Jump to content

Talk:Persian Gulf: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎The controversy over the name of the Arabian Gulf / Persian Gulf: wikifying some, removing other redlinkage; someone else can assist
Khoikhoi (talk | contribs)
71,605 edits
rm soapboxing and linkspam to political sites by sock (using open proxies); see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Abdullah bahajri and Wikipedia:Ban#Enforcement by reverting edits
Line 167: Line 167:
Thanks. — <span style="border:1px solid blue;padding:1px;">[[User talk:AjaxSmack|<font style="color:#fef;background:navy;">''' AjaxSmack '''</font>]]</span> 08:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. — <span style="border:1px solid blue;padding:1px;">[[User talk:AjaxSmack|<font style="color:#fef;background:navy;">''' AjaxSmack '''</font>]]</span> 08:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
:{{done}} these seem uncontroversial. <font color="forestgreen">[[User:Happy-melon|'''Happy''']]</font>‑<font color="darkorange">[[User talk:Happy-melon|'''melon''']]</font> 15:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
:{{done}} these seem uncontroversial. <font color="forestgreen">[[User:Happy-melon|'''Happy''']]</font>‑<font color="darkorange">[[User talk:Happy-melon|'''melon''']]</font> 15:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

=='''The controversy over the name of the Arabian Gulf / Persian Gulf '''==
:The [[Arabian Gulf]] ([[Arabic]]:الخليج العربي) is the accredited name in the [[Arab world|Arabian countries]] and some other countries as well, but the accredited name in [[Turkey]] and the [[Ottoman Empire]] documents was Basra Körfezi, means "Gulf of [[Basra]]". This place is the water which lies to the east of the [[Arabian Peninsula]] and to the west of [[Iran]], it known by different names throughout the history. The total length of the Gulf coast about 3300 Kilo Meter, the share of Iran has about one third ONLY, but the rest of the gulf owned by Arab Countries. The [[Arabs]] lived in the both sides of the gulf, in the western section we find ([[Oman]], [[UAE]], [[Bahrain]], [[Qatar]], [[Saudi Arabia]], [[Kuwait]] and [[Iraq]]), but in the eastern side of the gulf we find [[Ahvaz]] and [[Linga]] that actually called [[Arabestan|Arabestan Region]] by Iranian themselves, because the people who lives there are Arabs, Arabstan Region has been colonized by Iran long time ago, people of that region admitted that too, the same thing goes TODAY with the three Island ([[Greater Tunb]], [[Lesser Tunb]], and [[Abu Musa]]) of [[United Arab Emirates]] today.

:'''some of the current and old names'''

:* The '''[[Arabian Gulf]]''' is the approved name in the [[Arabic language]], and in term of use in all of the [[Arab League]] countries, also used in another several languages as well, moreover, it is used by the [[United Nations]] in Arabic documentation and the Arabian geographic societies. “Note”: Arabic language is one of the six used languages in the United Nation.
:* The '''[[Persian Gulf]]''' is used in Iran (in Iranian newspapers and media, by Arabic speakers of Iran), also It's used widely in other languages as well.
:* The '''[[Gulf of Basra]]''' is the name that was common in the documents belonging to the [[Ottoman Empire]] and Turkey today, and it’s still used on a small scale in some foreign countries also some Arab countries too, especially Iraq (but the official name is the Arabian Gulf).
:*The '''Gulf of [[Qatif]]''' it’s used in some countries too, this name is actually of one of Saudi Arabia cities that consider one of the Arabian Shiite cities.
:* The '''Gulf of Iraq''' is the name that was used in Iraq in old days.
:* The '''[[Gulf of Oman]]''' is the name that a lot of Arabs used it in the past because it's where the water of the gulf started when the water comes from the [[Arabian Sea]], nowadays the term Gulf of Oman is used for the begin side of the gulf.
:* The '''[[Gulf of Bahrain]]''' is the name that used in Bahrain and some other Arab countries in the past, that's proved by the name of the country itself because Bahrain mean's "two seas", that meant the body of the water that lies of both coast of the country.
:* '''The Gulf''' it’s used widely today in the geographical maps to avoid the Arab - Persian problem, which it’s not satisfied both of them.
:* The '''Persian Sea''' is known among SOME of Muslim Arabs on the coast side to separate the Arabian Peninsula and Persia.
:* The '''Gulf of [[Ajam]]''' it has the same reasone of the "Persian Sea", because the word Ajam ([[Arabic]]:العجم) means the people who doesn't speak Arabic and come to the Arabian Peninsula to live or work, based on that the Gulf had this name too.
:* The '''Islamic Gulf''' has been raised by some Islamic thinkers and has been given to [[Khomeini]] but he rejected that name.

