel free to incorporate the citations you provided, as it is germane to the controversy.
Something else to consider here is whether the two articles should be merged and a redirect for the more common name, 'Persian Gulf' serve as the host article. Persian Gulf and Arabian Gulf are separate articles, and there is no doubt that some content forking is occurring, which we cannot allow to remain. Thoughts?- Arcayne (cast a spell) 14:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Agha Nader, "It reeks of conspiracy theory OR" and "Although, when it comes to creativity, I give you a check plus plus" display the condescending tone again as a response to a very valid post by Persan en japon. Are you assuming good faith? Or are you going to claim humor again?
All of these discussions are not relevant to the lead because regardless of how you choose to interpret or ignore WP:Undue weight, the wisdom of the policy/guideline stands clear. Paraphrasing part of it, the view of a very small minority should not be given prominence in terms of positioning or location. Putting the alternate name used by a very small minority in the lead will be a violation and compromise of the article's neutrality. Even if the maximum number of Arab population claimed by you is correct and provable, and all of them refer to the Persian Gulf by the alternate name (which they don't), the very small minority classification holds relative to the entire world's population. The lead of the article has been neutral since the compromise was reached several months ago and should remain that way. ObserverToSee (talk) 16:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Observer, if you find it difficult to respond to Agha Nader, respond to me instead. I've presented what I feel are clear, compelling reasons as to why the undue weight argument does not apply in this instance. As I feel that this is a significant content dispute, i would like to recommend that we file an Request for Comment on this matter, and have folk and admins not part of the article weigh in and help us define what needs or doesn't need to be in the article. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 22:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Arcayne, I have repeatedly responded to the point that WP:Undue weight does not apply here. It is relevant and very much applies here. Please see below as hopefully a final time that I've established this fact. Please feel free to initiate a Request for Comment if you still feel that is what is called for here. Regards ObserverToSee (talk) 17:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I am just a wiki reader and wanted to say something. The Historical name of the gulf has been Persian Gulf, which is true, but that doesn't mean the name cannot be changed from 'Persian' to 'Arabian Gulf'. Especially, since the Gulf is surrounded by mostly Arab countries, even in Iran the gulf region is resided mostly by Arabs. If the Arabs wants to change the gulf's name from Persian to Arabian Gulf, why can't they rename it?. Name of place, country changes with time depending on culture, time etc. In 1935, Shah changed 'Persia' to 'Iran'. The Mediterranean used to be 'Mare Nostrum' of the Romans. 'Mesopotemia' is now mostly Iraq region (from Babylonian sources - it was called 'Uruk'). A simple right of changing a gulf's name from Persian to Arabian should be acceptable by the Persians. Thanks. -- (talk) 15:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

First of all, I think we are not discussing here if the arab people have the right to call the "Persian Gulf", "Arabian Gulf" or not. Of course if they want to call it by any name they want, Persians can not do anything about it, it's their choice. As far as I understand, here we are discussing how wikipedia should provide information about this body of water, in such a way that a reader who does not have any background about this issue, can get correct and exact information based on reliable references, from this article.
Also, I just want to add something about changing the lead. I think the lead should not be changed because in the article under the "Naming dispute" section it is clearly stated that Persian Gulf is called Arabian Gulf sometimes and the good thing about this section, is that it is also clearly stated why it was called "Arabian Gulf" in first stage, which helps the reader to understand why the name has been changed by a group of people.
In my idea, considering the minority who call "Persian Gulf" ,"Arabian Gulf", this section is enough for mentioning the fact that it is sometimes called by other names. Regards -- (talk) 17:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

As an outside observer....

I think the first paragraph should say, "It is sometimes called the Arabian Gulf but that name is not officially recognized and has been subject to dispute." WP:LEAD is crystal clear on this point: The major controversies should be summarized in the lead, and this is such a controversy that we have an article, Persian Gulf naming dispute, on it. Any attempt to suppress the dispute is seriously misguided and against the rules. MilesAgain (talk) 01:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I certainly agree.--Agha Nader (talk) 01:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
While Miles is quite new, he does make a sound point. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 08:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
It is clearly stated in WP:LEAD that it is not a "rule" as contended by MilesAgain. Quoted below from the actual article:
This page is considered a style guideline on Wikipedia. It is generally accepted among editors and is considered a standard that users should follow. However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception.
Furthermore WP:Undue weight is part of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view which has the the following on the article:
This page documents an official policy on the English Wikipedia. It has wide acceptance among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow.
There is no ambiguity here. WP:LEAD is a style guideline that provides for exceptions and WP:Undue weight is part of a policy that should be followed at all times. The arguments above are not taking this into consideration. This makes following the "policy" established in WP:Undue weight much more imperative than the "style guideline" discussed in WP:Lead.
It has been argued that WP:Undue weight does not apply here and I have repeatedly established why it does. I'll repeat again, hopefully one last time. Please consider the following quoted from WP:Undue weight:
NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all.
and also the following:
We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute.
Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.
These are clear. Regardless of how we try to force the fact that the term used as a translation from Arabic into English of a relatively recently fabricated name is anything but the view of a very small minority, it does not change the fact that it is in English. Arabian Gulf should not be given the prominence of being included in the lead. Again, because WP:Undue weight is a policy and WP:LEAD is a style guideline which is not set in stone as quoted above. We will be compromising the neutrality of the article by providing prominence to a name recently fabricated for political reasons. It is referenced in the body of the article and that is sufficient.
I have repeated enough about this subject and hope that I can stop here. I would hope that others can participate here as well and work and strive to keep the Persian Gulf article's lead neutral as it has been for the last several months based on a valid compromise between all those involved at the time. Regards ObserverToSee (talk) 17:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
How can WP:UNDUE apply here when the Persian Gulf naming dispute is considered such a major controversy that it has its own article? If you believe it is such a minor viewpoint that has lead to arrests and censorship affecting millions of people, then perhaps you ought to take that up and request Persian Gulf naming dispute be deleted. Which I note you have not done. So, you appear to be more interested in scrubbing the alternate name from this article than seeing that your concerns about undue weight are addressed. That appears like a transparent attempt to bring the censorship battle to Wikipedia. Here is another policy page for you: WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND. Please read it. MilesAgain (talk) 19:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I fail to see why WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND applies to me at all. Please read everything I've ever written carefully without prejudice. I could legitimately state that WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND applies to some others (not all) in this discussion who wish to change the lead. I'm only opposed to the alternate name appearing in the lead because it provides undue weight through more prominence than to "scrubbing" it from this article as you're saying. Again, please read everything I've written if you're going to judge my position or make allegations. ObserverToSee (talk) 19:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I have carefully read what you have written. It was difficult to do so because you are claiming that a controversy so notable that it has its own lengthy article would be undue weight to be mentioned in the subject of the controversy. Where I come from, that is called bullshit, but here on Wikipedia it is called POV-pushing and it is a serious behavior issue. I agree with you that saying "also called the Arabian Gulf" would be undue weight, but what you are saying is that we shouldn't even mention the controversy, and that, my friend, is why I believe that you should not be allowed to edit. MilesAgain (talk) 19:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your eloquence! I only ask again for you to please read what I've written carefully. I'm not saying "we shouldn't even mention the controversy" as you're saying. I'm saying it should not be in the lead and having it in the main section of the article is sufficient. Call it what you wish. I've made valid points and I believe I've made them very effectively. ObserverToSee (talk) 20:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)ObserverToSee (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. .
I must ask you to remain civil. I sense sarcasm in your statement "Thank you for your eloquence!" Your argument is weak, poor, ineffective, and contradictory. You argue that 300 million people are a "small minority." You are wikilawyering and (ineffectively) twisting the meaning of undue weight. We can all appreciate MilesAgain's candor. I do not assert that you are "POV-pushing," but I can see why Miles would think you are.--Agha Nader (talk) 20:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I have been and will continue to remain civil in all my discussions. Even if they are only here in the Persian Gulf discussion. I did note eloquence in MilesAgain's response because I saw it! He's being totally upfront with what his point of view is. Why do you see sarcasm in my statement? Regarding your link that I'm only editing here, yes, obviously I have been. Is that wrong? Or does it make the points I'm making less valid? Are you discouraging me from participating further through intimidation? I will continue to assume good faith, however. Regarding your 300 million figure and minority, I asked this above, but you never replied:
"Define what you see as a "very small minority". 30%? 20%? Are you contending that all 300 mill Arabs live by the Persian Gulf and that all of them use the alternate name? Where do you come up with the 300 mill figure? "Relevant population" is the entire worlds population by the way not just those around the Persian Gulf."
What is the answer? ObserverToSee (talk) 21:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
(outdent) I appreciate you taking the time to describe to us that policy which most of us already know pretty well. As a side not, you might have found that using bold txt for significant portions of one's post has the appearance of 'shouting' only slightly less so than using bold text in concert with all caps; maybe just using italics and boxed text might serve you better in the future.
Perhaps you were mistaken in thinking that the sole reason that the undue weight argument was being challenged was due to concerns about the Lead; that is an incorrect assumption. The problem with the Lead is in addition to the problems that I see as a neutral observer to this article (Nader can attest to this, as he and I disagree on virtually everything else in existence). While I am not sure of the actual number of Arabs in the world (my earlier quotation of 25 million or so was based on the recent CIA Factbook statistics), the fact that a naming controversy exists makes it notable in and of itself.
I feel that your characterization as 'tiny' or 'small minority' the number of people who refer to it as the 'Arabian Gulf' as well as the extremely well-cited Naming Controversy article (and equally-well cited mentions in this very article) is leading you to apply the undue portion of NPOV inexactly. While I would not be so crass as to consider that you are not neutral in this matter, I think it bears mentioning that failing to consider the fact that a naming controversy does exist is a failure of NPOV.
At the end of the last section, you replied that you had no problem with me filing the RfC. I would suggest that - as I am certain of my policy stance and have no vested interest in the article (while you give the appearance of having such) - that you file it as well. If you file, I will attest to it, and we can move forward. If you believe as strongly as you apparently do on this subject, I see no real impedance to your filing. If you are unsure as to how to file one, please feel free to ask. There are a few editors who know about how to file them. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 00:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Arcayne, my apologies for extensive use of bold face in my response above. Thank you for taking the time to participate here. Regards ObserverToSee (talk) 15:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll do it. MilesAgain (talk) 03:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Well done, Miles. Thank you for doing what no one else got off their duff to do. :) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 08:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

RFC: Should "Arabian Gulf" be mentioned in the intro?

"Arabian Gulf" refers to the Persian Gulf in many Arab countries, but the name is controversial (see Persian Gulf naming dispute) and unofficial internationally. Should these facts be mentioned in the introduction of the Persian Gulf article?

