Talk:Persian Gulf/Archive 7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7


name dispute

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

Is that what the slow-motion revert war is all about? As a non-speaker, I need some input as to what exactly is occurring. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 16:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
there is no reason to remove the Arabic name of this gulf from here, it`s only an info to be added here, otherwise u feel very sensitive against (الخليج العربي Arabic Gulf).. Muhends (talk) 16:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, I am thinking that a lot of folk tend to keep substituting a different spelling, so it should be discussed here. As you keep adding - in Arabic - the words Arabic Gulf, you are essentially undermining the legitimate name of the article. If you wish to protest that naming, there are many ways to do it. Changing the foreign spelling is not among them. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


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

I think you are looking at this in the wrong way, Xashaiar. Part of the article is about the naming dispute, and since the Lede is an overview of the article as well as an introduction to the article, its appropriate to include it. I'd also point out that the Lede is the result of a very, very hard-fought consensus arising out of mediation. There are going to have to be extraordinarily compelling reasons to change it. Your edit, which simply added the historical (and not currently existing) name wasn't acceptable. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 17:37, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
2. I am not the person you are talking about. If you click on the link you have posted and alternatively called "Your edit" and see the right hand side of that edit-diff-page and read the user name of the person who has had the edit you are talking about, you see in clear Latin alphabet that the user is not Xashaiar. 1. You look at the things from a not even wrong way and not me!--Xashaiar (talk) 17:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Whoopsie, you are right, that isn't your edit. I've stricken through it, but the remainder of the post is spot on, and addresses your concerns. - Arcayne (cast a spell)
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was consensus against move. It appears Persian Gulf is the common name used in English language sources.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:27, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

Naming this article 'Persian Gulf' biases the discussion into that being the 'correct' name and all others being alternatives. It does not reflect a neutral point of view.
A solution to this used by several media publications and some countries has been to simply call it 'The Gulf'. It is an excellent way to not take a stance (although I recognize that those who favour one name or the other will see it as taking a stance against their particular position).
This page should be renamed to 'The Gulf'. Persian Gulf can be redirected.
Similarly, Persian Gulf naming dispute should be renamed Gulf Naming Dispute or merged into this page. BlueLeather (talk) 08:38, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I do not think that is acceptable. The history of the term Persian Gulf is fairly complex and well documented. The term, "The Gulf" is politically coirrect means of sidestepping the name, most recently utilized by the Brits. The proper term, as recognized by the UN, is Persian Gulf. It doesn't imply ownership by Iran (which was, up until less than a century ago, called Persia or something approximating it). It is simply the proper term for the body of water utilized by the largest group of people. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 08:54, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Oppose. I think it is wrong, the main name is Persian Gulf. There are many gulfs in the world just "The Gulf" without context does not make sense. Alex Bakharev (talk) 09:38, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Oppose According to wikipedia policies the title must be what it is: Persian Gulf. Moreover why/how using the correct name of a geographical place could be non-neutral (as the reason for the move is.)? The article explain perfectly well: the name "Persian Gulf" is historically/internationally/non-politically correct name. --Xashaiar (talk) 09:57, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Persian Gulf → ? Considerable debate over 'correct' name of region. Article name is not neutral. Propose 'The Gulf' as used by many media publications to avoid taking a stance. —BlueLeather (talk) 08:43, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
  • No move - The number of media publications that utilize the bastardized version are greatly outnumbered by the number of folk, media outlets, nation-states and NGOs that use the term Persian Gulf. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 09:14, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
  • No move According to wikipedia policies the title must be what it is: Persian Gulf. Moreover why/how using the correct name of a geographical place could be non-neutral (as the reason for the move is.)? The article explain perfectly well: the name "Persian Gulf" is historically/internationally/non-politically-oriented correct name. --Xashaiar (talk) 09:57, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Xashaiar, which policy would that be? Calling it the persian gulf is just as much politically oriented as calling it the arabian gulf or the islamic gulf or one of the many other names I've seen proposed. The 'correct' name is the subject of debate (things like 'official' proclamations on the matter do NOT mean that a consensus has been reached - only that a position has been taken by a particular party). There is no one singular 'correct' name that we can go with here. We need to come up with a name that is neutral and does NOT reflect a politically oriented name, which based on how contentious this is, it would appear that calling it the Persian Gulf is quite politically orientented (instead of neutral which is what I think we should be seeking in our article title). BlueLeather (talk) 10:08, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Alex Bakharev, you definitely have a point about 'The Gulf' being ambiguous. And I agree that 'Persian Gulf' appears to be one of the predominantly used names. What other title could we give the article that would be neutral? BlueLeather (talk) 09:42, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Oppose The relevant Wikipedia police WP:NAME calls for the most common English-language name to be used for things. In this case that's clearly 'Persian Gulf'. Nick-D (talk) 10:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Nick-D, thank you for the reference (I'm actually pretty new here). "Where inanimate entities such as geographical features are concerned, the most common name used in English-language publications is generally used." So perhaps Persian Gulf is appropriate? BlueLeather (talk) 11:15, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Suggested move: Persian Gulf to "The Gulf"

Nobody shoot the messenger, please: requested move. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 09:16, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Added material rewritten

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

  • Subsection change: "Colonial era" to "Post-Islamic era" - as the area is still predominantly populated by those who practice Islam, it isn't really post-Islam. The section does discuss and detail the colonial period of the area by the Portuguese until they were expelled. Additionally, I am somewhat concerned over the tone of the reference, which seems less interested in addressing historical points and more in re-writing it. As such, I am not sure that the source is ideal for use as a neutral one. I will address the topic in the Reliable Sources noticeboard.
  • Removal of the SeeAlso: "see also|British Residency of the Persian Gulf" - I am not going to point out that there is a tendency for 'Iranification' in this and other articles, but we need to remember to maintain neutrality. The Persian Gulf does not - and has not ever been - the sole property of the modern state of Iran.
  • The excessive wikification of the word "Persian" - As per WP:MOS, we link things once.
  • The state of tourism and trade in the region, namesly the bits about the high profile of the UK in the region. As the edit repairing the article asked that cited material not be removed, I am at a loss to understand why the info was removed.

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

A) Then how there is Pre-Islamic? Post-Islam means after the flourish of Islam to that area.
B) It has been already linked in between the text, and there is no need of {{see also|X}} in the middle of the sub-section.
C) When Darius the Great (c. 549 BC – October 486 BC) says: "I am a Persian; setting out from Persia, ...", how can I remove Persian from his wording?
D)That is for 2006 and should not be included to history section, as the proportion of material in relation to article should be balanced as per the wiki rules.
-Thank you --Wayiran (talk) 14:34, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
No, thank you for coming here to discuss the issues, Wayiran. :)
Addressing your first point, adding 'Post' to a term usually means after something is "after, later or subsequent to"[1]; as Iran is still an Islamic country, 'post' is inaccurate. The subsection was called the colonial period, which accurately describes the period where Iran was under the sway of another nation-state. Perhaps you are reflecting some of the moral umbrage that post-colonial folk sometimes get.
As for the placement of the seealso, I don't see the previous linking that you refer to. I do agree that it shouldn't be in the middle of the text but instead at the top of the subsection.
This is a deeper issue, and I think that a separate section might become necessary, but my initial take is that because this is an article on the Persian Gulf, and not Darius, we should limit the introduction of history of the latter into the former. I understand that there is shared history (like a Euler or Venn diagram), but I think that limiting the amount of overlap will help to keep the article from getting muddy and bloated.
2006 is still part of the region's history, though I can understand your point. I think an additional subsection, 'Recent history', might be a useful way to discuss more recent (say, within the past 10-20 years) events.
Thoughts? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 00:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Arcayne, you have no right to mass-revert another user's dozens of edits, which includes several improvements such as spelling and grammar. If you are disputing issues relating to the content, then fix those issues in question, don't make sweeping reverts.--Kurdo777 (talk) 00:10, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Arcayne's edit was quite correct in this case. The previous edit had major problems and it should have been reverted (if you think some spelling modifications are needed, you can do that as a minor edit). Don't mixed them with controversial edits based on crappy sources like Alefbe (talk) 01:12, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
No, it wasn't "quite correct", neither was your edit. I removed the line in question about the Assyrian king, if there are other questionable parts in his edits, correct them, you have no right to make sweeping reverts, undoing other editors' hard work. --Kurdo777 (talk) 04:19, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Respectfully, you are mistaken, Kurdo. Perhaps you might find it beneficial to read the reasoning behind the collective removal - "mass" removal suggests a malicious intent which I can assure was not there - of items that were either not supported by citation, were off-topic, or seemed inappropriate for the article. If you wish, please feel free to address the points above. If you need me to, I would be happy to reiterate them again.
I can understand the knee-jerk reaction to remove anything immediately that disagrees with your point of view, but this is the main reason why we have discussion pages; via discussion, we find the things we have in common, and by noting those commonalities do we find ourselves more receptive to cooperation, compromise and (lasting) consensus. Revert-warring doesn't cement your view (not that I am assuming good faith and not suggesting pov) into place in the article; if it is not a consensus view, the edit will not remain. The only - I repeat, only - view that outweighs consensus is where such conflicts with policy. Seek to create a consensus by expressing your views and addressing (politely) arguments against those views. Sometimes you will win, and often you will lose - just like everyone else in Wikipedia. The key is to be gracious in losing.
So, seek a consensus for material that was boldly added, then removed. The time to discuss is now, as per WP:BRD. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 05:08, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