:'''stories of some names'''
:*The oldest known name is the name "Sea of God" until the third millennium BC, then it became the "Sea of great sunrise" until the second millennium BC, then it called "Sea of Alkeldan" in the first millennium BC. After tha, it became the "South Sea" during the second half of the first millennium BC.
:*The [[Assyrians]], [[Babylon]]'s and [[Akkadian_Empire|Akkadian]] ([[Arabic]]:أكاد, [[French language|French]]:Empire d'Akkad) called it "South Sea" or (lower sea), and it's opposite the upper sea what it called today The [[Mediterranean Sea]]. It also called "sea Mur" ([[Arabic]]:البحر المر) by the Assyrian, means ("bitter sea").
:*The Persian called it "Persian Sea". It was known in the first place by the Persian [[Darius|King Darius]] (486-831 BC) in his speech "on the sea which links between [[Egypt]] and [[Persia]]". Also it seems that [[Alexander the Great]] was the first for such designation fired after journey, of his "prince of sea" Niarchos in 326 BC. He came back from [[India]] then when he was by the coast to the Arabia, he did not know the Arab side of the Gulf, and that what made the Alexander to call it by that name "Persian Gulf", and remained via inheritance, after that this name leaked through [[Greece]] to [[Western countries]] and it was used by some of the Arabs as well because of the power of Persia.
:*The [[Romans]] called it the "Arabian Gulf" and one of those who launched name is [[Pliny the Younger]] in the first century AD, Pliny said [[Khorramshahr]] is a town located in the far side of the Arabian Gulf, where the start of the most prominent Arabia, which is built on an artificial high and The [[Tigris River]] ([[Arabic]]:نهر دجلة) on the right side as the [[Euphrates|Euphrates River]] ([[Arabic]]:نهر الفرات) to the left. The area on which it is based on - has three miles of length, lies between those two rivers. it's made by the at the Great Alexander, in order to call it Alexandria, However, the flooding of the rivers destroy it. [[Antioukhos]] rebuilt it again and call it by his name, and Since it demolished for the second time, [[Pasines]] rebuilt it for the third time, also he built dams, to respond the water and called it by his name, The length of this dams was three miles and breadth was slightly lower, at the first it was more than one mile far of the bank, also it has its own port over there.
:*The Arabs called it "Gulf of Basra" or "Gulf of Oman", "Gulf of Bahrain" or "Gulf of Qatif" because these three Arabian cities was controlling the body water plus using and arranging the movement of the ships, also the name of "Sea of Basra" refers to the Islamic conquest in the era of [[Omar bin al-Khattab]]. We find that the first Grammarians such as "Alkhlil Ben Ahmed Alfarahidy" ([[Arabic]]: الخليل بن أحمد الفراهيدي) used it, and the Geographers such as [[Yaqut al-Hamawi]] ([[Arabic]]:ياقوت الحموي) and [[Al-Dhahabi]]([[Arabic]]: الذهبي), also some historians such as "Khalifa bin Khayyat" and religious scholars such as [[Ibn Taymiyya]]. Although the name "Sea of Persia" commonplace in the Islamic era, especially among Muslim Persians and Some of those Persians even use both names in the same page, some Arabs called it "Iraq Gulf" during the "[[Abbasid]] succession", but [[Dr. Emad Hafiz]] said that (The name of the Arabian Gulf has been known before the Islam and continued after the Islam to the population of the Arabian peninsula and its environs).
:* The Turkish called it "Gulf of Basra" during the Ottoman Empire that covered most of Arabian countries at that time, even today in Turkey it’s called "Gulf of Basra".