  • Yes - Per WP:LEAD which instructs summarizing notable controversies in the lead. As major nations and reputable publications use the term, this is certainly not a case of WP:UNDUE weight. MilesAgain (talk) 03:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes - Arguments concerning Undue Weight are inapplicable here, as - in addition to the notable naming controversy - there is a sizable group of people and historical record that refer to an alternative name. Noting that it is alternately known by another name is not an expression of undue weight. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 08:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  • No - The Arabian Gulf appears in the article which is sufficient. Providing further prominence to a name that is used by a very small minority in the lead results in WP:Undue weight. I maintain that the notable controversy that exists involves a very small minority of the worlds population and this should be considered. ObserverToSee (talk) 15:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
You should feel free to cite just how small this minority is, but before you do, consider the repercussions if a heavily-populated country decided that the body of water suddenly be called the Gulf of Porky DoublePlusGood Yumminess. As there are significantly more Chinese to be found than any grouping in the Middle East, should we concede to their majority? The point is, we shouldn't be discounting the regional origins of the naming controversy, which predates a great many of the editors contributing here by over 50-60 years. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 07:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Kind of - Something like "... also known controversially as the Arabian Gulf" would be enough. It is a minority view but significant alternative or minority names should always be mentioned in the lede. <eleland/talkedits> 23:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes - I'm totally against the term Arabian Gulf myself because I see it as politically motivated racism. However, it should be in the lead. The whole Arabian Gulf situation won't go away if Iranians don't acknowledge it or try to deny it. It needs to be put in the spotlight and then fought. I do think however, that something akin to "it is controversial and politically motivated" should follow it! --Persan en Japon (talk) 09:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  • No as ObserverToSee said.--Alborz Fallah (talk) 17:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes The enlightened well-wishers to this specie of article, which excludes the Arabian Gulf from its lead, must at least hope that their supposition is destitute of foundation; since they can never admit its truth, without at the same time admitting the condemnation of their own principles (namely WP:NPOV, WP:LEAD, WP:CONSENSUS).--Agha Nader (talk) 22:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  • No It should not be included unless it is mentioned that the term is political and was madeup in the 1950/1960's (all of this is sourced) where-ever in the lead it is included.--alidoostzadeh (talk) 22:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Actually, since the Lead is an introductory overview of the article, you should feel free to add those citations to the article itself, wherein the 'Arabian Gulf' term is discussed. Cites don't really belong in the Lead. Of course, i think you are going to encounter heavy resistance to the idea that the term was manufactured from wholecloth in the mid-20th century, but that isn't really within the scope of this RfC. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 01:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
There is no heavy resistance since that is easily sourced. Check the archives. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 04:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Again, this isn't really the place for it, Dooz. Take it up another time. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 05:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
I may differ on that, this was a part of the comprimise reached for the lead to look as today so there proposal to consider those now is not so out of order.Farmanesh (talk) 14:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
I am not suggesting that the citations don't exist, Farm; I am positing that opposite yet equal citations likely exist as well, and since citations aren't really used inthe Lead, bringing them up here seems like putting the horse before the cart.
Citations do exist that in recent years other terms have been used for Persian Gulf but Doostzade said citations about "the term is political and was madeup in the 1950/1960's", do you really think "opposite yet equal citations likely exist as well"? would you please give your citations? I am afraid you have came up with an opinion on this matter with rather limited time to look more deep into it. I do really appriciete your logical and respectful approach which turned the negetive tone of this debate to a more rational one.Farmanesh (talk) 18:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, with all due respect, I believe some of these folks have not read the archives. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 21:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  • No as said in archives and now by ObserverToSee above. The name used by Arabs for Persian Gulf is a local term, and it is WP:Undue weight to have it in English wikipedia lead. While I see this fairly subjective and can't see 100% cutting law for it. I don't see why if any native language uses its own name it should be mentioned in the English wikipedia lead? e.g., If Japanese use another term to call Germany in their language, should we add to the Germany article's lead all those local translations (like in Japan they call it... and in Saudi Arabia call it... and so on)? Should we now go and have same discussion on all articles to change their leads? It is fine to have it in the body but in lead doesn't make sense.Farmanesh (talk) 14:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
I am not sure what you mean here, Farm. While the (to use your example) Japanese language is indeed different, the word 'Germany' is still pronounced as 'Germany'. This isn't a translation issue (we should be so lucky), but instead one of ego and hubris on both sides of the issue. Both think that the name should be what they want. We aren't here to determine that; we are here to take note of that. Enough Arabs and others feel the term is notable, and there is a fairly consistent naming controversy (see the wiki article on the subject), so it needs inclusion. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 15:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Sure this is not a translation issue and thats not what I meant but different cultures and countries use diffrent terms for same subject. Here also the two different words refer to same body of water, just some locals in Arabic language use another term for it. Still the Englsih name is Persian Gulf.
and when you say "Enough Arabs", I wonder what is your index for "Enough"? Is it pecentage of their population to the world population? Is it their GDP ratio? Do you have any objective measure in mind? If not then this is only depending on who happens to visit this page now and to care to leave a message here?Farmanesh (talk) 18:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Energy in the lead is a leading character in the definition of a good article. A brief description of notable controversies in the lead is a leading character in the definition of an energetic lead. The very fact that there is a controversy proves that it is not only a "very tiny minority" (otherwise it wouldn't be covered so extensively). There can be no need, however, to multiply arguments or examples on this head. A feeble lead implies a feeble article.--Agha Nader (talk) 21:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, the usage of the term 'Arab Gulf' is rare in English, but by no means unknown. The fact that several of the countries who actually share the Gulf uses this naming is hardly non-notable. --Soman (talk) 21:19, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes Arabian Gulf should appear in the opening paragraph. Wikipedia is neutral and it's aim is to educate, for example the Falklands Islands article has Islas Malvinas in the first line! Also please don't respond to this opinion, I make a point of not watching or checking back on RFC's in order to avoid wikistress. Ryan4314 (talk) 02:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Yes. Ryan4314 says it all. Aatomic1 (talk) 10:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Persian Gulf as the only and the unique name regarding Gulf's name.

After all investigates and researches have done by the specialists and experts regarding Persian Gulf name in history and geographical maps one should realize and come to the fact that Persian Gulf doesn't have any alternative name ever never!!! so please be advised that if any other fake name is using in some arab countries, it doesn't have any documentary reason. Therefore the only name which should be mentioned would be Persian Gulf.

For more information please take a look to the universitiy books in American universities! and also take a look please at the UN documents. It is very obvoius that the Persian Gulf is the only unique name regarding the Gulf between Iran (Persia) and Persian Gulf's arab countries!

So please don't waste your time to insert incorrect information here on a reputable site!!! Please Stop it. Pejman.azadi (talk) 06:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Look, you appear to be missing the point. There's a politically (and ethnically) charged controversy over the name, which is worthy of mention. Mentioning the name does not endorse it. The very fact that people are so angered by this name "Arabian Gulf" is actually evidence of why it should be mentioned. <eleland/talkedits> 06:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Precisely. Too many people think that Wikipedia is a list of all things truthful. It. Is. Not. the criteria for inclusion is verifiability and notability and neutrality. Noting that the body of water is also referred to by a significant number as the Arabian Gulf, and that a controversy involving the naming dispute exists is our responsibility, not our endorsement. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 07:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Dear user Arcayne,
First of all we are here to correct and stop inserting incorrect information here on Wikipedia, because if some fake data want to be written by a significant number of comments without any documentary and approved-legal document, therefore it is very obvious that it is not reliable and also trustable! so Persian Gulf has its own documents which is approved by the UN and also many many other valid reasons that tell us this gulf is Persian gulf. Pejman.azadi (talk) 07:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
We are well aware that Arab countries adopted the neologism "Arabian Gulf" for political reasons. However, as an encyclopedia we are not here to judge the validity of that adoption. A significant chunk of the world now calls it the "Arabian Gulf", thus we should mention the term. Mentioning it is not endorsing it or agreeing with it. And the idea that a name for a geographic feature can be "incorrect" is senseless; it's whatever people call it. If we all called it the Swiss Gulf it'd be the Swiss Gulf, the accuracy or correctness of the name has nothing to do with it. <eleland/talkedits> 09:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Interesting!!!!so if I could say that the Gulf of Mexic is another name of Gulf of California, it can be mentioned in wikipedia because some body with a significant number of comments say that! It might be seen that the wrong name is being used by some body but it doesn't entitle you to put fake and wrong information here on Wikipedia!!!! Not at all, I think Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia not a personal notebook you gather wrong information there!!! It is a cheat and fake!!!so you should mention the right and accurate data. I have explained it prior that if some fake data want to be written by a significant number of comments without any documentary and approved-legal document, therefore it is very obvious that it is not reliable and also trustable! so Persian Gulf has its own documents which is approved by the UN and also many many other valid reasons that tell us this gulf is Persian gulf. Please be advised that it is very important to be honest and accurate, so Persian Gulf is Persian Gulf and doesn't have any other name. Pejman.azadi (talk) 11:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for taking an active and yet very polite interest in this matter, Pejman. You don't really need to use bold text to stress your points - some people consider it very similar to shouting, and I do not believe you are intending to give that impression. I understand your frustration, and I apologize if you feel we haven't been addressing your concerns. Allow me to attempt to address them now. Please correct me if I make any mistakes in summarizing what you feel, okay?
You believe that adding the info mentioning that the 'Persian Gulf' is also referred to as the 'Arabian Gulf' is just plain wrong because you consider the latter term to be a lie and a fake name. You feel that the sources noting the name of the body of water as the Persian Gulf mean that no other term should be accepted at all, because Wikipedia is supposed to be "honest and accurate". Is this correct? Is part of the issue that the Arabian Gulf refers to the Red Sea,and not the Persian Gulf at all?
(Note to everyone else, do me the smallest of favors of waiting for Pejman to reply. I am not trying to trap him/her, and am only seeking confirmation that what I have summarized as their point thus far is accurate before helping to build a bridge, okay?) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 12:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Its interesting for me to see how this topic is always controversial. Despite what some in this forum have said, it is a fact that this is a somewhat controversial issue and i am sad to say that i am apphauled at the behaviour of some people in this forum, and for different reasons. I do not want to engage in personal attacks and i hop what i say is not understood as such, but the mere fact that some have argued for the complete supression of the use of "Arabian Gulf" is an insult to the integrety of Wikipedia and to use of logic. I would like to correct AghaNader and say that 350 milion people use that name regularly and not 300 milion, and correct those who believe that this is a matter of conflict between Iran and Saudi Arabia. It is a matter That involves all of the states bordering the Gulf (8 states), 7 of the 8 states use of the name Arabian gulf or Arab-Persian Gulf. This leads me to wonder, why should the will of one country prevail over that of 7 others bordering this mass of water? Why should the will of the minority prevail over that of 350 milion people? How should this issue be examined?

Its odd that those in favour of suppressing the name "Arabian Gulf" base their arguements on two main points, and dare i say used these points so arrogantly in the main page. They argue that the name should only determined by its widespread use around the world and throughout time. But do not explain the methodological value of such a claim. Its hard to do it on a discussion page such as this one... but what i want to know is WHY should that be the way the name is determined? And if that is the case who's history or who's political alliances will we rely on? Since its a form of political favour to call things the way our allies want us to That justification given by some does not reveal to me the "true" name of this mass of water, because well... since a name is a name it should only be given the name it has been given by those that are concerned by it. Really... if my son is called Albert and i live in a spanish speaking country, where he is called Alberto, does that make his name Alberto :-) No it just becomes his name to those other people who use it in an unofficial manner, in order to relate to this boy called Albert in the manner they find most appropriate. Hence it is only true to these spanish speaking people that call him that, it doesn't change the name that i gave him, the legal name he has unless he decides to do that one day. In this case a group of people are attempting to impose a name. And are doing that by basing themselves on what people unconcerned by this controversial matter presently at hand, based themselves on. I'm sorry if the roman-greek influenced west want to call it Persian Gulf, based on greek literature and history that should only be true to them. It does not change things for me. Wiki[edia should keep that freedom of thought alive. Even if the "whole world" does call it Persian Gulf the people owning this mass of water, bordering it and concerned by it don't call it that, neither do at least 350 milion people. Besides some here said that the whole world use that name... can u tell me what name is used in Bangladesh when refering to this particular Gulf? What name Somalia uses?

The main page was so arrogantly filled out, not because i don't agree with the naming, i don't agree with Arabian Gulf either! But because it was filled out in a manner that is cheap. It seemed more like an attempt to childishly reject an argument and lobby for another, rather than an objective inteligent piece of information. WIKIPEDIA SHOULD RESORT TO RESTORING THE PAGES THAT WERE BEFORE THE DISCUSSIONS ESCLATE. IN ALL LOCKED PAGES. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

With respect, your tone is a bit rude. Characterizing people as arrogant (unless they are unequivocally being jerks, which has of course happened her) as a blanket statement is simply uncivil. You might find your posts better received in the future by toning down some of the aggro.
Your argument is flawed in two distinct ways. First, Albert's name is indeed the same no matter what country he is in, even though they might pick up a notable (and therefore include-able) nickname or alter-ego, like David Bowie for David Jones, Ricky Martin for Enrique José Martín Morales or even Googoosh for Faegheh Atashin. In such cases, you note the name they were born with as well as the name that is also used. So, your argument.
Secondly, the argument that Albert is your child is in error. To use your metaphor more aptly, Albert is a child of at least two parents who contend 'parentage', and maintain different names for the child (similar to that of an adopted child).
Thanks for posting, though. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 04:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Dear All friends,