Can we add this

Arabian Gulf street in kuwait city

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

Not sure we can, as it is only named for the Persian Gulf, and isn't the Persian Gulf (any more than King Cyrus Pizza Palace or the Che Guevarra Monkey Farm and Petting Zoo are indicative of their namesakes). - Arcayne (cast a spell) 12:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Well let me tell you something, Persians DO NOT call it persian gulf they call it Gulf of Persia (خليج فارس) and in Arab states we use Arabian Gulf In schools and banners from kuwait to the Kingdom of Morocco even Sudan call it arabian gulf so why not we mention in the article how ppl call this gulf and show them the full face of the issue... and for your information Turks ruled the Region for

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

But that's just it; it isn't you're gulf, my friend. It is called the Persian Gulf by the wider group at large, and that is who we write for. I am not saying that we denigrate the usage of "Gulf of Persia" any more than we denigrate the usage of the term, "the Arabian Gulf" or simply "the Gulf"; we simply note those terms used by the widest groups of people. If folk in Iran call it the Gulf of Persia, bully for them. But they are not a statistically large enough group of people to warrant calling it such within the article. I guess, i am not sure what you are arguing to elucidate? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 15:05, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Persian word for "Khalij" is Shaakhaabeh (already mentioned in dictionaries 400 years ago). Arabs as far as I know use the word Bandar for port, and Arabs of Iraq use a lot of Persian words as well. There is no reason for the image as this is not a WP:forum. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 01:03, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
If this picture is included, it could be a good idea to contrast it with a shot of a sign of the "Forever Persian Gulf Street" which runs from Khomeini airport into Tehran. Quite possible that the one has even been named in direct reaction to the other.-- (talk) 09:58, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Excelllent idea. Clearly one of the key points in this article is that there is indeed a lively dispute over the name(s). Clearly several of these names are used in different fora by different groups, to greater or lesser annoyance of others, and equally clearly such varied usage has strong cultural and political-strrategic drivers. I can't think of a better illustration of all that than to post both this picture and the one of the Tehran street sign, if someone has it!ProfTirak (talk) 16:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
This article is about Persian Gulf the waterway, not highways in Tehran or Kuwait. Such images would be clear violations of WP:NOTSOAPBOX, and WP:Undue. --Sina111 (talk) 17:41, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Sina; such arguments belong elsewhere, not here in this article. Now, does anyone actually have information about fauna and flora of the PG, or does everyone want to argue about who built the Gulf? Keep focused, people. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

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

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

Two phrases

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You are wrong. I am sorry but you do not speak for Arabs. Neither the term Arabian Gulf is " used in all Arab TV stations, books, magazines..." as you falsely claim, nor have the 22 Arab states adopted a policy or resolution on the issue. As a matter of fact, many statesman from those "22 Arab states" use Persian Gulf (Iraqi president, several Iraqi and Lebanese minsters) , and Persian Gulf in Arabic generates 1.5 million results on google [2]. So as I already explained to you, adjectives like "all" or "most" are a unencyclopedic and only a reflection of your own point of view. --Kurdo777 (talk) 03:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
First Google results are Arabian gulf (Arabic: الخليج العربي). In addition, the majority of other result are newspaper articles which are critical of the use of the name or cite news about Iranian comments or acts which promote Persian gulf name. It is easy to check by clicking on [ Translate this page ] beside each result. Egyptian lion (talk) 06:30, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Some are, some are not. Don't tell me that you that you actually checked the content of every one of the 1,510,000 google results, and did a head count. This is the problem with your line of reasoning, you just throw sweeping terms like "majority", "all", "most" out there, without much concern for factual accuracy. --Kurdo777 (talk) 10:12, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
1.5 million results are too many to check with google translator. But I am sure 1.5 million of them are not all related to Iran. Furthermore, as Bosworth said: " (Bosworth, C. Edmund. "The Nomenclature of the Persian Gulf." Pages xvii-xxxvi in Alvin J. Cottrell (ed.), The Persian Gulf States: A General Survey. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1980.) (pg xxxiii).. Excerpt: Not until the early 1960s does a major new development occur with the adoption by the Arab states bordering on the Gulf of the expression al-Khalij al-Arabi as weapon in the psychological war with Iran for political influence in the Gulf; but the story of these events belongs to a subsequent chapter on modern political and diplomatic history of the Gulf.". So you can't put a [which?] for that. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 10:05, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
As per examples: For instance, in the Atlas "Alaragh fi Alkhawaret Alghadimeh" by Dr. Ahmad Souseh (Baghdad 1959) including 40 maps among the Arabian sources of the Middle Ages. In the maps presented by Arabian countries to the International Court of the Judiciary for settlements of border claims, the name of PERSIAN GULF has been mentioned. In Atlas of Alkuwait fi Alkharaet Alalam" some maps have been used where there exists the name of PERSIAN GULF. In Atlas of "Alkuwait Ghara fi Alkharaet Altarikhieh" published by the efforts of Abdollah Yousef Alghanim in 1994, there are about 200 maps mentioning the name of PERSIAN GULF. The book: "Osoul Alkuwait Almanshour Alalam" (1991) published in the Netherlands also contains 15 maps where the name of PERSIAN GULF exists. In the book: "Alkhalij alfars Abar Altarikh va Alghoroun" (written by Mohammad Mirza, 1976 Cairo) there are 52 maps drawn out of Arabic sources, mentioning the name of PERSIAN GULF. In Atlas of "History of Islam" (1951-55 America and Egypt) the name Persian Gulf has been mentioned 16 times. In Atlas of "Khalij (Gulf) in the Historical Maps" (1999) excluding three maps which were drawn after 15th century, seem to be included beside the other maps (all of which mention the name of PERSIAN GULF) upon persistence of the honorable person collecting them, where the name has been forged as: Arabic Gulf. In next maps, the same cartographers have corrected the name to Persian Gulf. The Arabic Bank and Beyt Alquran in Bahrain published a large wall calendar in 1996 containing the historical map of Bahrain in which all the maps contain the name of PERSIAN GULF. So these are sufficient examples of Arab countries or institutions using the correct name. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 10:13, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

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

I don't change to something odd or new. If you read the referenced lead of this article you will find that my edits weren't to be reverted. In addition, this source supports my reverted edits but it is used to support only a particular point and ignore the apposite. Wikipedia has rules and policies that we all should stick to in order to maintain and improve its creditability. Denying facts won't vanish them. And remember:
  1. Assume good faith.
  2. Wikipedia contributors are editors, not authors, and no one, no matter how skilled has the right to act as if they are the owner of a particular article.
  3. Be neutral.