:'''The dispute over name'''
:1. Scientific Dispute
:Some western researcher started to abandon the name Persian Gulf, Among those
:*The English [[Roderick Owen]], who visited the Arabian Gulf and issued a book on 1957 that called "[[Gold Bubble- Arabian Gulf documents]]" ([[Arabic]]:الفقاعة الذهبية – وثائق الخليج العربي), he said that when he visited the Arabian Gulf and he though it’s the Persian Gulf because he didn’t see any other name in the geographical maps except this one. When Roderick Owen was close to the area of the gulf he said the most correct name "Arabian Gulf" because most of the population on both coastline are Arabs either the Arabian countries or the Iranian side (Arabstan). He said: «The facts and fairness require calling it Arabian Gulf».
:*The French writer (J.J. Berrebi) “[[Jean-Jacques Berrebi]]” said it’s Arabian Gulf, in the book he wrote it about the events of the region and the strategic importance, says: «the section that passes by [[Karun River]] from [[Ahvaz]] Region with the bottom section of [[Mesopotamia]] the geographic and economic unit.
:Actually Ahvaz region is part of [[Fertile Crescent]], which begins when the Palestinian plains and ends when it passes by Lebanon, Syria, Iraq».
:*The [[Historian]] [[Carsten Niebuhr]] from [[Denmark]], which came to the Arabian Peninsula in 1762, says: «I can’t pass by this region and keep silent similar to others, about the most important colonies, which despite being organized outside the boundaries of the Arabian Peninsula, in fact it’s closest to it (Arabian peninsula), I mean the Arab residents of the southern coast of [[Persia]], they are often allied with the Senate neighboring countries, also the different circumstances to indicate that the Arab tribes settled in the Gulf before the Islamic conquests, moreover it has always maintained its independence, It is ridiculous that portray Geographers a part of the Arabian lands under the control of Persian Kings, while those kings were never able to be the masters of the sea coast in their own country, Persians was reluctant to keep this coast belong to the Arabs».
:* The French [[Jean-Pierre]] a professor of National Institute for Eastern Languages and Civilizations also wrote in Paris in January 1990 a study in the French Magazine [[Lomand]] about the gulf and a nomination of the Arabian Gulf name, then the Iranian embassy protest, and they wrote stuff against him, also Pierre response to them but he was supported by scientific arguments, also he show a maps for [[Oconnor]] لوكانور that comes from the end of the 16th century that using the Latin name “[[Sein Arabique]]” means (Arabian Gulf), he said : "I have found more than a map and Document at the National Library in Paris proves conclusively the name of the Arabian Gulf, all opposed the viewpoint of Iran."
:The writer confirms his point of view about [[Johen Speight]] جوهين سبيد map’s that published in 1956 under the name of the Turkish Empire as indicated in the map designation "Bahr Al [[Qatif]]," then Arabian Gulf.
Jean-Pierre refute all Iranians fabrication, he also confirms that the name "Persian Gulf" common among newly coordinates Europeans especially Italy, came as a result of the Persian Empire achievements while colonizing and being more strong and bigger, but the Arabism of the Gulf have been mentioned in the writings of the Roman historian [[Bilby]] during the first century. المؤرخ الروماني بيلبي
:* The Researcher Dr. Ibrahim Khalaf al-Ubaydi says: " The modern scientific studies confirm that the name of the Persian Gulf doesn't have any link to reality, because it's Arabian since prehistoric, even if Iranian controlled the gulf in a limited period, that is not an evidence to say it is a Persian, Moreover, the Arab tribes are living in both sides of the Gulf since antiquity, the tribes still living in the east coast that occupied by Iran until today, in spite of Iranian policy to Convert this people to the Persian identity to obliterate their national identity"
::That is why many of [[Atlas|Atlases]] and European geographical references (such as [[Guinness Aoniffersales Hachette]] and most [[European encyclopedic]]), since of the second half of the 20th century began, they started to use the historical-geographical balanced expression «Arab-Persian Gulf», also The [[National Geographic Society]] that publishes [[National Geographic Magazine]] “which is the main reference of geography in the United States”, to develop the name of the Arabian Gulf under the name of the Persian Gulf, on the other hand some of the western Universities and organizations preferred to use the term (The Gulf) without mention of the word Arabian or Persian, Such as, [[Times Atlas of the World]] and also the [[Louvre]] museum.