First, I would like to say you it is a big mistake if you want to insert any name as the second or alternative name to Persian Gulf because it is very obvious that this name has a very old historical background and also it is officially registered in the UN and also in the US documents, so why you want to change the fact? is there any political game?!!!! Please respect to the nations. Iranian people don't allow to any body who want to change or disturb their nationality and identity! is it ok with you that one persian people come to your home and change your family name??? is it ok with you that somebody come and change your country name? so please be advised that Persian Gulf is every Iranian identity it is not just a name it is a part of the reputeable and honorable history of the world. I also respect to your idea but will appreciate you if you concern more on the facts. Thank you in advance. Pejman.azadi (talk) 05:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I would not presume to speak for anyone but myself, but this is not a matter of national identity. No one is attempting to steal Iran's identity or cultural heritage. No one is disrespecting the Iranian people. If you somehow feel it is, you need to step back from the discussion, as you are not being neutral, which is absolutely required of us as contributors. This entire discussion, which has wasted tons of space in this article all boils down to - I feel - some desperate fixation on the idea that the sharing of an identity is a lessening of that identity. It is not. That some call it the Arabian Gulf does not make it any less the Persian gulf for those of Persian descent, any more than the it is less the Arabian Gulf for those of Arabian descent. No one - I repeat, no one - is suggesting that 'Arabian Gulf' replace the more widely-known term of 'Persian Gulf'. Find me a single established user who isn't a nutter who says it should, and I'll eat my hat. I can say that with confidence because no one but a whack-job would consider such a thing.
The term, 'Arabian Gulf' does exist, though. it is established and in print, is verifiable and notable. there is a long-standing, historical naming controversy surrounding it. For that reason, as well as the fact that it is part of the article itself, it must be in the article. We don't play favorites here, but we do pay attention to facts - the term exists and is in use by a large group of people. making it personal and staking your national identity on it is misguided. A person's identity is more than their past, their flag or what geographic features are named after their country. A person's identity is who they are, how they treat their family and their fellows, and most importantly, how they treat complete and utter strangers and strange ideas. Discounting valid ideas that do not espouse hurting people is bad for humanity and bad for the soul. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 05:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd say that you are trying to cover the meaning of identity and you want to mean it in your wish, so what??? exactly the meaning of identity is her/him past and it is beyond of their flag!!! so please don't insert fake information here. please take a look at your speeches, what are you doing here? you are here to write the correct information not an inaccurate data. arabian gulf doesn't exist in this gulf and it is due to Naser panarabism and it doesn't have any legal support, on the other hand it is very obvious that the Red Sea is another name of arabian gulf. Please be advised that arab people and their western friends are trying to print more maps with arabian gulf term with a wide range of financial supporting, but they CAN NOT change the fact. Persian Gulf will be remained Persian Gulf Forever! recently some arabs claimed that Poor-e-sina (abualisina) is an arab scientist!!! whereas all the educated people know that Poore-e-sina abualisina is a Persian scientist, so it is very clear that they want to register the famous and nobility men of Iran in their history!!! also they like to put Persian Gulf in their language as a natural world and name!!! but history is not changeable and this gulf is known as Persian Gulf. I always respect you because you help to show better the facts in this regard these discussions will improve the world knowledge, so I thank you in advance.Pejman.azadi (talk) 10:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I am having trouble following the language of your post, but from what I gather, you still disagree with what I said earlier. I respect that. I disagree that we shouldn't follow policy here. I will say again that this is not a strike for pan-Arabism or a strike against pan-Persian-ism (or whatever the proper terms would be); this is simply an acknowledgment that that the disagreement exists, and that enough people call it something other than what you do. At the conclusion of the matter, that's the only criteria we are utilizing here, and its the only criteria that should be used. Nationalism is ugly, and has no place here in Wikipedia. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 12:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

with all respects to you, I have to say that it is not Persian nationalism, it is a big fact that this gulf is has an International name and also legal name which is Persian Gulf. so please explain me why do you want to change the fact? it is very clear that it can not be changed at all.Pejman.azadi (talk) 06:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Arcayne: There is no point trying to understand what Pejman says because 1)His English is limited 2)He will repeat the same thing again and again. This is not an attack on Pejman, but rather an observation. --Persan en Japon (talk) 02:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
As for the unsigned user above with the ip I find his argument to be arrogant! So what if 350 million people refer to it as the Arabian Gulf? All those 350 million people don't live along the Gulf, do they? No! He mentions that the Gulf is shared amongst 8 countries, with 7 countries referring to it as the Arabian Gulf while 1 country refers to it as the Persian Gulf. Yes, that is true. However, the total population of the 1 country that uses the term Persian Gulf is larger than the total population of the all the other 7 countries combined which use the term Arabian Gulf. Furthermore, the term Persian Gulf is an international designation. The Persian Gulf is an international body of water and does not "belong" to any one country. The name of this body of water currently "The Persian Gulf" is term which is used by the United Nations and nearly all international organizations. If the name should be changed to the Arabian Gulf, then it needs the approval of all the countries that border it and those international organizations. Finally, questions whether other nations use the term Persian Gulf. Might I suggest that he click all of the language links to the left side of the article to see what other languages call this particular gulf? He'll be surprised that with the exception of Arabic and Turkish, the rest of the world does call it the Persian Gulf. --Persan en Japon (talk) 02:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

From historical point of view this gulf is named and called as Persian Gulf, on the other hand Persian gulf is an approved name in the UN. so that's why it is an Iternational name.

I really appreciate your kind concern in this regard.Pejman.azadi (talk) 06:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Persian Gulf naming dispute

I would like to ask of those who think that the dispute shouldn't be in the article: Should the Persian Gulf naming dispute article be deleted too, for the same reasons? If so, should the sources it cites be removed from bookshelves? MilesAgain (talk) 13:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I am fairly sure that your wit is going to be wasted on those who aren't already clear on the dividing lines here, Miles. I think it might exacerbate the problem rather than lead some to enlightenment (or at least resignation in following wiki policy). Perhaps being more clear would be helpful. :) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 14:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Honestly, reading the debate above, I am out of ideas. At first I thought it was just one or two radicals, but now I see that it is a matter of national pride among several editors. Those editors care only about suppressing any mention of "Arabian Gulf" from this article and care nothing about the mission of the encyclopedia. That much is obvious because they don't care one whit about the several times "Arabian Gulf" is mentioned in Persian Gulf naming dispute. Maybe we need to do what they do in Rorschach inkblot test and hide the alternate name behind a click-shield. MilesAgain (talk) 04:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Now, that isn't very helpful in helping others to work together to compromise, Miles. No one likes being talked down to, and in the case of nationalism, much of it is learned at so young an age, it takes a real Citizen of the World to swim against the tide of his or her upbringing. We keep forgetting that in most of the world, the worst an argument like that can get is some harsh words and maybe a shoving match. People in that region take it so seriously that some folk end up on the wrong side of dead over what we consider to be trivial matters.
We have to note the alternative name. It isn't really debatable. the only thing getting int he way is some folks' idea that they are betraying their heritage by even allowing someone else to share that which they consider exclusively their own. Learn to share, I say; the world is small enough without people arguing over what to name the fishing hole.
However, Miles, If you feel the matter is insoluble at this stage, then perhaps we need to move up the mediation chain towards ArbCom. I think that would be Requests for mediation, which is the last step before ArbCom. i think we should try to avoid ArbCom, as they usually deal with patterns of invicility, and with only a few notable exceptions, a lot of people have recently managed to keep their heads (which is, as always, a Good Thing). An alternative would be to post an AN/I, and ask for the opinions of a few admins. A few of them are about as useful as a bag of broken hammers, but most of them are pretty solid, knowledgeable and civil folk. I would actually urge this even before formal mediation. They might be able to fix the problem to everyone's satisfaction (they are admins; sometimes the can do that. Really.), coz' let's face it; we are getting nowhere fast,and the RfC only attracted our own opinions which we - surprise! - already knew. Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arcayne (talkcontribs) 04:59, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
It's a bit misleading to say "Those editors care only about suppressing any mention of Arabian Gulf". My point has been that it appears in the article already and adding it to the lead provides for undue weight given the small minority that is using this name in Arabic. It is not being "supressed" from the article. I've repeated it many times above. I won't repeat the details again. I think categorizing this as nationalism is also misleading. I believe Persan en japon has described the situation very well. Regards ObserverToSee (talk) 05:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

ObserverToSee (and Arcayne and others): you are right, and I am wrong. I had looked at a much earlier edit some time ago and not closely at the last section of the article in its present condition. I apologize for misrepresenting your motivations and will be more careful about such things in the future. As for Mediation, I suspect the mediators would ask that you run the RFC for a couple weeks before requesting it. MilesAgain (talk) 06:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Observer, I think you are right; I was still fresh from responding to Pejman (who does seem to consider that no mention is the preference), and unfairly lumped everyone's views with his. Please accept my apology for that. Person has indeed described the his side of the situation extremely well, and is indeed very polite and professional (two excellent qualities to edit alongside). :)
Miles, don't worry. If I had a penny for every time I was wrong, I'd be a rich man. However, stepping up is pretty cool of you. Kudos.
Something in Observer's post got me a-wondering. Are people up in arms over the idea of adding:
  • (The Persian Gulf (also controversially referred to as the Arabian Gulf), in the Southwest Asian region, is an extension of the Indian Ocean located between Iran and the Arabian Peninsula.[1]
or are folk upset over the idea of adding the Arabic script naming it such in the Lead as well? As the Farsi script isn't included, the Arabic should not be, either. btw, how about the version noted above? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 14:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

So, no one has a problem with the above version being used, then? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 01:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

You probably knew this, but I do not object. I think it is a good idea. Maybe the opposition would not like the word 'alternatively', given that alternate can mean substitute. Which kind of sounds like Arabian Gulf is just as acceptable as Persian Gulf (which we do not want to say). I could be mistaken. I slightly prefer "The Persian Gulf, in the Southwest Asian region, is an extension of the Indian Ocean located between Iran and the Arabian Peninsula. This body of water is sometimes controversially referred to as The Gulf and also as the Arabian Gulf by Arabs."--Agha Nader (talk) 02:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
The problem in semantics is not changed to reflect that. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 04:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Is there any objective criteria?

The good side of a civil debate is that it gives a chance for all sides to undestand other views. I still think it is undue weight to bring other names to the lead but after these discussion I came to wonder is there any objective measure for this? When there is undue weight or due weight? Those who say it is significant enough, how do they come to this idea? Is there any population parameter or GDP weight or maybe citation measure? Like how mnay times Persian gulf has been used and how many times other name? I am trying to see if beside what each of us subjectivly think, and happen to care enough to leave a note here, is there any objective measure for it?