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

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

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

  • Hello, one of those third opinions here. Looking at this argument, I can see a few things. It looks like the dispute is about what to call the Gulf in question. I would say that "Persian Gulf" is the most common name in English speaking regions, and it's the one that should be used in the opening and elsewhere. It would be wise, in my mind, to have a section discussing other common names, such as "Gulf of Persia", "Arabian Gulf", et cetera. Irbisgreif (talk) 21:10, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello Irbisgreif, actually I have been thinking about the same new section to discuss the other names and the claims behind every name. But actually the discussion that I requested a third opinion for isn't about what should this article be named. It's about my reverted edits that I tried to use more precise and factual words which didn't please the wishes of some parties. I want to ask if I can, as a Wikipedia user, to contribute here and provide referenced facts or there are certain articles which are exclusively edited by privileged editors? Perhaps that is the question about this dispute. --Egyptian Lion \ 21:36, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
(I relisted the dispute.) — Athaenara 23:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
I de-listed it (as Irbisgreif previously did after offering a 3rd opinion) because (as Unschool pointed out) there are more than two editors involved in this dispute. However, if only two are involved, clarify it here (was "disagreement about tone and style" an adequate description?) and feel free to list it again; otherwise WP:RFC may be the way to go. — Athaenara 04:12, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
The following message was posted on my talk page (diff); I'm forwarding it here to reply:

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

I think it's fair to simply relist the dispute. Perhaps something like "Disagreement about whether or not this edit was against article consensus and should have been reverted as such" would be an adequate description for WP:3O's purposes. — Athaenara 08:52, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
I relisted the dispute. --Egyptian Lion \ 20:17, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Having a look for third opinion, I agree with Egyptian lions edit here [[3]] It is a good edit, in that it slightly better clarifies the situation and adds a citation to support the comment, a good edit. Off2riorob (talk) 15:26, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
I also think that the comment is of little value to the lede and could be removed altogether, this this body of water is sometimes controversially referred to as the Arabian Gulf by certain Arab countries or simply The Gulf, although neither of the latter two terms is recognized internationally. could be removed altogether from the lede and the article would not suffer at all. Off2riorob (talk) 15:30, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
I spent sometimes to read some discussions through the edit history of the article. It appears to me that the current lead is the result of consensus after many hot discussions and meditations. Therefore, we should not touch the wording and style of the current lead because this fragile stabilized lead is the result of all old discussions and mediations of different involved parties in this article.--Where is my vote? (talk) 16:52, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
This user changed the request wording. --Egyptian Lion \ 18:01, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
That is out of order, the question was framed in an ok neutral way. I suggest you revert it back and leave him a friendly note requesting him to leave it alone. Off2riorob (talk) 18:07, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
I have reverted his alteration to your question and left him a note on his talkpage. Off2riorob (talk) 18:23, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Previous consensus is irrelevant in this situation. This edit by Egyptian Lion is not contentious at all, it clarifies the statement and adds a citation to support it. Off2riorob (talk) 18:28, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Naming Dispute

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

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

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

What is wrong with that link, a united nations group of experts on geographical names? It looks fine to me, and I would disagree that the "article is in desperate need of a NPOV rewrite. Off2riorob (talk) 16:53, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
What is so desperatly pov about it? Off2riorob (talk) 16:54, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
As I said: "several of them are not resolutions by the UN, but documents submitted to it". The source, claiming to support:
"At the Twenty-third session of the United Nations in March-April 2006, the name "Persian Gulf" was confirmed again as the legitimate and official term to be used by members of the United Nations"
and several other claims, is actually a working document submitted to the UNGEGN, and IS NOT a document FROM the UGEGN. If I submit a document to the UNGEGN it is not a valid source, unless I AM MYSELF and expert. So the article makes unbased claims.
About the POV, the section (as well as the introduction) clearly shows the "Persian Gulf" as being the "correct name" and Arabian Gulf as being the "wrong name", when there is NO SUCH THING as correct or incorrect name for a geographical feature. Just like Bodensee is also called Lake Constance. If you actually look at the results from the UNGEGN meeting ([[5]]), it says:
"An expert from the Asia South-West Division (other than Arabic) summarized working paper No. 61, which outlined the history of the name Persian Gulf. The Convenor recognized the careful historical content of the paper and noted that countries could not be prohibited from using or creating exonyms."
Do you understand now? Thank you. Uirauna (talk) 18:11, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Not really, is is some kind of nationalistic point of view? We already have Persian_Gulf_naming_dispute so it looks well covered to me. Off2riorob (talk) 12:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Ok, let me put it simpler: 1st. The section makes unbased and false claims (international recognition, UN saying what is the correct name, etc.). 2nd. It shows one name as being correct and the other one as being wrong, when there is no such thing as a correct or wrong name. Do you agree with me? And please don't assume I am nationalistic or anything, I have nothing to do with the (insert whatever name here) Gulf, I do find it ridiculous to call it "Arabian Gulf" but THOSE COUNTRIES HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO DO SO, even if it is (IMO) ridiculous. Do you agree with the two points I described above, or should I ask for a third opinion? Thank you. Uirauna (talk) 13:28, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
You don't need to make it simpler, thank you anyhow. As I see what they said, is that it is historically P gulf but , hey, locally you can call it what you like. It is a matter of nationalistic points of view, if you want to discuss it with me could you show mw the specific change that you want to make? Reading the section and looking at the citations, it is very very well cited. Off2riorob (talk) 13:58, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

These are the changes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"An expert from the Asia South-West Division (other than Arabic) summarized working paper No. 61, which outlined the history of the name Persian Gulf. The Convenor recognized the careful historical content of the paper and noted that countries could not be prohibited from using or creating exonyms."
So there is no right or wrong name for a geographical feature, any country can call it whatever they want. Uirauna (talk) 23:20, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Of course that we can't force the countries to use the correct name, but this inability, doesn't mean that there is no correct name for it. The united nations is not able to perform the human rights in Iran, but it doesn't mean that the human rights is not correct! Look, as the UNITED NATIONS GROUP OF EXPERTS ON GEOGRAPHICAL NAMES has said:
Organizations and affiliated foundations have applied the correct name of PERSIAN GULF since they have been incorporated, excluding one case, which corrected it through Note No. 5 AD311/1GEN dated March 5, 1971...
Under "Background for Application of Incorrect Words Instead of PERSIAN GULF" it says:
Moreover, following nationalization of the oil industry in Iran in 1950 and dispossession of English Companies and discontinuation of relations between Iran and England, the Ministry of English Colonies, for the first time used the incorrect name of this water body.
--Wayiran (talk) 07:27, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
There is a point you do not seem to understand: The reference document linked in the article IS NOT a deliberation by the UNGEGN, but A DOCUMENT SUBMITTED TO IT, thus having no value as the opinion of the UNGEGN. The parts you both quoted were SUBMITTED to the grou, and the one I quoted was the actual ANSWER from the group. Another point that some do not understand is that I do not care how any country call it, just that there is NO SUCH THING AS A CORRECT OR INCORRECT name. Please stop using the wrong source for your affirmations and read my first posts again. Thank you. Uirauna (talk) 14:59, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

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

Uirauna, I am afraid you are beating a dead horse here, this article used to be a magnet for vandals and POV pushers from both side, but it has been stable for over a year now, because there was a looooong mediation on this issue, and the current wording is the result/consensus/compromise that was born out of that mediation [6]. Besides the fact that the items you oppose to, are actually sourced, the changes you are porpoising would open a new can of worms, and would take the mediation out of the equation, and make this article unstable again with both sides going at it. I know you mean well, but for the sake of peace and stability of this article, let's let the sleeping dogs lie, and save yourself hundreds of hours of back-and-forth bickering, edit-waring, pointless discussions etc with the likes of the IP above. --Kurdo777 (talk) 15:54, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Kurdo77, I agree woth you on most of the arguments, but if you carefully read my arguments above, you will see that the article itself makes unbased and false claims (such as saying that there is such a thing as a internationally recognizable name for a geographical feature, also saying that the UNGEGN edorses one name over the other and says one name is correct and the other one incorrect) and if we leave it that way the article will simply be plain wrong. I am tired of reverting trolls from both sides as well, but we should aim for acuraccy, not 'peace'. My proposal is simply to remove the "internationally recognized" and move to a "arabian gulf is not widespreadly used, being persian gulf the mostly used name for this geographical feature". In the same way as "Arabian Gulf", the persian gulf is also called "Gulf of Basra" by the Turks, and the article does not seem to have a problem with it. The point is, there is no international board that recognizes geographical names, so, as the UNGEGN said, any country can call it whatever they want, without being wrong or right. I do not mean to cause a war here, that´s why I didn´t even edit the article and came straight to the talk page. Uirauna (talk) 17:59, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree with you that there are no right or wrong names, or correct and incorrect names. I don't think the article makes any such claims either, and if it does, it should be corrected. But recognition is a different story. The UN, for example, does indeed recognize Persian Gulf as the standard name, it gives no such recognition to the other names. It's the same story with the United States Board on Geographic names, and National Geographic Society. I am against saying "correct" name or using similar terminology, but "internationally recognized" should absolutely stay in, the other names simply do not have the same recolonization as the standard and widely-accepted/used name from any major international body, that's just a fact, and it can be sourced by many secondary sources like this. As for your six proposed changes, for the reasons already given, I am against #2, #3, #4, and #6. But I agree with you on #1 and #5, that part should be reworded or removed. --Kurdo777 (talk) 18:58, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, the US and UN do choose to use one name over the other, but only as means of internal standards as not to cause confusion by using two name for a single feature. It does not recognizes one name as right or wrong, only defines a standard. But for me changing topics #1 and 5# is a good enought of a start, and IMO those are the biggest issues. Could you please propose a rewrite, so there is no chance that someone will think I am simply pushing the issue withou consent and start a edit war? Thank you. Uirauna (talk) 20:15, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