:2. Political dispute
:The French writer [[Michel Foucher]] (In French [[:fr:Michel Foucher]]) has a point of view on the name of the gulf as well, if you take a look at his book “boundaries and borders” what is called in French (Fronts et Frontieres), that the gulf has became the Persian Gulf because of the strong & historical influence of Iran, specially during (time of the Shah) when he found the support from the American strategy that based on supporting him and his army to achieve regional security in the protection of oil, This is confirmed by [[Nabil Khalifa]], a [[Lebanese]] writer on strategic affairs, in [[Al-Hayat newspaper|Dar Al-Hayat]] newspaper (14/08/05) : «the dispute between Arabs and Iranians simply not on the names, But it is reflects a political conflict and national dimensions and contents of a strategy, the summary is “who have the domination of the Gulf”, the waters, islands, oil, the strategic position, and it wealth».

:'''Viewpoint of Iran'''
:Iran believes that it has the right to control the rest of the [[Arabian Gulf]], and considers its western shores they were colonies belonging to the Kingdom of Persia before Islam, as it considers the "Persian Gulf" is the only name that called for that Gulf, and denies the existence of any other name.
:When the [[National Geographic Society]] announced for writing the name Arabian Gulf beside Persian Gulf, in it new [[Atlas]], also pointed to the dispute over the three islands between Iran and the United Arab Emirates and considered «The [[Lesser Tunb]] and [[Greater Tunb]] and [[Abu Musa]] occupied by Iran and the United Arab demands for sovereignty», the Persians became mad, then they Indictment the “National Geographic Society” receive of bribes, As well as accusing it of «influence of the Zionist lobby and the oil dollars of certain Arab governments decided to distort historical facts are undeniable» but in fact [[Israel]] used the term "Persian Gulf", Iranian officials said that «Zionist plot to separate the ranks of Muslims», whereupon the Iranian government to take action to prevent the National Assembly of Geography from the sale of publications and maps in Iran, As prevent any representative person to enter Iranian territory, also the minister of the Iranian Parliament [[Haddad Adel]] called the people in the country to defend Persian Gulf, also He gathered the Iranian opposition with their Various classes on the Persian Gulf, on the other hand the National Assembly of Geography tried to explain the reasons for adding the term "Arabian Gulf" to the Persian Gulf, That there are known marine arm Arabian Gulf, We must differentiate between them and the Arabian Sea that located between the [[Strait of Hormuz]] and the Indian Ocean, But the Iranians are not prepared to listen to any justification because the name of the Persian Gulf «become an integral part of national identity Iranian», On June 15, 2006, Iran Prevent [[The Economist]] magazine from entering the country simply because they use the term “The Gulf” without mentioning the Persians.

:'''Viewpoint of Arabs'''
:The Arabs believed that the name "Arabian Gulf" historical and old, also two third of the gulf coast are owned by Arab countries while Iran possesses only about one third, Even that third of the coast of Iran is still inhabited by Arab tribes (even though many of them expelled from their lands after the Iranian invasion), whether in the north ([[Ahvaz]] Region) or south (to the east coast of [[Bandar Abbas]], while it was under control of '''[[Qawasim State]]''' ([[:ar: القواسم]]) until Iran occupied it.
:Therefore, that gulf should be named by those people who live around it and they are Arabs (Pure Arabs) in both sides (Population of Arab people in Ahwaz is more than '''9 Millions''') also its a part of the Arabian Peninsula. Moreover the Arabian Sea disembogues the water into the Arabian Gulf.
:In fact, the Persians did not use the sea because they are mountain people, even when the Persians made a fleet on the gulf their people who used to be there wasn’t Persian at all because they are afraid of the sea and that’s well known, moreover, geographically there are serials of mountains and it’s around 2000 kilo meters separating the Persian people in their highland from the sea side, also it’s well known that the relation of the Arabs and the sea is very old, while immigrations before and after [[Islam]] also when they go for fishing and diving to get the [[pearl]] from the Arabian Gulf.
:Therefore, [[Sykes]] (سير برسي سايكس) said: The hard policy of the [[Shah]] was against the nature of the sea, which made Persians to stay in their place without thinking to go to the sea side to leave their country because [[Zagros Mountains]] blocking Ahwaz from and Persia.