  • May I request only leave your suggestions for an objective measure here and keep the argument in other parts of talk page? This is a call for brainstorm rather than taking any side of the debate. Hope it helps.Farmanesh (talk) 16:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Actually, that is a conversation best suited to WP:NPOV, as it seeks to re-define what criteria are currently used throughout Wikipedia. You will note that at the very top of this page is a yellow text box which - like its clones elsewhere - specify this page for discussion on improvements to this article. Your request exceeds that mandate. Let's stick to the article. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 16:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the answer, however looking to it I guess I have not been clear enough that you are giving this answer.
I am not suggesting a general discussion here on philasophy! As mentioned above, I am asking for specific objective criteria for this very article and this very debate we are in. I think my intention was clear when I said "Is there any population parameter or GDP weight or maybe citation measure? Like how many times Persian gulf has been used and how many times other name?". These are few example of an objective approach to decide on the undue weight case on this article's lead. Problem is with current approach just based on what each of us feel like (subjectively), and which of us happens to be around to leave a message would be very arbitary. And soon enough someone would come and reopen same debate we have now (we had this debate long ago before you start helping out here. We did reach a consensus but again we are back to the same debate). But if there can be an objective measure then it would help to have a more stable article. I hope this clarify's the misunderstanding.Farmanesh (talk) 18:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Nay, you did not reach consensus. The compromise was against WP:CONSENSUS: "When consensus is referred to in Wikipedia discussion, it always means 'within the framework of established policy and practice'. Even a majority of a limited group of editors will almost never outweigh community consensus on a wider scale, as documented within policies." The compromise was not within the framework of the manual of style, specifically WP:LEAD.--Agha Nader (talk) 18:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
My freind compromise or consensus, thats not my point. Here I am asking if anyone beside their personal subjective POV, has any objective approach in mind or should we just continue this same discussion every now and then?Farmanesh (talk) 19:21, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Agha Nader's comments aside, I understand what you are seeking. You want a fairly consistent measurement as to what constitutes undue weight. When I recommended you to the discussion page for NPOV (of which undue weight is a part of that policy), I did so not to send you off on a wild goose chase, but rather to point out that if you wish to find or create a consistent measurement of notability, that would be the place to do it. this is an article discussion page. The other is a policy discussion page. The way that the policy is now constructed, we have to include the mention of the Arabian Gulf (though I feel that also wording it in Arabic is in fact undue weight). - Arcayne (cast a spell) 01:18, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
My friend Arcayne, you have rightly insisted number of times to others that bolding your point is like shouting, I wonder when you say "we have to", then what the italic format consists in your view? Mild shouting?
That aside, yes this page is about discussion about this article and we are in the middle of a debate on it and my suggestion is a direct addition to reach a rational solution for it. I am frankly amazed that instead of trying to give suggestions for an objective measure of deciding about undue weight, you just insist on your POV as "we have to include the mention of the Arabian Gulf"! Well, I think up to now you have made your POV pretty much clear in other parts of the article and we all respected it and listened to it.
Maybe the reason that both you and my firend Agha Nader didn't find my call for brainstorm on objective measures helpful enough to give suggestions for it was that I already have also an estated opinion here. I wish someone without that background would have proposed this.
Now, please consider putting aside what we think about this debate and each other's POV for a moment. Is there any -really just any- objective measure you can think of for deciding if this is undue case or not? Not about NPOV in general or even this article in general, but just about our very current debate. I gave an example above (it is a rather weak one with many problems, I confese. But it is a start in our brainstorm): "Is there any population parameter or GDP weight or maybe citation measure? Like how many times Persian gulf has been used and how many times other name?"
Do you have any other measure in mind? or shall we just continue this subjective and POV-based debates for the time-be and then few months later open it up again as someone else would see it unfit?Farmanesh (talk) 05:21, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Farmanesh jaan, I see your point now. If we are going to argue about undue weight, we should define the term. But, you should realize that I am not saying the inclusion of Arabian Gulf in the lead is undue weight--you are. If you admit that the term is subjective, then how can you base your argument on it? Unfortunately, I will not engage in a discussion about the meaning or objectivity of undue weight. I do not think it is in the scope of our discussion--even though it is essential to your argument. Cheers!--Agha Nader (talk) 07:14, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Farmanesh, when i say we have to, I am not espousing a POV in the traditional sense of the word. When I say we have to, the stressing of the have to part is meant to suggest that, due to Wikipedia policy, we cannot make any other choice. Italicization is intended as emphasis, not shouting - I am sorry if you have incorrectly perceived it otherwise.
I am not opposed to applying the current criteria of undue weight, but feel that you are perhaps allowing a personal view to marginalize those that use the term. It might be shady, but the argument is noteworthy, cited and already present in the article - not undue weight. Undue weight would consist of doing anything other than noting the presence of the alternate name and that it is controversial (as per the example above).
What I am opposed to is the idea that you think we can re-determine what is and what is not the undue weight policy of Wikipedia; the place to discuss a change in how policy is interpreted is on the page for that policy, and not in the article, where those stated policies are utilized. If I have misinterpreted that goal, you again have my apologies. If however, you wish to discuss whether the inclusion is of undue weight here, I would suggest that the archives be read, as this topic has come up repeatedly, and devolved into passionate cultural identification, none of which is encyclopedic. For the record, notability, not GDP is the determination of note. the topic of the controversy is public, is cited, and is present today. The marginalizing of the topic by refusing to discuss it is unacceptable.
If you want to change policy, there are places to do that. This article discussion is not one of them. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 07:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you for asnwering. Sidenote for Arcayne's usage of Italic, is there a writen style that I am not aware of which says bold is shouting and Italic is emphasis? or this is just your understanding of it?
As for our discussion, I do think it is your POV that this is notable, as this is your point of view on the translation of the policy to this debate. Some editors here, as shown in current debate and past archives (I am happy you have read them), have very different understanding of the translation of the same policy to this debate. Both sides based on wikipedia policy think their POV is what is supposed to happen and saying that your POV is not a POV but THE truth and "When I say we have to, [...], due to Wikipedia policy, we cannot make any other choice" is rather a bit too self-confident. We can fairly say, that it is your undestanding and point of view of the wikipedia policy that "we have to" do it in certain way; but others may differ in that understanding and I hope you don't belive what you think is THE final answer like the US Supreme Court. It is your POV of what should be done based on policies and there are other POVs about it.Farmanesh (talk) 16:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Now I really don't want to go over what we think about this debate here. We have already done that before and we have space in other sections to talk about it. Maybe a simple question would help here: "when one says adding other names than Persian Gulf is notable, based on what measure one defines this notablity?" Is it just your personal POV and understanding of wikipedia policy or you have a measure in mind for notability other than that? If you don't, that is fine not to comment, at least we get clear on what is our criteria of notability (or lack of it) for this debate.Farmanesh (talk) 16:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
In response, I am measuring notability by the existence of a long-standing naming dispute, several citations that note the usage of the name (and of the controversial nature of their usage) and the presence of the naming controversy within the article. I believe other users have also stipulated that more than 24 million people in the region utilize the name (I noted the 24m as it is the population of Saudi Arabia, there might be others who call it such). Rightly or wrongly, the alternative (or controversial, if you will) name exists, both as citation, factual controversy and present within the article. To me, those all combine to present a pretty strong (I would say undeniable) notability. The presence of the naming dispute and citations controvert the argument for Undue Weight, as the presence of the controversial name appears in more places than say, a simple tribal or other localized usage. As I mentioned before, I do not agree that adding the Arabic translation of the name is proper (any more than the usage of the Farsic translation is). the article is about the body of water, and i it is called by different names, it is encyclopedic to note such. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 16:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
What about the issue of providing additional prominence with respect to [WP:Undue weight]? As quoted from [WP:Undue weight]: "Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements", how do we say that adding the alternate name to the article's lead where it is already referenced in the article's body is not providing additional prominence to a name used by a very small minority? We can discuss the fact that 24 mill is not a very small minority or that 300 or 350 mill, which are unverified and not sourced figures and no one knows how many of them actually do use the alternate name, are not a very small minority with respect to the entire world's population. But are they not? ObserverToSee (talk) 18:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
As has been mentioned before, Lead comes into play; as the overview of the article, the Lead summarizes and gives an overview of the article's contents. the existence of an alternative name, though controversial is in fact an identifier, and needs inclusion. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I understand where WP:lead comes in, but WP:Undue weight can not be ignored and should be given precedence as it's an established rule that must be followed. WP:lead, however, as mentioned before is not. Can we ignore that? ObserverToSee (talk) 19:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
With respect, I feel I have expressed (ad infinitum) why the inclusion of Arabian peninsula is not an undue weight violation. Seeing as I don't see it as an undue weight violation, my natural next step is to consider anyone who wishes to cull the topic as per Lead, and I was expressing why that argument as well is outside Wikipedia policy and guidelines. I am not sure why we are still debating this, as the matter seems pretty ironclad to me. As I recommended before, if we need to escalate this matter, let us do so without further delay. While I consider myself to be a fairly patient man, i think it is becoming a waste of time to continue the debate - we are none of us saying anything remotely different than that which has been said dozens of times before.
I am firmly convinced that following WP policies, rather than seeking to extend or bend them beyond their current station, is the only way to act here. If following wiki policy and guidelines is my POV, then so be it. I appreciate you attempting to seek a logical way out of the undue policy - ie, seeking to discuss 'additional prominence' and whatnot. It doesn't matter if there were 40 million references to Persian Gulf (and who knows, there may very well be); none of it - I repeat - none extinguishes the notability of the naming dispute, or that the alternative titling appears in print elsewhere. Because it is notable, cited and actually already appears in the article, it is not undue weight to include it. And if it sounds like I am repeating myself, it is because I am.
Not to be rude, but the facts are not going to change, and policy is not going to change. This is the way that it is. I have been politely explaining my point of view (which is WP's point of view, not an interpretation of such) for almost a week here. trying to help people understand why policy is the way that it is, and that this is not even a slightly difficult interpretation, unless there is a personal investment in the matter. While I appreciate the concern of the many people that 'their' Persian Gulf is going to be endangered by the mere presence of an encyclopedic, alternative (and controversial) naming, that concern does not override wiki policy and guidelines. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 21:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I see you have become impatent, while you have been a civil contributer, looking to above comment seems you are slowely going down to the line which you have helped us come out of. maybe a small break?
This debate is nothing new and some here have been observing it for much longer than your help started. Please don't forget: there are no emergencies on Wikipedia! Everything will be sorted out in due time. However, as stated before, I share with you the sense of redundency in discussions and that is honstly why I proposed the call for objective measures. Looking to past even if we reach a new agreement, soon enough another person would bring up similar debate. For now maybe a deep breath and few hours out of this page helps.Farmanesh (talk) 21:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

All that said, i think we have to go to WP:MEDCAB at this point, as nothing new is being said and mediation seems to be the next step is dispute resolution in this matter. Please post your name if you wish to be involved in the mediation. there are no sanctions that come out of it (ie, people cannot get blocked or whatnot). If you want your voice heard in this mediation, please sign up. If you do not participate, you shouldn't be upset if your position isn't defended. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 21:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed WP:PANIC is an interesting essay. I appreciate your patience. You set a model that we strive to follow. On one hand, Arcayne dismissed your claim that undue weight is subjective. He directed you to bring up your complaint at WP:NPOV. On the other hand, I see the validity of your claim. However, the proponents of adding the term Arabian Gulf do not cite WP:UNDUE. The opponents do. Thus, the (supposed) subjectivity of WP:UNDUE only weakens their argument. I believe it has been noted on this page that notability is also subjective. Notability was cited by proponents of adding Arabian Gulf to the lead. That complaint is, verily, discussed in WP:N : ""Presumed" means objective evidence meets the criteria, without regard for the subjective personal judgments of editors." However, there are criterion enumerated in WP:N. Among them is reliable sources: "Substantive coverage in reliable sources suggests that the subject is notable.". I have listed many reliable sources (including National Geographic). I can expand on the notability of the term Arabian Gulf upon request. I look forward to reaching a solution that we can all be proud of, rather than dictating a solution by escalating the matter. Cheers!--Agha Nader (talk) 21:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

N.B. User Arcayne has debased one of my comments several times. He has added a colon to it thus indenting it. Please see [21]. I have reverted him several times in order to restore my original post. We should not tolerate Arcayne changing our post. I was responding to Farmanesh, but the extra indent implies that I am responding to Arcayne. Please see WP:TALK, specifically [22]. It states "Never edit someone's words to change their meaning. Editing others' comments is sometimes allowed, but you should exercise caution in doing so. Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments" What Arcayne is doing is not among the examples and is prohibited. To use his own words "yeah, don't ever touch another editor's posts. It will surely get you bounced faster than a rubber ball."

Actually, very little of that post is actually correct, and I am not even talking about the silly characterization of "debasing" or apparent use of the royal 'we'. I have indented your post because without the indention, our comments appear with the same indention. As well, your comment clearly states that you are responding to Farmanesh, and not me. No change was made to any part of your post, nor would I ever do that, even when you were being uncivil and attacking the good folk here. As well, you were advised in the AN/I to be more civil. I guess you forgot that, and may need to actually get blocked for incivility. Is that what you are looking for at this point? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 21:32, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Correction: I meant " We should not tolerate Arcayne changing our posts." So I wasn't using the Pluralis Majestatis, but I appreciate that you thought so high of me that you thought I was "royal." I also appreciate that you ceased to alter my post. I am starting to see you mature into a better editor.--Agha Nader (talk) 17:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
I truly wish I could say the same about you, Maybe do yourself a favor and don't talk to me anymore. You've been advised by two admins from your most recetn AN/I to avoid posting messages to me. This sort of situation was what they were talking about. Do it again, and you can visit the AN/I board again. :) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

There is no need to have any conversation about Persian Gulf name

The Persian Gulf doesn't have any alternative name. I want to say you why you are doing some wrong actions? There is no any logical thought in this issue! that's a waste of time, waste of enery and it is a big cheat!!! do you want to be a cheater??? It is a big FAKE because it is very clear that you are some players that are being supported by some political groups!!! that's why you are writing some wrong information here on Wikipedia. Pejman.azadi (talk) 04:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I found this very amusing: "you are some players that are being supported by some political groups!!!" I wish I could find these groups and demand my share. Seriously, who can I call to get some cash? Who are these political groups? What evidence do you have? I find your comment to be an innovative breach of AGF. I am referring to "that's why you are writing some wrong information here on Wikipedia." All this time I thought I was editing to better a neutral and free encyclopedia--but I guess I was wrong. It must have been to get cold hard cash from "some political groups!!!"--Agha Nader (talk) 05:08, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
How is that helpful to the situation, Nader? Please stop teasing Pejman.azadi. - 06:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Agha Nader please pay more attention, all of my speaks go back to somebody here who wants to insert wrong information . Persian Gulf's name is explaining the history and it is a part of world heritage! and also it has its own legal validity, It is very obvoius that some small-local arab countries are spending huge amount of dollars with a well political supports to change this name but what a petty!!! So please be advised that the fact can not be changed. Persian Gulf will be remained Persian Gulf Forever.Pejman.azadi (talk) 10:26, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
I believe Nader is in fact paying attention, Pejman (though not being all that polite about it). the information you are noting seems uncited, and while I have no doubt that you could easily cite it reliably, that information might better be served in the Naming Dispute article. It' doesn't seem to belong here. If you feel as strongly that the Arabian Gulf name should not be included, I urge you (and anyone else) to participate in the WP:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-12-14_Persian_Gulf. It is very much like voting in America: if you don't participate, you cannot complain if the outcome is unsuitable to you. It is really as simple as that. Support your decision, and please participate. It would be shameful if the mediator came to a conclusion based upon the lack of participation that you actually want the inclusion of Arabian Gulf into the Lead. Who knows? It might even replace the Persian Gulf title... - Arcayne (cast a spell) 11:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Dear Arcayne thank you very much!!! I think I am very polite and no need to your responsibility, so the kind efforts that you could do is that trying to gathering some votes or inserting some unknown data about Persian Gulf's name, so please be informed that Persian Gulf has its own legal documents and CAN NOT BE CHANGED.Thanks for your nice concern!Pejman.azadi (talk) 05:14, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, but the fact is that voting about a geographical registered name with a several legal and correct documents could be a game! due to arab dollars spending in this issue. The world believe that this gulf is Persian Gulf, please don't tell me that is arab countries it is named with another fake name. So it is very obvious that voting in a some unknown communities are not trustable. PERSIAN GULF WILL BE REMAINED PERSIAN GULF FOREVER. Thnaks for your comments and Good Luck!Pejman.azadi (talk) 05:14, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Could you elaborate on how voting is "not trustable" in this dispute due to "arab dollars spending in this issue." I am especially interested in what an arab dollar is, and which editors you think are getting "arab dollars." Cheers!--Agha Nader (talk) 17:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
maybe let it go, nader, and stop baiting him. If you think he's being uncivil, report him. Otherwise, stick specifically to the article, pls. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments!!! Did you forget the National Geography story about Persian gulf? Did you forget the Louvre Museum story about Periasn Gulf? It is very obvious that some political games and financial supports are playing behind the mask!!! So why are you denying the fact? Also about Arcayne speaking I'd say that is it being uncivil if I want to improve and protect to inserting false information here? so why do you inserting fake information here? I will report your speaking to the administrator if you want to continue! Am I going to be uncivil???? It is interesting view of you, I am so sorry because we are living in a very bad world and nowadays somebody are trying to change the facts and they will tell every thing they want to their oppositions! it is really a big shame!!! Pejman.azadi (talk) 05:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