All the Arab countries I know call it The Arabian Gulf. About the UN, they might call it the Persian Gulf in English but I'm sure they call it The Arabian Gulf in Arabic and these are some sources where you can see for yourself if you can read Arabic:

UN Radio

UN website

So, I think this section of the article should be edited especially the UN part. Many history facts are not shown on this article and I think there is a bias to the Persians side. There are many historical facts that I myself didn't know about until I read an Arabic article about the dispute. You can refer to this Arabic article and see some of these facts: الخلاف على اسم الخليج العربي

I really don't know why Persians act this way by trying to force everyone to call something by a name they want. As a matter of fact, most of the Arabian Gulf shores were inhabited by Arabs. Even those shores that are now a part of Iran used to have people from Arab descents living on them. I think we as Arabs can call it whatever we want in our sources. Arabs have never asked Iran to call it The Arabian Gulf. They can call it anything. However, Iranians are now acting really aggressive about it in all the fields. Some soccer matches were held in Iran this year and some Iranians had signs with (Persian Gulf) written on them in both Arabic and English. These signs were held during different matches with Arab teams just to piss the Arabs off. Why all that? In 2006 in Tehran, Ahmadinejad and Sheikh Hamad of Qatar discussed some issues about related to World Cup 2006. Sheikh Hamad said that the success of the Iranian team would please all the Arabian and Persian Gulf people (He was used to call it Arabian but he wanted to be respective). Do you know what Ahmadinejad said? He said something like "I think you used to read it as The Persian Gulf when you were in school." Well, I don't think he read it that way when he was in school because I, for instance, learned that it was called The Arabian Gulf in both Arabic and English. Why do Persians behave that way? Cold1 (talk) 13:26, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

This section is not a forum , and most of the above paragraph does not have anything with the article itself . Because my Arabic is not so good , I don't know what's the dominant name in Arabic , but anyway , I can see that the Egyptian Arabic still use the Persian Gulf variant . It also appears that the older Arabic usage was also Persian Gulf . About Ahmadinejad and Sheikh Hamad , it is not related to article , but if you are unfamiliar with the old name in school , maybe it is because you are not as old as Sheikh Hamad . I have images of Arabic documents before Gamal Abdel Nasser that use the old name , and I also have voice of Abdel Nasser himself when citing the Arab world as من البحر الأطلسي الی بحر الفارسی that means from the Atlantic Ocean to Persian Gulf , and I can send the audio file to your e mail address if you want ; So that was only recalling a memory and not an aggressive word to a guest .--Alborz Fallah (talk) 09:32, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
I believe you Alborz, but how do you know which name was used before the year 1900, for instance? I know that I shouldn't discuss things irrelative to the article but i didn't go too far. About Ahmadinejad, the point was that what he said was disrespectful because Sheikh Hamad was trying to be respectful in the first place by saying the two names together. Finally, I think Arab countries should have the right to call it that way. That was my point. I also mention something about the article which was the correction of the UN part in this section of the article because as you can see in the links i posted, the UN clearly uses the name used by Arabs in Arabic text. Cold1 (talk) 16:09, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Everyone is free to call anyplace with any name that he wants , but in an Encyclopedia , the dominant name in that language is the name used in the lead. The Non-Egyptian Arabic Wikipedia use a different name - in diffrent language-; so be it ! About the Arabic name before 1900 , there is evidence that Arabs tended to call it Persian Gulf , but that is not still nothing to do with what they want to use in modern days . About the disrespectfulness of Ahmadinejad dialogue with Sheikh Hamad , he has a explicit way of talking that is troublesome in some occasions , but anyway if it was out of diplomatic ethics , Sheikh would have objected (it was over-friendly!). UN English documents are mentioned here to show the dominance of Persian Gulf in English , and Arabic UN documents can be used in Arabic Wiki. About this talk page being not a forum , again I think we may not go so far , as you said ; but I really don't know why some among Arabs act this way about an old neighbor and ancient name, but never object the recent namings such as Jerusalem and Al-Quds?! --Alborz Fallah (talk) 11:28, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, some information in this article is still misleading. The UN does use the Arabian Gulf as the Arabic name for the Gulf, and that should be mentioned in the article. I got your point about Ahmadinejad. About Jerusalem, I agree with you but Iranians shouldn't also make a big deal about the name of the Gulf. Arabs are not taking it seriously but Iranians seem to do so. They even involve this matter in sports like when they hung signs saying "Persian Gulf" just to piss off the players in some games. Anyway, thanks for the discussion and I hope they do something about editing the article. Cold1 (talk) 20:57, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Cleanup tag in references section

I've added a cleanup tag to the references section as there are several references which are solely in Arabic script or contain portions of untranslated Arabic script. SP-KP (talk) 22:43, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Article should be retitled and not follow anti-Semitic usage

Majority of people who actually _live_ there call it the Arabian Gulf. Putting Persian in the title is simply supporting historic Aryan bias and hatred of semitic peoples. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:24, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

See the discussion above. "Persian Gulf" is the name most commonly used in the English language - this is English Wikipedia, not Arabic Wikipedia. I'm sure no bias is intentional. Bazonka (talk) 13:20, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Complete nonsense that "majority of people that actually live there call it the Persian Gulf". The population of Iran is larger than the rest of the countries combined. Secondly, all the Persian Gulf littoral states except Saudi Arabia have a minority of locals. Thirdly, the majority of Shi'i Arabs are not chauvinists and refer to it as the Persian Gulf. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:43, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Who are you quoting? Nobody said that. Bazonka (talk) 19:37, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Just for the sake of the fact, the population of Egypt alone is more than the population of Iran. Another thing, What does the minority of locals have to do with the naming dispute? And it's not about chauvinism, it's about being loyal to your country which the Arab Shiites don't have, in fact, they are traitors and that's what the Shiite religion is based upon. Cold1 (talk) 21:22, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Reconciliation of IHO names

In the article header, it says, "The name Gulf of Iran is used by the International Hydrographic Organization". Then in the Geography/Extent section, it says, "The International Hydrographic Organization refers to the gulf as the "Persian Gulf"". I verified against the actual document, which says "Persian Gulf (Gulf of Iran)" -- see section 41, at the top of the page numbered 21 (actually page 23 in the PDF file). I then updated both references to this usage. Macoukji (talk) 03:05, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Say in Persian

Can you write Persian Gulf in Persian language please. Khaleeje Fars —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ditc (talkcontribs) 23:22, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Arabian Gulf

The term arabian gulf must in fact be removed from the text. Some people call the president an idiot. But is it said in the wikipedia text that in some cases, especially in arabic states he is refered to as "the idiot" ?

No it does not say, the same way the term arabic gulf must be removed!

What was it called when you went to school? The Persian Gulf!