:'''see also'''
:*http://www.arabiangulfmaps.com/
:*http://www.nrlmry.navy.mil/sat_training/low_cloud/avhrr_modis/index.html
:*http://admin.royalnavy.mod.uk/server?show=ConMediaFile.28157&outputFormat=print

:''Arab'estan'' ([[Arabic]]:عربستان), ([[Persian language|Persian]]:عربستان) is a term for a region that used to be a part of [[Basra]] State under the [[Ottoman Empire]] and it never existed as an independent state. Arab'estan now, is a part of [[Iran]] after they colonized it (as the three island of [[UAE]]). After the colony, a lot of [[Arabs]] in that area were deported and they weren't allowed to use their mother-tongue [[Arabic language]].

:'''Meaning of Arab'estan
:In the Persian language, they call the Arab, “Arab” similar to English. Moreover, estan in their language means land, then during the [[Safavid dynasty|Safavid Era]] they control the whole region and the word Arab'estan appeared, which it means Arab-land.

:'''Name Explanation
:Arab'estan is actually [[Ahvaz]], the Iranian can’t pronounce the original name of the city in [[Arabic]] which is '''Ahwaz''', in the Persian language they pronounce the letter W as V, also they can’t pronounce well the second letter of city name and even in English pronunciation too because ([[Arabic]]:الأحواز) the seventh letter of the Arabic language (ح) can’t be found in both languages, usually people replace it with the “H” letter.
:The meaning of ‘‘‘Ahwaz’’’ (with the original letter that replaced with “H”) is owning something such as a house or a land, moreover, after the [[Alexander the Great]] lost his kingdom, the people divided the kingdom, then the Arabs of this area directly called it Ahwaz (with the original letter that replaced with “H”), because at that day they got back their land.
:Mr. [[Ahmad Kasrawi]], the Iranian researcher said that the geological histories of Ahwaz and Iraq lands are the same, also their evenland, because of settlings of Tigris and Euphrates Rivers plus [[Karun|Karun River]], all of that settlings made the lands on the both sides of [[Shatt al-Arab]], he is also confirming that there is no relation between Iranian hightland (Hills) and Arab'estan evenland. Moreover, geographically there are serials of mountains and it’s around 2000 kilo meters separating the Persian people in their highland from the sea side, also it’s well known that the relation of the Arabs and the sea is very old, while immigrations before and after [[Islam]] also when they go for fishing and diving to get the [[pearl]] from the [[Arabian Gulf]].

:'''also see'''
:* http://www.al-ahwaz.com/
:* http://www.al-ahwaz.net/
:* http://www.alahwaz.org/
:* http://www.ahwazivoice.org/
:* http://www.ahwaz-parliament.com/
:* http://www.ahwazna.org/
: - {{unsigned|Egyption 4eva}}

Revision as of 03:03, 27 April 2008

A request has been made of the Mediation Cabal for mediation on this article.

Please do not remove this notice until the issue is resolved.

Template:V0.5

What was archived

Edit request

{{editprotected}}

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)[reply]

 Done required change was actually to {{Infobox Ocean}}. Happy‑melon 17:02, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Proposal #5 is "the sentence with the most support from the mediation" [1], and that's not what Arcayne "attempted" to add to the article [2]. 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. [3]AlexanderPar (talk) 22:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(←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)[reply]

The version I like the most, not surprisingly, is [4]. I have already given reasons why I prefer it and support it. After lengthy discussions, I decided to alter it to [5]. 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 "...by 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I think the matter is simple:
1)
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).
2)
"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. )
3)
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
(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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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:
#4:
#5:
- 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
(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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)

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:

History

Colonial era

See also: British Residency of the Persian Gulf

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)[reply]

 Done these seem uncontroversial. Happy‑melon 15:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Peter Beaumont, "Blair was dangerously off target in his condemnation of Iran", The Guardian, December 24, 2006.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Persian_Gulf&oldid=208450798"