First of all, you need to calm down, Pejman. You cannot talk to other editors that way, as it is uncivil. I understand that you are unfamiliar with English, so you perhaps did not understand that my words were in defense of you. I have not once said anything derogatory or unkind to you, and I believe that anyone else here will attest to that.
When you do not understand the English language that well, you need to take extra care to not arrive at the wrong conclusion. Perhaps you can ask someone who understand the language a little bit better to assist you in interpreting what it being said.
Secondly, you might want to become involved with the mediation currently occurring about the topic of inclusion of the Arabian Gulf information. That mediation will pretty much determine how and if the Arabian Gulf is included in the Lead. If you do not become involved inthe mediation, you should not be upset if they arrive at a decision that you do not like. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 06:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I am familiar with English enough to understand you are writing here some incorrect information about a fake name , the only name for this gulf is PERSIAN GULF! arabian gulf doesn not exist at all. So please be informed that I respect to your comments but I don't agree with your idea. Pejman.azadi (talk) 08:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate you being calm this time. I am sorry we disagree, but that is the way of the world sometimes. two people can be both ood souls and simply disagree with how to interpret a set of facts. If you would like to become involved in making your opinion known, please contribute to the MedCab discussion. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 15:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

PERSIAN GULF and United Nations

I think you can find many useful information about the Persian Gulf at these UN websites.Pejman.azadi (talk) 04:45, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

What is the point of adding more sections? You should just make your case in one spot. It will be easier to follow that way. Cheers!--Agha Nader (talk) 05:02, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

It is due to someones' action to insert false and incorrect information here, so the right information should be emphasized and it is interesting to me that why you are asking it? It is clear that we are here to protect the Wikipedia from untruth data. By the way I always thank you for your comments.Pejman.azadi (talk) 05:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

My question was: why do you keep adding more sections when we are discussing the same issue? Not why you are discussing this issue. I think it is pretty clear why you are discussing this issue. You, I assume, want to improve Wikipedia. You have also made it clear that you have another motive: to 'preserve the true name of the Persian Gulf.' This is pretty clear given your website [23]. I am not attacking or questioning your alternate motive, for it is not clear if it is incompatible with our work here it Wikipedia. Basically, I just wanted to suggest that we discuss this issue in a coherent manner. That is, in one, or if necessary, a couple, of sections.--Agha Nader (talk) 07:02, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind attention and I appreciate your efforts in this regard.Pejman.azadi (talk) 04:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Fringe name

Hello. Fringe names dont belong lead. There are a lot of fringe names for the Persian Gulf, including the Gulf of Basra, Gulf of Iran, Gulf of Iraq. The issue here is not the name Arabian Gulf, its the origin of the name Arabian Gulf. It is a fringe names and by neutrality fringe names do not belong in the lead. The term Arabian Gulf is rarely used in English. The term Arabian Gulf is already discussed in the page. Thanks.PashaGol (talk) 19:02, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

You may be interested in the mediation case on the subject. CloudNine (talk) 19:05, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

We didn't heard or read anywhere gulf of basra, we just heard Persian Gulf, it seems it is the first time I heard that!!! even the arabs mentioned it as Pars Sae on their maps. Please show your documents that it is mentioned as a gulf of basra and it should be legal and approved not just a claim. ok? If I claim this gulf is only Persian Gulf I have my legal documents and it is known internationaly as Persian Gulf. Good Luck!Pejman.azadi (talk) 05:56, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


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.Pejman.azadi (talk) 06:53, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Questions about the subject of an article should be directed to one of the reference desks. Talk pages are reserved for discussion on the articles themselves. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:57, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Persian Gulf on the Historical Maps

Please take a look at the following link, the Persian gulf's name is mentiond in many historical maps.


Thanks for taking the time.Pejman.azadi (talk) 07:24, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

With respect, that source is from Iran. they aren't really all that likely to demonstrate information showing the validity of the term 'Arabian Gulf'.
You may be interested in the mediation case on the subject. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 14:45, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

All the maps have sources, you could search for them on the net, even there are some links regarding their addresses! It is very clear that Persian Gulf had been mentiond in the historical maps.No need to mention that this gulf doesn't have any other name.arabian gulf doesn't exist in any part of this region. the Red Sea is another name of arabian gulf! I respect to your idea but it doesn't entitle you to deny the fact.Pejman.azadi (talk) 10:56, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Persian Gulf

Please have a look at:

You can see the name of Persian Gulf as an official name!

Thanks for your understanding.Pejman.azadi (talk) 06:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Persian Gulf Region Politics and government

Please have a look at the following link!

Persian Gulf is mentioned obviously as a International name in the educational sources. Pejman.azadi (talk) 06:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

No history section

I came here seeking to learn about the history of this most ancient body of water, of vital importance for 1000s of years and a major center of maritime trade since ancient times. But... there's no history section at all! That is a gaping hole in this article, akin to there being no history section in the Mediterranean Sea article (whose history section began so long it was spun off into its own page). I don't mean to complain -- I just know very little about the topic and hoped to learn. Consider this a note for some future editor to think about. Thanks! Pfly (talk) 00:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree - looking through the discussion history, it appears that a massive amount of time has been wasted on a childish crusade attempting to eliminate any references to the term "Arabian Gulf" and not enough time has been devoted to the more important aspects of the history and geography of the sea itself. Please everyone, if you really care that much about this body of water, redirect your efforts to more productive research. For instance, despite all the controversy, no-one seems to have queried the basic description of the area as "rich with marine life and coral reefs". Perhaps in some parts of the Gulf this is true, but it is by no means universally the case. Much of the coastal water of the UAE and Qatar, for example, is a sandy desert and fish are generally only in abundance around wrecks or other artificial reefs. The sea is actually one of the shallowest, most saline and hottest in the world. Maybe some of our Iranian contributors could provide information about, for example, what the geography and marine life are like off the coast of Kish Island. I would actually be interested in that and I'm sure many others (particularly scuba divers) would be too. So come on, guys, let's grow up and do something useful and provide the general public with information that will actually be of interest to them. Rodgerclarke (talk) 12:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Wrong protection template


{{sprotect}} should be {{protect}} here, thanks. MilesAgain (talk) 06:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

done by User:CloudNine. —Random832 18:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

My edits

My recent edits seemed to have concerned some of the contributors to this page and so they were undone. I would like you to look at my edits here [24] and express any views you may have. I hope my edits would be reverted.Ardeshire Babakan (talk) 20:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I would also like to ask if we could put a [Hide] button where the list of islands are. It is quite long. Or maybe we could make a subsection in the Geography section to talk about them (including Palm Islands). Or maybe both?!?!Ardeshire Babakan (talk) 20:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi the infobox is good but moving removing sectons was not a good idea. The geography is the most important section and should remain on top. thanks --alidoostzadeh (talk) 21:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

OK.Ardeshire Babakan (talk) 21:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

This article also needs major expansion. A history section is desperately needed and I know a few sites that talk about this. A subsection under the Geography section could also describe the major ports. Maybe someone could add a geology section. A wildlife section would also increase the quality of the article.Ardeshire Babakan (talk) 22:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Edit request


It's just to sort out the tag under the picture of the page, it's got thee curly crackets which is making the tag invalid. Nothing major, what I'd mark as minor edit. BigHairRef | Talk 15:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done required change was actually to {{Infobox Ocean}}. Happymelon 17:02, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Next step?

I am unsure as to where we are in the mediation, but until there is a resolution, we shouldn't be tinkering with the Lead or the alternate name used for the body of water. If mediation has in fact failed, then we need to take the next step of submitting the matter to ArbCom. No one is being especially contentious (at least recently), but a fair amount of opinions on either side seem unconvinced of the other side's contentions. Therefore, someone feel free to submit an ArbCom request so we can get some semi-final decision on the matter. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Perhaps I am being too optimistic but I propose adding the sentence with the most support from the mediation into the "Naming dispute section." If it stands in the body of the article we can stop quibbling about its content and only discuss its position in the article. --Agha Nader (talk) 18:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I had attempted that, but it had been reverted almost immediately, and our mediator appears to have left the building. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Proposal #5 is "the sentence with the most support from the mediation" [25], and that's not what Arcayne "attempted" to add to the article [26]. As for ArbCom, it is suppose to be the last resort and ArbCom rules have made it crystal clear that "the committee will not rule on the content of articles. Please do not request decisions from the committee on content, as these requests will not be accepted", so ArbCom would either not accept the case at all, or would only sanction users based on behavior, specifically those users with a history of blocks for edit warring, and the content dispute will still remain unresolved. Agha Nader's latest proposal is probably the best option at this time. AlexanderPar (talk) 04:18, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
With respect, please get your facts straight, AP. Peoposal did not have community support, mainly because it was wildly inaccurate. However, the amount of emotive content and ego tied up in the issues made mediation impossible. So, any usage of proposal 5 - because of its inaccuracies cannot be included. This is an encyclopedia, not a feel-good site for one or another ethnic group. My addition notes that the usage of the term is in fact controversial. Said controversy is noted and discussed int he body of the article. It follows wiki policy and guidelines. It should remain. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 09:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I do have my facts straight. I have carefully studied the mediation page, and proposal #5 was well sourced, and had the widest support. As a matter of fact, you were the only editor opposed to it. However, you were unable to provide any sources to show that the alleged "inaccuracies" existed, despite your promise to do so. AlexanderPar (talk) 11:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Clearly, not carefully enough, as #5 was not "well-sourced". As well, it did not have the "widest support," and furthermore could not be used, as it violated wiki policy, specifically, WP:LEAD and WP:N. I wasn't the only person to point that out, as not only the mediator pointed that out, but others as well, including Agha Nader and myself; it is worth noting that Agha Nader usually disagree rather vehemently on a wide range of topics. That we found agreement on this is significant, and should be telling you something.
Rather than expend your energies on a choice we cannot use, perhaps you could concentrate your efforts on finding a wiki-allowable solution that everyone could live with. If you are entirely unwilling to pursue such a course of action, I suggest that you re-submit the matter for mediation. I suggested ArbCom as it is sometimes an effective 'court of last recourse'. They can certainly address an unwillingness to follow wiki policy in regards to policy on the part of editors. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 21:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Proposal #5 did have the widest support, I am not going to argue with you about something as obvious as daylight, others can double-check the mediation discussions and judge for themselves. Furthermore, Agha Nader did not oppose proposal #5, he endorsed it. If you truly wish to find a workable solution, then you could simply return to the mediation page and deliver on your unfulfilled promise to provide sources to refute, and point out the "inaccuracies" of proposal #5, as was requested of you by an administrator. [27]AlexanderPar (talk) 22:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