Stop chaning history. I am writing from a persian society of historians. This change must be made... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:24, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Why are you so angry? We want to call it The Arabian Gulf and it's up to us to call anything with any name we want in our countries. I think it shouldn't be removed. In fact, this gulf was called with many names in the last few centuries. The Ottoman Empire called it the Basra Sea. Even in schools, we studied it in Geography as the Arabian Gulf and I didn't know about any other name for it until later. Cold1 (talk) 13:06, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
In Wikipedia , we only present the facts and we don't judge about them . In this case , we have to inform the fact that in some of Arabic countries , there is a new tendency to change the historic name and show the facts about it . The readers will themselves understand the situation and they will judge about it in their mind , but Wikipedia is in neutral position : it only gives information and nothing more . بگذار هرچه می خواهند بگویند ، واقعیت خود نمایان است (let everything to be said , the reality will shine itself !) --Alborz Fallah (talk) 06:38, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Persian Gulf and NOT Arabian Gulf

There are hundreds of historical evidence and ancient maps as well as recent maps that refer to the body of water between Iranian Plateau and the Arabian Peninsula as Persian Gulf. This extension of the Indian Ocean located between Iran and the Arabian Peninsula, historically and commonly known as the Persian Gulf, and is sometimes controversially referred to as the Arabian Gulf by certain Arab countries or simply The Gulf, although neither of the latter two terms is recognized internationally Persian Gulf: New World Encyclopedia. History has been written according to a geographical platform in which this body of water is recognized as Persian Gulf. With the rise of Arab nationalism (Pan-Arabism) in the 1960s, some Arab states of the region started adopting the term "Arabian Gulf" to refer to the waterway. However, this usage has not found much acceptance outside the Arab world and is not recognized by the United Nations or any other international organization. The United Nations Secretariat on many occasions has requested that only "Persian Gulf" be used as the official and standard geographical designation for the body of water. At the same time, the historical veracity of the usage of "Persian Gulf" can be established from the works of many medieval historians Persian Gulf: New World Encyclopedia. All the following terms refer to “Persian Gulf” in different (ancient) languages like “Khaleej Al-Farsi” (خلیج الفارسی) or “Bahr Al-Farsi” (بحر الفارسی) in Arabic, “Perficus Sinus” or “Sinus Perficus” or “Sinvs Persicvs” in Latin, “Golf de Persia” or “Golpho de Persia” in French. The name of Persian Gulf or the Sea of Pars has been introduced to the world by the first studies in topography. Claudius Ptolemy, mathematician, geographer, and topographer of the second century A. D.; in his first map of the world introduced the sea between Iranian territory and the Arabian Peninsula as Sinus Persicus. In most of the Greek and Roman maps this sea has been called Sinus Persicus, Mare Persicum, and Aquarum Persico, the exact translation of the Sea of Pars. However the oldest existing map of the Persian Gulf is a Babylonian terracotta tablet belonging to the seventh century B.C. in which Babylon and Assyria are drawn as two rectangles. Between them the river Euphrates flows to the Persian Gulf, which in this tablet is named Nar Marratu "bitter and salty water" that like a circle surrounds these two countries and other lands. The other ancient document is an inscription by the Great Achaemenid King, Darius. In that inscription which had been made on the occasion of the digging of the Nile Canal around 515 to 518 B.C. and discovered in excavations of the lands around Nile River, the King mentions the Persian Gulf as a sea flowing from Pars The name of Persian Gulf or the Sea of Pars Persian Gulf Naming Dispute. An Achaemenid era tablet discovered in Kharg (or Khark) island (400-500 BC) is another piece of evidence that confirms the word Persian for the Persian Gulf Khark Island's Achaemenid Inscription. Unfortunately, on May 31, 2008, the inscription was seriously damaged by unknown vandal(s).They destroyed it with a sharp object, such that about 70 percent of the inscription has been seriously damaged. The nature of the damage indicates that it has been done deliberately Achaemenid Inscription Khark Island's Achaemenid Inscription Seriously Damaged. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Koorosh Mohammadi (talk) 13:02, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The article is already called "Persian Gulf", so what are you wanting us to do about it? Bazonka (talk) 16:00, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


The Persian Gulf is not the accurate and correct name of the body of water represented in the article. The name should be changed to Arabian gulf and a response should be taken immediately.


A very patriotic arabian doctor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amin891 (talkcontribs) 21:36, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Remember that this is English-language Wikipedia. Persian Gulf is (rightly or wrongly) the commonest name used in English. Bazonka (talk) 21:40, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

There is no need to mention what Turkish people call this body of water. The fact is the world calls it "Persian Gulf". Noghteh (talk) 07:53, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

The very nature of you declaring yourself as a 'patriot' attest to the purpose of your request as nothing more than a desperate attempt by a self-absorbed and delusional Arab to 'win' acknowledgment where nothing is due. I thank you not to dilute wikipedia with childish pettiness and let historical fact and international recognition justly do its part. MasihF (talk) 18:20, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from, 9 May 2010


Arabian Gulf (talk) 21:49, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I do not understand your request.  Chzz  ►  21:56, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Not done


This website ranks #1 on Google when you search for Persian Gulf or Arabian Gulf.

Read more about this site here:

What is SEO?

It stands for (S)earch (E)ngine (O)ptimization and is the process and techniques for improving the ranking of a web page in search results from search engines such as Google, Yahoo, Bing, etc. Can you give us an example of what SEO does?

Yes, for example if you Google the terms “Persian Culture”, “Persian History” or even “Persians” you will see one of my sites,, appears on the first page of Google.

In other words, implementing SEO technique helps your website rank better in search engines for specific terms, resulting in more traffic. How did this happen?

One of the reasons is that our pages have received many backlinks from other blogs and websites. These backlinks are one of the factors involved in ranking in (S)earch (E)ngine (R)esults (P)age. Why doesn’t the site appear first when we Google the term “Persian Gulf”?

This is a fairly new page that was added to the site only a few months ago, and therefore it has not yet received enough backlinks.

If you would like to help increase this page’s rank please link the terms “Persian Gulf” and “Arabian Gulf” to the URL below: What does SEO have to do with the Persian Gulf?

I realized many Iranians are concerned about how Google treats the term “Persian Gulf” and have campaigned, complained and built WebPages to fight against the term “Arabian Gulf”.

Many have started calling, blogging, emailing, tweeting, Facebook-Messaging or instant messaging each other on how to save and enhance the ranking of the term “Persian Gulf” on popular search engines such as Google. So wherein lies the problem?

The problem is, many of the concerned Iranians simply forward inaccurate and incorrect instructions which resulted in a backlash. I’ve seen postings on blogs which encourages and asks Iranians to vote on the site PersianOrArabianGulf dot Com for the term ‘Perisan Gulf’. They think Google bases its ranking by this site’s poll!

Yet, this is not true. First of all, why a backlash?

Many Iranians have linked to this spam-based website PersianOrArabianGulf dot com. (Please do not link to this page anymore - I will explain why later.) These backlinks are an important factor in the way in which search engines rank these sites. Search engines have given this SPAM site called PersianOrArabianGulf dot com a high rank. This site lacks any useful information and is under control by a non-Iranian webmaster whose only intention is to make money.

So what’s true and what’s correct?

1) This site is owned by a non-Iranian, who started several controversial sites for the intention of making money. Controversial sites usually receive more traffic and are easily monetized by selling ads. If you pay close attention, the website is full of advertisements and lacks any useful information. All of the blue links and banners on this website are advertisements. Simply hover over the blue links and you will see that ads appear. Each time you click, the owner of the site makes money. It’s a personal website and nothing else.

Also, Google definitely does not own this site! (Recently, I read a claim that this site is operated under Google for the sake of understanding which term is correct by taking polls and using the votes!) lol

Google doesn’t care about your votes! Google ranks sites based on SEO factors such as:

   * Keywords used in the Title of a page,
   * Meta Tags
   * Number of times a keyword is repeated on a page,
   * Number of backlinks,
   * And other factors...

2) No website (including the Spam website PersianOrArabianGulf) tells Google what to do.

3) A poll is simply a script that webmasters embed on their page to take votes. Although it usually records and displays the votes correctly, it can easily be modified by the webmaster. The webmaster can reset the poll whenever desired. To trigger excitement and play around with our minds he/she can edit the numbers and modify the poll’s result anytime. The numbers don’t mean anything and it doesn’t effect how search engines rank and treat the words. Conclusion:

As the founder of and as an engineer with over 6 years of website and SEO experience I felt obligated to explain the basics of how websites are ranked specifically for the term “Persian Gulf” due the fact that I noticed many blogs, tweets and Facebook postings share information with good intentions but incorrect facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:42, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


name of This gulf is "Arabian Gulf". —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:36, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

It's called Persian Gulf (rightly or wrongly) in English. This is English Wikipedia. Bazonka (talk) 16:27, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

There is not such a thing as Arabian Gulf. You could call your toilet that if you are seeking attention that badly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:34, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Google Bombing The Persian Gulf Campaign =

Sept 2011 - A New Campaign to fight against the so called Arabian Gulf — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:44, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


'' — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:45, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

"Arabian Gulf" is the ancient name of the "RED SEA". This article is about "PERSIAN GULF" ! which has always been called "Persian Gulf" during history. Noghteh (talk) 04:10, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Grammatical Correction in Introduction

"although neither of the latter two terms is recognized internationally" should read "...two terms are recognized internationally." —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

No, that's not right. You could say "both terms are wrong" but if you use "neither" than you must use "is". ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 16:46, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Two terms ARE recognized. It should be "are." Gingermint (talk) 02:56, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Interesting news story

this story on the gulf being a possible location for early human settlement should probably get a mention here.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:19, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Persian Gulf

I enjoyed reading everybody's input, although I have to admit some input were less than desirable. I personally, believe that the correct term is Persian Gulf. This stems not from personal preferrence, but from thousands of years of documented Persian, Greek, Roman, Turkish, and Arab history. The term "Persian Gulf" is not a tribute to the Persian people, as it might be mistakedly perceived by some readers, but a tribute to their historical and social contribution whether through their presence or their contribution. Naming of bodies of water is not a subject for competiting nations to vie on. For instance the argument brough by some Arabs, regarding the name change, is, let's face it, a competative gesture and for lack of a better way of putting it, nationalistic, and ethnocentric.