(←dent) allow me to poin t out to you - once again - that #5 cannot be used because it violates Lead and WP:N (and yeah, it didn't go unnoticed that you avoided answering that). To call the usage of Arabian Gulf solely a political creation is not neutral, and it isn't supported by the article text. Therefore, it cannot be included. If it isn't in the text, it cannot be in the Lead. Rather than attack me (which will only get you reported for incivility and prolly editorially bitch-slapped by me), maybe you could us all the kindness of simply following the rules, or head on over to WP:LEAD and try to change the rules there. As the proposal doesn't meet wiki rules and guidelines, I'm done talking about it. You might want to read the mediation and archives a tad closer. I wasn't the only one who didn't like it. Even the mediator didn't approve of it. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 00:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The version I like the most, not surprisingly, is [28]. I have already given reasons why I prefer it and support it. After lengthy discussions, I decided to alter it to [29]. Arabs are not the only people who call it the Arabian Gulf (examples of non-Arabs have using it have been given, and can be found in the archives). However, in order to reflect the consensus--or what I thought to be consensus--I qualified the edit by adding " Arabs." Likewise, the fifth proposal is not my first choice. It qualifies the fact that some people use Arabian Gulf. The proposal says that Arabs use the Arabian Gulf for political reasons. This assertion is sourced in a footnote on page nine of a book by Gary Sick: "For political reasons, Arabs often refer to it as the Arab or Arabian Gulf... this book...will use the terms 'Persian Gulf' and 'Gulf' interchangeably and without political intent." However, it should be taken with a grain of salt. Can't some people use the term for other reasons? Whatever the case is, Sick has shown that "the Gulf" can be used without political intent, for he uses it in the book and admits to it! Aside from these criticism (and others raised in the mediation by my fellow editors), the fifth proposal seems to be the one with the best chances of remaining in the article and withstanding the attack of POV pushers (i.e. pejman.azadi). That is why I support it. It is unfortunate that the article has to be compromised to appease the pejman.azadis of Wikipedia.--Agha Nader (talk) 05:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Agha Nader that proposal #4 - the one that avoids the negative characterization that the usage of the Arabian Gulf is only used for political reasons - is a better, more accurate choice. Nader has pointed out succinctly that the term can be used for identifying purposes, by a large group of people and commonly amon gst that group of people. For these reasons (as well as those raised within the mediation), I am unsure why we don't simply note the alternative title, and leave the characterization to both the text and the article that specifically addresses the nomenclature dispute.. With respect, proposal #4 is the only choice that is truly available to us, within the structure of the rules and guidelines. It is neutral, citable and - best of all - accurate. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 06:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Proposal #4 did not get nearly as much support as #5, there were half a dozen users opposed to it. Ultimately, compromise and mediation means you give up something and the other side gives up something so that both sides get part of what they want. Therefore, in simple terms, proposal #4 is not a workable solution.AlexanderPar (talk) 15:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
With respect, #4 doesn't violate our rules, whereas #5 (being pov) does. #4 states the matter succinctly. #5 pushes a point of view neither intimated in the article nor in the separate nomenclature dispute article. I urge you to take a closer look at the "half a dozen" (who actually didn't oppose it) but insisted that any naming of the Arabian Gulf was an utter lie, and we were all bad people for even suggesting it.
  1. 4 is the best alternative, as it follows the rules about objective neutrality and fulfills the needs of all but the more extremist views on the subject. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Arcayne, you were suppose to provide credible sources to justify your opposition to my proposal "after te weekend ", it's been many weekends since then, and we are all still waiting for you to provide citations that refute my proposal, every part of which is backed by citations from reputable sources.--Sia34 (talk) 20:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

As I posted weeks ago, Sia, I was only able to note two sources that identified the usage of Arabian Gulf before Nasser used the term for pan-Arabism (one already in place in the article and one from Janes' Intelligence Review). Agha Nader was able to point out - from your very source, I might add - how the term is Persian Gulf is not used as propaganda, so I guess that would make three sources. I believe my edits to the text denoted as such. However, as was said before, characterizing the usage of the term as purely political is not within any of the quotes you provided, at least, not any of the reliable ones. Sick is but one source, and I've provided you with three that counter that. Three reliable and unrelated sources outweigh one somewhat dodgy source from an author who sees conspiracies behind every corner. I am not saying the contention isn't notable, but as a minority opinion - you know, undue weight and all - it doesn't belong in the Lead. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 21:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
The information is directly from the source that follows the sentence. Please don't modify sourced information. --Sia34 (talk) 22:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually, it is a paraphrasing of the actual statements. Were it a direct quote, it would be in italics, because to include a specific quote without denoting it as such would be a copyright infringement. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 22:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Here is another source from C.E. Bosworth (a very well known scholar): The term Persian Gulf was in universal use during this period... 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". Note the author is a famous British historian of the Muslim World. (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). The fact that the term was invented for political reasons needs to be mentioned with the first sentence that ues the term. C.E. Bosworth has hundreds of articles and many books and so his statement is final. The book is also very specialized and particularly devoted to the topic at hand. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 01:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