The arguments for "name change" that I have encountered are all false or have little truth; for instance some arguments cite that "more shore line is shared by Arab countries than by Iran", the response to which is as follows: As a nation Iran has the largest portion of the gulf and so that automatically defeats the argument, however if we approach this (as it is beneath a true Wikipedian to do so, but for sake of argument) that we are discussing Persians vs. Arabs, then perhaps maybe the Arab population shares a slightly bigger shoreline. However perhaps a good example of why this argument is false is Gulf of Mexico which has as much if not more shoreline with United States and yet is still called "Gulf of Mexico" for clear historical reasons.

So what does this, mean for those who passionately argue for or against the name change? It means that we have to be fair in our assessments and that prevent, nay refuse to give in our social, national, or racial tendencies. A true Wikipedian is a person who sees facts, recognizes them and approves of them, in spite of his or her personal, social, or religious agendas. Having said that, and as a person who has no interest in either side (Persian vs. non Persian), I believe that the true name of the body of water, as depicted in ancient Greek, Persian, Roman, and Arab scholarship, and as approved by United Nations, United States, all of the Europe, and almost every significant international organization, is and should by logic remain Persian Gulf. Any deviation from this for political reasons is not fair to the collective right of the people worldwide to a "world heritage" reflecting not just political trends of the day but a history rich with ancient recounts.

As for the Persian (Iranian), Arab rivalry, I believ it to be counterproductive and sily. I believe that the only true measure of a successful worldwide achievement, is through unity and universalism, not self advertisement and propaganda. I believe that a wikipedian has the ability to see beyond his own race, culture, and teachings, and has the priviledge of being able to communicate with those around him in a manner similar to those of the ancient scholars: In free forum, and using logic, discussion, and openness. I hope to read more of your wonderful additios and if you read through my writing up to this point, I like to thank you as well! Dr. Persi (talk) 03:34, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Well said! Such stupid disputes chased me away form this project. --Former Wikipedian, (talk) 18:10, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
The thread above and, as far as I can see, all of ones that have preceded it, both for and against the current article title, are mostly irrelevant. The points being made on both sides ignore the salient naming convention policy basis that matters on Wikipedia as to how we choose article titles—the basis upon which the move discussion was decided. It is this:

Wikipedia:Article titles:

Articles are normally titled using the name which is most commonly used to refer to the subject of the article in English-language reliable sources.

Common usage in reliable sources is preferred to technically correct but rarer forms, whether the official name, the scientific name, the birth name, the original name or the trademarked name.

True neutrality means we do not impose our opinions over that of the sources, even when our opinion is that the name used by the sources is judgmental.

So I'm really not sure what you guys hope to accomplish with all the impassioned speeches about history, and what the United Nation does or does not recognize, and how other language terms for the location are literally translated and what is the "correct" title and what is the official title and more. You guys can continue to argue these matters but they're not relevant to how we title articles and will once again not matter in any future naming requests.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:40, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, you said common uses are prefered over technical uses, and in this instance both common usage and the technical term is Persian Gulf, so we are in no disagreement on that sense. The point is not to make "impassionate" argument, it is to reflect facts. Is it not why Wikipedia is created? To reflect facts? The history and UN, US, etc. source make sense in this case because this is a historical international entity, hence naming is based on these variables. you said we are arguing, as far as I am concerned I am not arguing at all! I just left this here to reflect how I feel about this subject in a neutral sort of way. Be cautious how you refer to "we" as you said "that is how we title articles" as "we" is I, and everybody else too :). No matter, I dont see why there should be a point of contention. Thankfully the current naming is appropriate no matter what logical pathway you take to arrive at it, whether citing historical and factual world wide documentations, or just refering to the fact that the most used version is the right version. Cheers and thanks for your contribution Fughettaboutit and nice name too haha :) Dr. Persi (talk) 21:12, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much, indeed! In fact (talk) 07:21, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Dr Persi, correct me if I'm wrong but looking at the context of your post, in fact, by the express language it opens with, it seems to clearly be a reaction to previous posts on the naming issue that you would not have written had those previous posts not existed. I am not commenting on the merit of what you say, nor about what anyone else has previously said. I am simply trying to get all those who have commented here on the name to understand what WE, as in Wikipedia, will care about as the applicable standard in any naming discussion. If you simply want to set the record straight on the name, that's fine, but many of those before you are here for the purpose of getting a name change result, and others are arguing against that name change result. I think it's good that all those here for that purpose don't spin their wheels about issues that would be irrelevant to consider on a name change discussion. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:46, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

That is true, I did post here in reaction to what was said. I also understand the point you are making. I suppose my post is a mixture of what you mentioned: My desire for setting the record straight and also an attempt to provide counter weight to what seems to be as you mentioned a frenzy of attempts at name change. Again, I read the page you gave and I understand what it means, although in a way I am not too happy about it, because (and this is my view) I dont believe that majority mentality should dominate over facts, but that is a discussoin all together for another time. No matter, the reference to "we" was more of a philosophical gesture, haha, I KNOW what you meant when you said "We" and I wasnt making a gesture, I guess it is my sense of humor :). No matter, I enjoy our discussion here, but like I said there seems to be no point of contention as we seem to get to the same point, via different logical pathways. So have a wonderful day (or night where you are)! And a premature merry christmass or happy holidays to whoever celebrates! Dr. Persi (talk) 02:21, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Might interest you

There is a debate, and since it follows the same lines, I thought you guys might be interested:

The Parsyan Sea has a bigger Indian, Iranian, and Pakistani population than Arab population in its coastal areas.

The Parsyan Sea has a longer India, Iranian, and Pakistani coastline than Arab coastline.
Therefore the use of Arabian Sea is an error and the page must be renamed the Parsyan Sea.
As a compromise The Sea has also been proposed.

All Arab-ultra-nationalists, who wish to shed such a reputation, are kindly invited to reuse their arguments (adapting the necessary words) at the discussion over at Talk:Arabian Sea#Parsyan sea. (talk) 18:07, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Not only is this on the wrong talk page, but it is all irrelevant anyway. The sea is (rightly or wrongly) known as the Arabian Sea in the English-speaking world. As this is English Wikipedia, its English name must be used. Bazonka (talk) 18:18, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
It was ironic. (same person, different IP) (talk) 18:54, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Iranian navy in control of Persian Gulf 'Iranian navy warships are stationed in the Persian Gulf waters and they permit the transit of foreign ships after registering their name and other details,'

So should we add a section about the current military situation? Hcobb (talk) 18:45, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Correct name

According to the site: — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:01, 1 November 2011 (UTC) The correct name for that Gulf is Arabian Gulf not persian Gulf because of the following reasons:

• Used by the Arab League.

• Used by United Nations in their Arabic documents and Arabic Language is an official language in the United Nations.

The name "Persian gulf" is linked to the Persian Empire that does not exist any more. As Mediterranean sea used to be called Roman Sea.

Iran does not mean Persia, Iranian people consist of Persians, Arabs, Azeri, Turkmen, Kurds, Gilakis, Mazandaranis, Lurs, and Baluchis.

• The people who lives around the gulf from all sides are mostly Arabs so by demography it should be called Arabian Gulf

• There is 6 Arabic countries around the gulf but Iran is alone. and 70% of the coast line is under Arabic countries.

Note: The translation of Arabian Gulf (or Arab Gulf) is Al khaleej Al-Arabi الخليج العربي, NOT خليج فارس.