With respect to Bosworth (who is not as "well-known" as has been intimated), he is but one source; there are others that define the usage of the term somewhat earlier. The term was not coined by Nasser, and I am not sure why folk keep missing (or avoiding) this fact, but the term existed before Nasser latched onto it for his pan-Arabism uses. Because it wasn't coined by him, we cannot say it was. Pushing for it seems to be an attempt to mitigate its notability, and is unacceptable. It should be pointed out that there are numerous references for its usage before Nasser used it. D.T. Potts' The Arabian Gulf in Antiquity, J.F. Salles' Achaemenid History (as well as the references I've provided already) both point to usages in the early 20th century and earlier.
Again, because it is a contentious term, we should aim for the objectively neutral choice. Proposal #4 (from the mediation) sidesteps assigning a specific political origin to the alternative usage. It is also worth reminding folk of WP:LEAD, which directs us, in short, to avoid making statements in the Lead which are not supported by the text. That the existent text on the nomenclature subject largely redirects the reader to the article on the dispute, and that neither the text nor the article do not relate the origin of the nomenclature to Nasser, makes clear that we need to avoid making such claims in the Lead. It doesn't matter how many folk want a certain choice, but if it doesn't follow the rules, it doesn't matter who wants it. Proposal #4 does, and allows the discussion of the nomenclature dispute to occur where it is supposed to - on the nomenclature article and within the body of this one. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 05:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
You are providing original research and making stuff up. The book by Potts is written in 1990! I have friend that knows Potts and he later apologized to the Iranian community for using the title. As per the book "Achaemenid History" bring the full citation. But know that "Arabian Gulf" was used by Greek authors with references to the red sea. Many Greek authors, specially during the Acahemenid era, have used "Arabian Gulf" for the Red Sea. Also it is well known fact that you can not find the term Khalij-e-Arabi in reference to the Persian Gulf in any Arab writing before the 20th century. On the other hand, due to your own OR, you have a problem with three verifiable references that say the name was political. Sorry but you do not have the scholarly credibility of someone like C.E. Bosworth. Your interpretation of WP:LEAD is your POV but others have voted against it. That should show that you lack credibility on the issue, when you consider a book by Potts to be written before 1960. On the other hand, Bosworth is a well known scholar and the book is specific about the Persian Gulf. A book specific to the Persian Gulf will have the correct information. You might not have heard of him, but there are dozens of articles in Wikipedia that uses him and he has written dozens of books and hundreds of articles for Encyclopedia Iranica and Encyclopedia of Islam. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 12:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Allow me to point out that you might want to back off the 'making stuff up' commentary, as its considered pretty uncivil, especially since its application here is quite incorrect. Potts' book was indeed written in '90, but does that mean that the material written about in the book doesn't predate 1990? As for the supposed "apology to the Iranian community" for the title, might I ask you to cite both the 'community' in question as well as the specific apology? Without it, your comments cannot be considered. As well, you may wish to avoid matters of POV, as all its going to do is get you taken down a peg or three while I specifically illuminate your partisan leanings in things Iranian. As the resultant exposure would color you as a pov-pusher, let's simply avoid that topic altogether, okey-doke?
As well, you might want to consider that what you feel is "well-known" may not be an accurate assessment of the prevailing knowledge base, Ali. I don't believe that anyone has specifically used the term "Khalij-e-Arabi" in the article at all, nor is it "well-known" (or accurate) to state that the term was never used prior to the 20th century.
You note, and I concur, that there are sources (some of them extremely biased towards the Persian point of view) that note the usage of the alternate name by Nasser. There are at least two sources that pre-date that pre-date Nasser's political usage, and they are easily as reliable as Bosworth's. Due to the fact that even the origin of the alternative name usage is contended, it is our responsibility to avoid playing favorites and aim - again - for objective neutrality, ie: "the policy is simply that we should describe disputes, not engage in them." By suggesting that the term is wholecloth creation by Nasser, it is an attack on the validity of the term by a notable number of people and in doing so, we are participating in the dispute, and not simply describing it. This is the basic tenet of neutrality which has weathered many tests and remains a core principle of Wikipedia. My "interpretation" of WP:LEAD is absolutely spot on, but I invite you to consult an admin or take the matter up on the LEAD discussion page. You will find that everyone there seems to share precisely the same "interpretation" that I do. This usually means that it is correct. Whilst you might be fighting to preserve some ephemeral cultural egoism, note that doing so is rather unseemly here in Wikipedia. This article is not an attack on Iran or Persian culture; that people seem to be so very, very resistant to anything that gives the alternate name any mention whatsoever. Since I am not interested or invested in preserving a cultural egoism, but instead concerned with writing the best article that can be assembled, your arguments about the Iranian community are pretty much unimportant to me. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 14:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Let us get back to the point instead of intrepreting Wikipedia policies. I am talking about your POV with regards to Bosworth. Potts book was written in 1990, so that doesn't pre-date Nasser. So the fact that you claimed it was before Nasser was "madeup"(untrue) and it was not an insult. You can E-mail the guy and he will explain it to you. I have a friend that knows Potts personally. The other book you mentioned about Achaemenids could be referring to the Red Sea as Arabian Gulf. You need to bring the date of publication. Indeed many European maps have done that, using the Red Sea for Arabian Gulf. The point you need to prove is to bring an Arabic source which uses the term "Khalij-e-Arabi" before the 20th century for the Persian Gulf. That would show it was not madeup in the 1950s/1960s. You can not say Bosworth is unreliable and claim he is unknown. He is the most known scholar cited so far. The term was created around the time of Nasser in the Arabic World (either by him or his pan-Arabist political fellows). You need to prove your POV by citing a scholar that says the name "Arabian Gulf was used as Persian Gulf before the 20th century in the Arab World". I have cited Bosworth, let us see your scholar which contradicts Bosworth directly. We can not have Original Research and of course "Arabian Gulf" was a widely used term in the West for the Red Sea. You are saying what Bosworth has just said is false. You need to prove it by bringing a scholar (on the level of Bosworth who is very well known) that contradicts Bosworth. Also let us examine your two sources which you claim is before 1950/1960 and see if they are not referencing Persian Gulf or not. The point is you can not find an Arabic document that uses "Arabian Gulf"(Khalij-e-Arabi) before the 20th century. The usage "Arabian Gulf" for Persian Gulf in English is due to Arabs first using Khalij-e-Arabi.That should be explained in the second sentence when the alternative name is mentioned. It is NPOV and you need to bring actual scholars (who are well known historians like Bosworth) who contradict Bosworth. I think basically the majority of contributors agree with Sia's proposal. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 15:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I think the matter is simple:
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. )
The term Persian Gulf was in universal use during this period... 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. Note the author is a very famous British historian of the Muslim World with dozens of books and hundreds of article. (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)
Now is there a source from a notable scholar that says: "Arabs have used Khalij-e-Arabi (Arabian Gulf) for the Persian Gulf before the 20th century"(hypothetical question since there isn't) and the above scholars are wrong. If there isn't, then we should mention the term originally had a political nature as these scholars have mentioned. The other side's POV (those that don't accept Sia's proposal) need a scholar (not original research) comparable to the level of Sir Edmond Bosworth who contradicts Bosworth. I also note to say: "late President Nasser of Egypt's brand of Arab nationalism" is different than saying it was created by Nasser. Nasser was the first politican probably to use "Khalij-e-Arabi" in the Arab world, but it could have easily been conjectured by his political circle. So the issue is not about Wikipedia users, but what scholars (Western in all cases here) have said with regards to the political nature of the term. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 15:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Allow me to restate your position, Ali (so as to understand your objections): by presenting cited proof that the usage of 'Arabian Gulf' that pre-datse Nasser, your objection to Proposal #4 (which makes no mention of the spurious political origins of the name) will evaporate. Am I correct in assessing your opposition here? Please correct me if I am wrong. Again, by providing the cied proof you requested, will that resolve your problems with the incorporation of proposal #4? I just don't want to waste my time trying to convince you if you aren't going to be swayed by anything.- Arcayne (cast a spell) 15:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Of course "Arabian Gulf" predates Nasser. It has been used for the Red Sea since the time of Herodotus. And given 1000's of books have been written from Herotodus's time I would not be suprised if like many books there is a geographical designation that might be misplaced (after all red sea, Indian Ocean , Arabian Sea and Persian Gulf are all connected bodies of water). What you need is to bring proof from scholars that the name was not made due to political reasons in the Arabic World. That is you need actual historians that have said: "No the name was not madeup due to political reason in the Arab World". So you need scholars (not yourself or Original Research). --alidoostzadeh (talk) 15:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
(Edit conflict)That is not what I asked, Ali. And I do not ned to prove a negative; I simply need to prove that the term existed and was used prior to Nasser's incorporation of the term for the political ends of pan-Arabism. That you already concede that the term existed before Nasser's usage, it renders the question moot. However, I will reiterate: Again, by providing cited proof establishing that usage of the term Arabian Gulf predates Nasser, will that resolve your problems with the incorporation of proposal #4? A simple yes or no will suffice. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 16:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Read my response. I said Arabian Gulf has been used for the red Sea since the time of Herodotus. None of the scholars I have cited say it was created directly by Nasser. They say it was created by pan-Arabism/Arab nationalism (which he was a poster boy of). So what is important is that "it was created for political reasons due to Arab nationalism". And no, you need to have scholars directly and explicitly contradicting the scholars I have brought. Else I can show you many weird stuff about histography. For example I have a source that says Zoroastrianism was spread from Sudan to China, where-as Zoroastrianism were never spread in Sudan (I think it was in Tabari). That does not give me the right to go the Sudan article and claim that Zoroastrianism was widespread in Sudan. Because scholars have to make such statements. It is up to scholars to examine primary sources and make a conclusion. You are not a scholar (neither I am claiming to be one), Wikipedia requires scholars to make factual statements and not users. I think you need to reread what I just wrote. Let me repeat it: And given 1000's of books have been written from Herotodus's time I would not be suprised if like many books there is a geographical designation that might be misplaced (after all red sea, Indian Ocean , Arabian Sea and Persian Gulf are all connected bodies of water). What you need is to bring proof from scholars that the name was not made due to political reasons in the Arabic World. That is you need actual historians/scholars that have said: "No the name was not madeup due to political reason in the Arab World". So you need scholars (not yourself or Original Research). So to simplify: I have brought four scholars, bring scholars that contradict their statement directly (not by your intrepretation of primary or OR). The fact that you claimed Sir Edmond Bosworth is unknown scholar I believe establishes your bias in this issue. He is one of the most prominent scholars of the Near East and Central asia. Your POV needs actual Arabic sources that use the term "Khalij-e-Arabi" before the 20th century (when Arab nationalism did not exist in its current form). Or You need scholars with explicit sentences (not your intrepretation) that say: "Bosworth,Sick,..etc. are wrong and the name was used by Arabs before the 20th century and it was not a product of Nationalism". --alidoostzadeh (talk) 16:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
With respect, I have read your response, Ali. Having done so, I think you are misinterpreting wiki policy, this time in regards to citing sources; perhaps you may wish to consult with an admin in regards to this, or simply reread the policy article. Your statement, "Wikipedia requires scholars to make judgments" is incorrect. Wikipedia requires citations from scholars. Remembering that citation and not truth is the litmus test for inclusion, the existence of opposing citations requires us to find the middle ground and not try to evaluate whose citation is of more value. To do that is outside of our purview. We do not prove negatives. If there is a contest between interpretations, we note the disagreement and move on, unless doing so provides undue weight to the argument.
I would invite you to point out where I said that Bosworth is "an unknown scholar"; as you will be unable to do so, I would also invite you to perhaps avoid the sematical games which do nothing but serve to aggravate the editing environment.
You yourself note that the term existed before Nasser incorporated it into pan-Arabism; this is the main sticking point between proposal #4 and #5, as presented below. The emboldened text serves to highlight the differences between the two versions. As has been noted both here and in the related mediation, the term 'Arabian Gulf' is not solely used for political purposes. I imagine that, amongst the rhetoric, that the main point got lost. Allow me to re-introduce the choices:
- Arcayne (cast a spell) 16
31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
As I said Herodotus and other Greek author use the Red Sea for Arabian Gulf. This is a well known fact and we are talking about the Persian Gulf. I would read WP:OR. . All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors. . So you need to have scholars that explicitly say: The name Khalije-Arabi (Arabian Gulf) is not a product of Arab nationalism but was used by Arabs prior to the 20th century. Of course such a scholar does not exist. I think we need to mention the political reasoning of the name with the three/four (I can bring more if needed) sources as notes in the references. If you think the name was not originally created for political reasons due Arab nationalism in the 20th century, please bring scholars that say so. Or show us actual Arabic sources prior to the 20th century that use the term "Khalij-e-Arabi". I see no reason not to mention the name was initially created for political reasons since scholarly sources have mentioned this as well. What you need is scholarly sources that explicitly say something like: The name Khalije-Arabi (Arabian Gulf) is not a product of Arab nationalism but was used by Arabs prior to the 20th century. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 16:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I would go with something like this although it can be perfected. The Persian Gulf, in the Southwest Asian region, is an extension of the Gulf of Oman located between Iran and the Arabian Peninsula. Historically and commonly known as the Persian Gulf, for political reasons(this is where the references come in), in the 20th century, this body of water was designated as the Arabian Gulf in Arab countires. This naming is controversial and some have suggested the term The Gulf, although neither terms (Arabian Gulf or the Gulf) are recognized internationally or commonly used as the Persian Gulf in English.}}. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 16:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Well,the first problem with your suggestion is that you might wish to introduce that brand-spanking new proposal to the mediation, as it isn't one of the proposals listed there, and we are trying to remain within the confines of the mediation.
The second issue is that your proposal is, well, awkward (as well as being incorrect). Proposal #4 is succinct, and leaves the specifics of the nomenclature dispute to the text of the article text (as per WP:LEAD). You are welcome to point out where it fails to provide an introduction to the article (as you have been welcome to point out numerous other somewhat unsupportable claims you have made recently). The Lead is not for specifics - you've been here long enough to kno that, and if you are unclear on this subject, you really should ask someone - I do not mean that as a dig - I think you are honestly interpreting LEAD and NPOV somewhat incorrectly, and I really think that your other contributions will have exposed you to admins who will be happy to help you understand the policies and guidelines I've noted a bit more clearly.
I suggest this because you do not see that pointing out in the Lead the supposed political origins of the alternative name is dismissive of the weight of the people who use it. You are adopting a point of view not conducive with neutrality, whereas proposal #4 is perfectly neutral and reflects the text currently in place in this article as well as the Persian Gulf naming dispute article. I appreciate you have citations that all talk about Nasser's usage of the term; I am not contesting that Nasser hijacked the term for pan-Arabism, and I never, ever have. I am simply saying that the alternate name citably existed prior to Nasser's usage, and because of that we must avoid pinning the origin of the term to Nasser or his political motives. Let's avoid recentism, shall we? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 17:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Again the alternative name for "Persian Gulf" does go back to the era of Nasser (not Nasser personally although he was one of the first politicans to use it). It goes back to the general pan-Arabist nationalism which Nasser was a poster boy of. It's political nature is a fact and there is no reference/scholar that disagree with Bosworth. So we can be specific as the above is, and in the reference also say "Arabian Gulf" has been used historically was used for the Red Sea. My proposal is succint also although I think for now, other people will give proposals. Over all, the disagreement is about "political nature", where I have brought enough sources from scholars. You will need also scholars stating: "No the designation Khalij-e-Arabi (Arabian Gulf) in the Arab world predates the 20th century. These Arabic texts use it. It does not go back to pan-Arabist nationalism". Since no such scholar exists, I believe the lead should include something about the political nature of the term when it is mentioned. As per Wikipedia Lead (or your intrepretation of it), this is an article with its problem, so small adjustments (per your intrepretation since I do not see any contradiction and I believe it is succint) are okay as long as everyone is satisfied (which is of primary importance). Thanks.--alidoostzadeh (talk) 18:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
You keep stating with absolute assuredness that no citations exist that note the usage of Arabian Gulf prior to Nasser (or, as you conceded, the politics of pan-Arab nationalism), which brings us back to the question I asked you before: if I supply you with them, will you withdraw your issues with proposal #4? You keep avoiding answering, and I find it odd that you would do so. Either you want citations that prove my point, so you can withdraw your objections, or you are going to argue to include a political bent no matter what. Answer the question, and we'll continue. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I didn't say that. I said Arabian Gulf was used for the Red Sea since the time of Herodotus. Yes, simply bring scholars (not your own original research) who have said: "No Bosworth, Sick, etc. are wrong. The name Arabian Gulf(Khalij-e-Arabi) as a Designation for the Persian Gulf (not the red sea), was used prior to the 20th century in Arabic countries" and preferably name the Arabic manuscripts that do so. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 21:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
This section is for discussing the next step to be taken to resolve the dispute over the lead. While there are other related disputes (i.e. Nasser and the origins of the Arabian Gulf) these are not a priority. Per WP:LEAD, the lead should mirror the content of the article. I do believe that we should choose a proposal that is similar to the state of the body of the article now. If we can reach a consensus later on about a change in the body, we should only then discuss changing the lead. I know that everyone wants to resolve this conflict, so we should be careful not to bog done the discussion with issues that are only in the penumbra of the main conflict.--Agha Nader (talk) 15:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you alidoostzadeh for the new scholarly references, which further prove the accuracy and integrity of my proposal. Lets see if user:Arcayne is able to provide references that directly or adequately refute the sourced statements provided by alidoostzadeh or he'll just keep insisting on engaging in original research. Sorry I haven't been able to take part in the discussions, I have been busy in real life, but I should find some free time within the next few days to resume the discussions on the mediation page.--Sia34 (talk) 20:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeahhh, I think I am going to avoid the caustic responses by Sia et al, and simply await the mediation's resumption to include them in the official record there. That way, tendentious statements and bad faith editing pretty much can escalate matters to either an AN/I or ArbCom complaint, as opposed to here, where folk simply offer 'I don't like it'-style criticism. Let's see who else has the courage to participate in the mediation again. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 21:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I think the issue is simple. It has to do with the word initially due to political reason whether in parenthesis or part of the sentence. The other wordings are the same and it is good enough. And if someone is disputing that the name Khalij-e-Arabi was not created for political reasons in the Arab World and then used in the Arab world in the 20th century, they should bring sources from reputable scholars that contradicts it. I think the 'I don't like it' has been actually coming from rejecting three reputable sources rather than anything else. I can bring more sources obviously that say the same thing as Bosworth, but it is important that you bring a source from a scholar (not original research) that establishes a valid basis for the term "Khalij-e-Arabi"(Arabian Gulf) designating the Persian Gulf (not the red sea or a statistical outliers map which contradicts the text of the same Atlas) before the rise of pan-Arab Nationalism in the 20th century. Specifically, after a scholar has mentioned that the name "Arabian Gulf"(Khalij-e- Arabi) has precedence in the Arab world before the 20th century, then a source from the 19th century in the Arab World designating the Persian Gulf as Khalij-e-Arabi would be desired. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 01:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) :::With respect, I think the issue, while simple, is contentious. I bring the citations, then the fighting begins anew, while people argue how the Persian Gulf is the one and true name for the article. Forgive me for wanting to sidestep all that drama. As I said, I'll wait until the mediation resumes, so as to gain a lot more protection when someone eventually sparks off there. The ciations exist. The reasonable person would realize that the article doesn't mention the usage of the term "initially due to political reasons", so it doesn't belong in the Lead. Its dismissive of the usage by millions of people, and while I won't go so far as to call it partisan editing, the recalcitrance to avoid simply noting the term and leaving it for the article to explain seems suspect. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 01:12, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I think it is best to reeally close this issue. Here is my take. If you bring sources from actual scholars mentioning that "Khalij-e-Arabi" was used before the 20th century in the Arab World (and trust me it wasn't because I have looked at enough Persian and Arabic articles on the issue and many Arabs will take you, their Grandfathers called it Persian Gulf) and the name is not political and the claim of Bosworth, Sick and etc. are wrong, then I'll take your proposal when you find such academic sources. If not, then I will take Sia's. The issue is simply about that minor point which I think we can resolve soon. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 02:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Arcayne has simply not provided any citations for anyone to offer 'I don't like it'-style criticism of it. If anything, he's been dismissing valid citations from reputable sources without providing any refutation from any source, which is a violation of WP:NOR and WP:RS. If "the citations exist" , then post them, it's as simple as that. --Sia34 (talk) 02:38, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Allow me to use smaller words, as my previous comments must have been too difficult to follow: I will wait for the mediation to resume, and post the citations again. I don't have the patience to deal with certain individuals who won't even promise to back off their pet versions once proven incorrect, so I am not going to risk losing my cool and sending those individuals off weeping into a corner, crying for their mommies and risk getting myself blocked for doing so. We aren't in a hurry, and I will wait for the mediation to resume, so I have the record of the mediation to refer to when these same individuals refuse to accept the citations or the resulting outcome.
Ali, I want the issue to be closed too, but it's pretty clear that it won't happen here in the discussion page, where people can act rudely with a level of impunity. Were the point minor, a compromise to actually follow wikipedia rules would have already happened. It hasn't, which is why I am going to trust the cleaner effort of the mediation to resolve matters. I have noted your growing politeness, and I want ou to know that it is appreciated. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 03:31, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