This is English-language Wikipedia. The commonest name used in the English-speaking world is (rightly or wrongly) Persian Gulf. All of the points that you raise are irrelevant. Also, please remember to sign your posts, and do not delete the posts of others. Bazonka (talk) 13:14, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Babak2000ir, 16 July 2011

Ass the original Persian name in English and Persian alphabet, in the beginning:

Persian Golf (Persian: خلیج فارس, Khalij-e fars)

Babak2000ir (talk) 22:20, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Done Jnorton7558 (talk) 05:58, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Should not be done. Please read the discussions above and also this edit summary. Regards, In fact ( contact ) 07:43, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Its name is Arabian Gulf no Persian Gulf

The historic name of this gulf is the Arabian Gulf whereas it is in the east boarder of Arabian Peninsula, so please correct its name — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nidallious (talkcontribs) 10:38, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Strange to see "how" you want to push. The article has some sources. You may want to read some of them. Just ask yourself: The arabic population of the region have lots of things called "Arabian". 1) Arabian Peninsula, 2) Arabian sea, 3) Arab's Gulf, 4) Gulf of Arabs, 5) Shatt al-Arab, .... These are not enough "arabic"!!! How many more places you want renamed as "Arabian"? The amount of money spent by rich rich governments in the Peninsula for name-changing is 1000 times enough to save the lives of your arab "brothers and sisters" in Horn of Africa who are "Arabian" and are dying faster than you think. Xashaiar (talk) 11:10, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Don´t feed the troll, just ignore him. If you answer he might think he is taken seriously :) Uirauna (talk) 12:56, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The historic name used by the Persians and the West is the Persian Gulf. However, the name that was used by Arabs (who live on the other side) for centuries is the Arabian Gulf. Rashidun, Umawiyyun, Abbasids, and Ottomans all used either Arabian Gulf or Basra Gulf. "Persian Gulf" is just wrong.... it's not the name the people who are from it use. I am from the Arabian Gulf and I hate to be called I am from the Persian Gulf.... It's just historically, technically, and emotionally wrong..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:01, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Pollution in Persian Gulf is not mostly from US and UK warships operating in the area

IN the article someone claimed the Persian Gulf is mainly polluted by US and UK warships operating. The Persian Gulf is has thousands of shipping vessels carrying oil, imports, and exports from all over the world. To claim that US and UK warships which consist of less than 1% of all shipping traffic is to blame for the pollution is absurd. Not to mention the refinery's, chemical plants, and other factories which are located directly on the coast. Pollution is the last concern of the countries in that region. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:27, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I have removed that statement as uncited. The rest of that last paragraph is from reference 75, but there is no mention in that article of warships, the US, or the UK. It's likely that it was added by someone with an agenda. Horologium (talk) 17:22, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Someone is editting my discussion sections

My past discussion section is being edited. I hope you guys can "punish" that guy for me, because I am new.

- Arsaces. (Sorry, i am to lazy to logg inn.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:36, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean this edit, where an IP user inserted some text before your signature? I have now moved your signature to the correct place to avoid confusion. You should not normally delete other people's posts - see WP:TPO. Bazonka (talk) 20:08, 1 January 2012 (UTC)


i want permission to add some text to this article from academic sources Espiral0 (talk) 09:34, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

The article is only semi-protected, so you don't need permission. Bazonka (talk) 17:33, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Ah, I see you've already edited it. However, I've reverted your edit because what you said did not match the sources used. The Encyclopaedia Iranica clearly uses the name Persian Gulf, not Gulf of Iran. And whilst I can't actually see the Encyclopedia of Islam, Google Translate indicates that "Bahr Faris" means Persian Sea. Bazonka (talk) 17:41, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
yes you are right , i mean persian gulf not gulf of iranEspiral0 (talk) 07:50, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Quote in Etymology section

The Etymology section of this article contains a quote from Arnold Wilson about the historical background to the name Persian Gulf. This quote is indirectly sourced. The reference is a (presumably reliable) United Nations article [7], but this just vaguely quotes "a book, published in 1928". It would be preferable to reference the original source if possible. The quote also contains grammatical and capitalisation errors, which are also in the UN source, but I doubt are present in the original book: "as Persian Gulf" not "as the Persian Gulf", and "Iranian Identity", not "Iranian identity". To my mind, the inclusion of this questionable quote seems to be bordering on POV-pushing anyway, and so I propose that it be removed. Your thoughts? Bazonka (talk) 20:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I oppose removing it. However I think other active users in this article such as user:Dr. Persi and ... should also comment in here. Regards, In fact 07:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Hors sinus persic mare persicum.JPG Nominated for Deletion

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:Hors sinus persic mare persicum.JPG, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 15 February 2012
What should I do?

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

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

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Hors sinus persic mare persicum.JPG)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 22:47, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Old map.JPG Nominated for Deletion

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:Old map.JPG, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012
What should I do?

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

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

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

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:04, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 15 March 2012 (talk) 19:37, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Arabs by paying tremendous amounts of money are trying to change the name of persian gulf and become the new owners of it.

Where throughout history and historical maps it has always been Persian Gulf.

Not done: Please explain exactly what you want to change. Bazonka (talk) 20:21, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Arab Gulf

It Was Called persian gulf when there were persian empire. at that time miditreaeen sea was called Roman sea. Now there are seven each arab countries surround this gulf. moreever Iranian on the coast of Gulf are all Arab too(Ahwas). so it is bad to hear som one still calling Arab Gulf Persain Gulf. this remind me the amarican indians.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:04, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh here we go again. Please read the previous posts on this page. In the English-speaking world it is rightly or wrongly called Persian Gulf. End. Bazonka (talk) 23:07, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

soory i'm new here. any way you all Arab and Iranian lets rename it to be (Arabian Irani Gulf) this would be much better than arguments cz at the end every one has the right to use the suitable name for him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:22, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Well a neutral name would certainly be easier for us Wikipedians. But unfortunately we don't make the decisions, we just report how things are. Bazonka (talk) 23:26, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

in this case if you are using a source for naming the gulf we need you guys to use the same source in naming Palistine as it was mentioned in your sources .... — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:32, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what you mean. Article names should follow the policy of WP:COMMONNAME. Bazonka (talk) 17:25, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Note to user:bazonka: LISTEN! Even Arabs can speak English! Royaume du Maroc (talk) 00:02, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

All of them? Wherever you go in the world you will find some people who can speak English, even in Iran. Please read WP:COMMONNAME - the name used by the majority of English speakers is Persian Gulf, whereas Arab Gulf is a minority term. It may be the commonest English name in Arabia, but we must take the global view. Bazonka (talk) 06:30, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Arabian Gulf

The Arabian Gulf is located in Western Asia between Iran (Persia) and the Arabian Peninsula. It is an extension of the Indian Ocean.[1] The Arabian Gulf was the focus of the 1980–1988 Iran-Iraq War, in which each side attacked the other's oil tankers. In 1991, the Arabian Gulf again was the background for what was called the "Arabian 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. The Arabian Gulf has many good fishing grounds, extensive coral reefs, and abundant pearl oysters, but its ecology has come under pressure from industrialization, and in particular, oil and petroleum spillages during wars in the region. Historically and internationally[2][3][4] known as the Arabian Gulf, this body of water is sometimes controversially referred to as the Arabian Gulf or simply The Gulf by most Arab states,[5] although neither of the latter two terms are recognized internationally. The name Gulf of Iran (Persian Gulf) is used only by Iran.[6] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sofani (talkcontribs) 19:34, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

What? Bazonka (talk) 19:40, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
What indeed...and why! What's also strange is that the penultimate sentence only makes sense if the first reference to Arabian Gulf in that sentence was actually to Persian Gulf. Looks like text cut and pasted from some source, without citing the source,...and then unintelligently doctoring it! DeCausa (talk) 20:00, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
The source is this article. Seems like misguided POV-pushing to me. Bazonka (talk) 20:32, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
aha! lol DeCausa (talk) 20:34, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Some comments

I have two comments on this article, fwiw: a) the section on Etymology contains some really unclear writing, so bad it's not clear to me exactly how to copy-edit it, and b) the section on Naming dispute is actually mostly a discussion of historical usage of the name, with very little discussion of the actual dispute. Isn't this information redundant, given there's an article on the dispute itself which presumable goes over this in detail? This section probably should just summarize the existence and main points of the dispute. Also, maybe some mention of the dispute's effect, ie, cancellation of the games, or whatever. Just some suggestions for someone who knows this subject. Eaglizard (talk) 22:01, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, those sections need a good rewrite. Especially the Naming Dispute section, which really needs to be no more than a sentence or two because there is a main article on this subject. I think there has been some POV-pushing editing going on. Bazonka (talk) 06:59, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. In fact, IMHO, a version of the lead from the Naming Dispute article is probably all that's needed in the Naming Dispute section. DeCausa (talk) 07:51, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
'Tis done. Bazonka (talk) 08:05, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 28 June 2012

There are some other historical maps indicating that the correct name of the Gulf is Persian Gulf. The links are as following:

[8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39]

Please consider these images in the new revision.