General Clean-up

Once this discussion about the article header is resolved, would it be acceptable to cut down the paragraphs and paragraphs of text asserting that the traditional name for the Persian Gulf is, in fact, "The Persian Gulf"? It just seems strange that over half of the article (Etymology and also Naming Dispute) is little more than a list of people who called this body of water by a particular name. I would think that one paragraph, incorporating the 14 currently-supplied citations into it (thus maintaining the "widely accepted" angle), would be enough for "Etymology", with the "Naming Dispute" section being more of a summary of the Persian_Gulf_naming_dispute article. Feel free to correct me if this has already been discussed. Eco-Mono (talk) 12:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

While I think there is a bit of bloat concerning that, the etymology of the name is separate from the nomenclature dispute. While there is a rich etymology regarding the Red Sea or Lake Erie, there isn't a significant amount of dissent over its name. If there were, it would be considered notable enough to mention. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The arabic article is wrong

I'm sorry that I'm discussing and article for a different language, but I don't know arabic and therefore I cannot discuss this on arabic. I However noticed the following on the arabic article. The title of the article is الخليج العربي. If I'm not wrong, it says the arabic gulf. Is it correct of the arabic article to have that title? I know that inside the article it says that it can also be called the persian gulf, but I still think it's kinda misinforming? Wefez 22:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

The Persian/Arabian gulf is collectively known in the Arab countries as the Arabian Gulf. Therefore, as alien as the name Arabian Gulf might be to you, it is the same with Arab countries, where it is known and taught to be the Arabian Gulf. Therefore, naming the article Arabian Gulf الخليج العري is actually better for search terms reasons. In the intro of the article, it clearly states that it is internationally recognized as the Persian gulf, and known in Arab countries as the Arabian gulf. Thus, I don't think its misinforming. PEACE^^ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Semo2010 (talkcontribs) 02:43, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

It is only called Arabic gulf by the arabic speaking countries surrounding the Persian gulf, not by the rest of the arab world. Hence I believe that the title "الخليج العربي" is misleading and sounds alien to more then 50% of the arab world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jesus 313 (talkcontribs) 19:22, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to cite that via a neutral source, pls. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:35, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Edits unrelated to edit war topics

{{editprotected}} Since the Persian Gulf article is protected, could an admin please make the following edits (hopefully) unrelated to the edit war topics.

Please alter the last sentence of the "Geography" section to read as follows:

Various small islands lie within the Persian Gulf, some of which are subject to territorial disputes by the states of the region.

Also, please change the entire "British residency" section to read as follows:


Colonial era

From 1763 until 1971, the British Empire maintained varying degrees of political control over some Persian Gulf states, including the United Arab Emirates (originally called the "Trucial Coast States") and at various times Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, and Qatar through the British Residency of the Persian Gulf.

The United Kingdom still keeps a high profile in the region even today. In 2006, for example, over 1 million Britons visited Dubai alone.[1]

Thanks. – AjaxSmack 08:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done these seem uncontroversial. Happymelon 15:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

historical use of the name Arabian Gulf

this is an old map used in the Arabic Wikipedia dating back to 1667 using the name (Sein Arabique) i.e. Arabian Gulf.

this must be included in the article as merely stating that the name was invented by pan-arabic leaders is hitorically false, I also suggest this pic to be integrated in the article and not just use the image of the edited map alone. Habibko (talk) 15:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The map contradicts the texts of the writings: [[30]] and is original research (has no source). It is important to point out that the Atlas needs to go with the map and make anything specific. You can not find Arabian Gulf in any Arabic manuscript. The one or two maps that have Sein Arabique in old Europeans maps have also Persian Gulf and in the actual text of the Atlas, they use Persian Gulf. Some of these maps put Assyrian in Central Iran and etc. So without the text of the Atlas, they are unreliable and that is the important point. You can not find any textual evidence. There have been 500+ maps of the region since the 12th century, but not a single textual evidence supports "Arabian Gulf" for Persian Gulf, and most of them refer to the Red Sea as Arabian Gulf. could reasonably be taken by Anna as a clue increasing her posterior pr
"The term Persian Gulf was in universal use during this period... 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. Note the author is a very famous British historian of the Muslim World with dozens of books and hundreds of article. (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). This needs to be included in the introduction once the article is unlocked.
Also I note another use put a lot of unsourced nonsese. For example claiming Pliny used Arabian Gulf for Persian. That is false. 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. It is unfortunate the same lie has been circulating for a while. [[31]]. 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. [32]. Excerpt from Natural History, Book VI – Chapter: The Persian and the Arabian Gulfs (Refer to Book VI. 109 - 111 in Loeb edition..)[33]. 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 (talk) 02:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree with dear Ali doostzadeh. The legitimate name of the body of water is the Persian Gulf. It would be misleading to insert maps that give the false impression that Arabian Gulf is the historic name for the body of water. It is certain though, as plenty of sources have been provided, that many Arabs continue to use the term Arabian Gulf. Given this fact, I am prompted to ask Ali doostzadeh: should a modern map that uses the so-called 'pan-Arabist motivated term Arabian Gulf,' in addition to the present which only says 'Gulf,' be included to illustrate the point that Arabs use the term (even though they do it with out a historical basis)?--Agha Nader (talk) 03:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks friend. Maps can be a source of rv's and battle in this page. I have for example 300+ maps (of course who has time to scan them? But I might hire some summer job looking person oneday to do it) that use Persian Gulf from 12th to 20th century (you can find dozens or so on the internet) and thus it is obvious undue weight. I think one map illustrating the geographic region is good with the common English recognized name. We can mention Arabs call it Arabian Gulf based on political reasons. Even the red sea for example was never called Arabian Gulf in Arabic. And my challenge was still for someone to show a single example of "Khalije-a-Arabi" in any Arabic document prior to the 20th century. The issue is that some of these folks might not know that the red sea was called the Arabian Gulf and also the Arabian Sea was sometimes placed in different connecting regions of the Indian ocean, but the Atlas texts use Persian Gulf. One wonders with the Sea of Oman, Arabian Sea, Arabian Gulf (Red Sea), how come these guys are challenging the historical name of Persian Gulf. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 03:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
That's something I have always wondered about too. With three major bodies of water named after Arab countries, it's mind-boggling how much certain circles in those countries, care about renaming this one body of water. Regarding the issue of map, I agree with others' assessment that since this is the English Wikipedia, the map should naturally reflect the title of the article, which is the common name in English. --Sia34 (talk) 06:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
(←dent)No one is suggesting that the article should be changed to something else, unless there is a thread that I've missed here. In fact, the conversation isn't about changing the article name, or the legitimacy of the name (which is not within our purview anyway). The discussion os about noting that a substantial number of people use - for whatever reason - an alternative title. The discussion tangentially morphed into a legitimacy argument that is best addressed elsewhere. The body of water is called something else by a notable number of people. We are obliged - nationality concerns aside - to note it. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 16:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Mazanderani Interwiki

{{editprotected|mzn:فارس خليج}}

There is an article in mazaderani wikipedia needs to be linked to this article, Thank You! --Parthava (talk) 12:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Happymelon 14:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

ghghghghgh —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Name and interwiki

The Arabic interwiki in the Wikipedia in Portuguese language pt:Golfo Pérsico has just been deleted. The text there summarizes the dispute about the name, I think in a non-partial way, but has no references. Please, end your dispute here quickly, and give the consensual Arabic name to the Portuguese Wikipédia. Thank you. --Rui Silva (talk) 10:38, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Unprotected - compromise

Based on the mediation, I have implemented a compromise version of the working solution with an slight addition from the most supported proposal (taken from the National Geographic wording, which was proposal #5 I believe):

The Persian Gulf, in the Southwest Asian region, is an extension of the Indian Ocean located between Iran and the Arabian Peninsula. Historically and commonly known as the Persian Gulf, this body of water is sometimes controversially referred to as the Arabian Gulf by Arab countries or The Gulf, although neither term is recognized internationally.

I'm also unprotecting the page, but I am asking that no one revert or change anything in the lead or naming section unless there is a clear consensus to do so on the talk page first. Khoikhoi 05:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully these edits are not controversial. The addition of "some"/"certain" before "Arab countries" is apparently just for factual accuracy (not all Arab countries use the term). Khoikhoi 01:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Apparently Admin Khoikhoi saw himself fit to choose what others should agree and unilaterally changed the lead. On one hand I am amazed by this undiscussed, unagreed and unilateral motion and I am more amazed by him saying: "I am asking that no one revert or change anything in the lead or naming section unless there is a clear consensus to do so on the talk page first."
Do I need to mention that the mediation and talks obviously did not reach a consensus and the version Khoikhoi chose is just his POV? Very clearly there are many editors who have stated other POVs about this same topic, why Khoikhoi felt s/he can choose the wording on his/her own?
I am not sure what gave Khoikhoi such preception or illusion of authority to first make such unilateral change and then order so bluntly to others not to change it unless there is consensus about it in the talk page? Maybe some of us don't have clear understanding of what adminship or as more properly been described "having access to administrative tools" mean. Wouldn't this be misuse of such access if this edit was done on that basis?
I have no intention of edit waring so I first put my point here (what Admin Khoikhoi did not)and request Khoikhoi to please first revert your undisscussed edit and then discuss it here before further edit. Farmanesh (talk) 04:49, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
The last sentence in the first paragraph may cause confusion. it says "although neither term is recognized internationally", obviously the person who wrote this meant to say neither "gulf" not "arabian gulf" are recognized internationally. but reading this the first time one might think you're referring to "persian gulf" and "arabian gulf", neither one being recognized ... it's a bit ambiguous. therefore i propose changing the last sentence to prevent confusion, let's change it to something like: "although, only 'persian gulf' is internationally recognized." or "although neither 'the gulf' nor 'arabian gulf' are internationally recognized terms". (talk) 12:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Not a bad idea. I'll take a crack at it. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 14:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I have added "the latter two" for clarity, but the rest of the wording should not be changed, as it was the result of a long mediation. Khoikhoi 03:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

New Section

I would like to start a new section relating to the wildlife in the Persian Gulf. I just thought I should mention it here first.Ardeshire Babakan (talk) 21:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


This article needs a section on the geology of the Gulf. Why is there so much oil there? How did the Gulf form? Why was it so much larger 4000 years ago? Will it close as the Arabian plate moves north? David s graff (talk) 13:00, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Spill vs. spillage

It's a question of tone. Both are nouns that signify the release of liquid; in this usage, "spill" is simply less bureaucratic than "spillage." (cf "use" and utilize"). PRRfan (talk) 18:05, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I can see that, but spillage as used here is the appropriate term here, as it refers to a set of spills. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
The actual word used here is "spillages", which according to your definition (cite?) would make the sentence mean "a set of set of spills"; why is that better than "spills"? PRRfan (talk) 18:24, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Okay, so we're both wrong ;). Spillage it is. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:50, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Nope, we're just back to my original point: "spills" is equivalent to and less bureaucratic than "spillage", and hence to be preferred. PRRfan (talk) 19:17, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
I guess I am not seeing your classification of spillage as bureaucratic, PRRfan. Can you explain what you mean in more detail? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:39, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Nah, I've reached my single-word discussion time limit. Cheers. PRRfan (talk) 19:48, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

2nd graf


In 1991, the Persian Gulf again was the background for what was called the Persian Gulf War or the "Gulf War" when Iraq invaded Kuwait and was subsequently pushed back, despite the fact that this conflict was primarily a land conflict.


In 1991, the gulf gave its name to the U.S.-led ejection of Iraqi forces from Kuwait, called the Persian Gulf War or the "Gulf War" even though most of the action took place on land.

Why? The existing text is nonsensical (In 1991, the gulf was not "again the background"; for the Gulf War, which had never happened before) and wordy ("Persian Gulf" twice in a sentence; "conflict" twice in a single clause, etc.). PRRfan (talk) 18:26, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. :) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:52, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

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)

  1. ^ Peter Beaumont, "Blair was dangerously off target in his condemnation of Iran", The Guardian, December 24, 2006.