Farshidapolo (talk) 16:51, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Reformatted. Nothing can 'prove that the correct name of' something is anything, it merely shows use. I've changed this from a completely unnecessary wall of links; they remain available for inclusion consideration. Dru of Id (talk) 17:55, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
POV pushing. There are enough maps already. Bazonka (talk) 21:40, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Please insert {{Link FA|hr}}

Please be kind and insert {{Link FA|hr}} - it's featured article on Croatian Wikipedia. -- (talk) 21:49, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Done, thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 22:28, 22 July 2012 (UTC)


Is there any reason why the "History" section has chapter on the Pre-Islamic era, and a chapter on (European) Colonial era, but nothing on the intervening 800+ years? Wardog (talk) 13:04, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Probably because no-one has written anything about it. Maybe nothing particularly notable happened during this time (although I'm sure there must be something). Feel free to add something. Bazonka (talk) 16:08, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, History of Bahrain would provide some cut & paste info, although there's not much to be had from equivalent on Kuwait & Qatar. It's hard to believe there isn't more to be said, although I suspect the region was somewhat a backwater between the rise of Islam & the 16th century DeCausa (talk) 20:22, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Exception of name?

In geography just about every gulf I can think of is given as "Gulf of XX" except this one. It's strange to say the least, who has ever heard of the Mexican Gulf, the Guinean Gulf, the Alaskan Gulf etc. Why is the named noun possessive of the gulf not the feature first? I read the politics section about what name to call it, but it seems odd that modern English geographic conventions was then not applied. Persia was the accepted name, so why was it not called the "Gulf of Persia"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:21, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Check this out -- List of gulfs -- you're absolutely right that it's the only gulf that isn't "gulf of xx" -- interesting! --Quasipalm (talk) 09:46, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Check the sources, it is also called Gulf of Iran/Gulf of Persia as well. However the most common name is for sure Persian Gulf. In fact 08:30, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Not true e.g. Saronic Gulf, Petalies Gulf, Pagasetic Gulf, Thermian Gulf, Strymonian Gulf, to name a few. DeCausa (talk) 19:48, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
This is due to a mistranslation in English. The original name - both in Persian and in Arabic - is Persian: خليج فارس‎‎‎ and Arabic: الخليج الفارس‎‎‎, which correctly trsnlates to "Gulf of Persis". Unlike popular belief, it is not based on the Persian ethnonym and not on the Persian empire, but is a reference to the region at its northern coastline. The Arab reaction to the name "Persian Gulf", which began as part of the Pan-Arab political ideology, is not based on historical facts, but draws on this misunderstanding in the West. --Lysozym (talk) 20:08, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Add the alternative name to the opening sentence

I'm suggesting to change the first line of the lead to the following: "The Persian Gulf also known as Arabian Gulf is located in..."

This is because other encyclopedias and reliable sources do so (see below). Please note I'm not suggesting to change the article name as the most common name in English RS is the Persian gulf.

Persian Gulf, Arabic Baḥr Fāris, Persian Khalīj-e Fārs, also called Arabian Gulf. Encyclopædia Britannica [40].

The Persian Gulf ( 26°54'17.00"N, 51°32'51.00"E), also known as the Arabian Gulf, is a 989 kilometer-long. Encyclopedia of Earth [41].

The Persian Gulf, also known as the Arabian Gulf, is a body of water in the Middle East. [42].

It's known as the Persian Gulf and the Arabian Gulf. [43].

Of course this change will have some consequences such changing Arabian Gulf from a disambiguation page to a redirect to this article. Thoughts? Mohamed CJ (talk) 08:17, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Not necessary, there's a whole paragraph of the lead on the alternative name. Also, the disambig page can't change because there are other articles disambiguated on it. DeCausa (talk) 08:22, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for expressing you opinion. Yes, I know there is a paragraph about it and I wasn't going to suggest this until I saw it in Encyclopædia Britannica and Encyclopedia of Earth. I think it is fair enough to include it. Mohamed CJ (talk) 08:31, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
But my point is it's unnecesary because it's covered by a whole paragraph of the lead. In the Britannica article lead the only reference is "also called Arabian Gulf". There's no equivalent of the last paragraph of our lead, so it doesn't really work making a comparison between the two. Given the last paragraph of the lead what would actually be achieved by the proposal? DeCausa (talk) 17:11, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
The proposal would show the reader that the Gulf is known by two names. In the history of this article, one of the names has been consistently been marginalized, particularly by adding "controversially referred to as X". We ought to realize that in several countries, one name is dominantly used, and to treat one opinion as important while neglecting the other is not NPOV. As it is, the article is quite one-sided on the naming issue. A simple google search will show that globally, both names are well-known, and the article does not reflect his. Unflavoured (talk) 02:01, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
You have a point. Although I'd prefer to get more opinions, your argument is convincing. A good question to ask is will this be better or worse for the quality of the article? I'm also thinking about adding the Arabic translations for the name as it is normally done. (Arabic: الخليج الفارسي‎‎) and the Farsi should be (Persian: خلیج فارس‎‎). Mohamed CJ (talk) 17:20, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

The Arab states and governments do many things, least of which includes claiming Persian historical figures as their own, but that does not change history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:30, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

controversially referred to?

The current lead of the article sounds good in general, however, I am not sure why is there this POV-pushing in the naming paragraph "this body of water is sometimes controversially referred to as the Arabian Gulf". The simple fact is that it is sometimes referred to as the Arabian gulf, and the other fact, which is also included, is that this is not recognized internationally. I can't figure out what does this "controversially" have to do here --aad_Dira (talk) 21:00, 5 June 2013 (UTC).

btw, talking about POV, I would also note that in the "extent" section there is totally unrelated inserting of the naming by IHO, which should be moved to the naming dispute section --aad_Dira (talk) 21:04, 5 June 2013 (UTC).
Done --aad_Dira (talk) 14:38, 7 June 2013 (UTC).
It's obvious it's controversial as there's a dispute between Iran and Arab countries over whether to use the Arab name. If there's a dispute it's "controversial". There's a section in the article on the dispute and it's referred to in the source for the sentence. I've reverted. DeCausa (talk) 18:21, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
"controversially" is sounding like a bias against the naming, so what I am saying is that we should only says what actually happened; some countries named it as such, and the others didn't recognize the name, and that's all --aad_Dira (talk) 04:05, 8 June 2013 (UTC).
If we omit the word controversial , a part of information would disappear . I mean in some examples there is no controversy in using alternative names ( like using the English nomenclature of English Channel or French la Manche ; but when there is controversy in using the names , we can't simply omit a word that shows a part of information.--Alborz Fallah (talk) 06:50, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
@aad_Dira, the internationally established name is Persian Gulf. The attempt by Arab countries to change it to Arabian Gulf for political reasons is objected to for political reasons by Iran. The attempt to change the name is therefore controversial. I can't really see the what the problem is with the word. It seems obvious. DeCausa (talk) 21:22, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
How is the IHO naming problematic? We give the IHO definition, therefore we should also give the name that they use to accompany the definition. Bazonka (talk) 19:46, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
@Bazonka: The IHO naming is not problematic; its location is. If you want to include the name IHO uses, you can do so in the correct place such as Persian Gulf naming dispute. Mohamed CJ (talk) 20:20, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
But their use of the name is not directly related to the dispute. It's absolutely fine where it is. Bazonka (talk) 21:38, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
It is related to the dispute, because it's a view point of a third party. What it's not related to is the extent of the Persian Gulf. Tell me what does the extent of the Persian Gulf has have to do with what the IHO calls it? Mohamed CJ (talk) 21:56, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
The International Hydrographic Organisation isn't just "a third party" - it is the authoritative international body on oceanographic naming, therefore a very significant third party. So the name that it uses in its most recent ratified definition is relevant to the content of this article. Sure, this can be expanded in the naming dispute article, but I don't understand why it needs to be totally removed from this one. Bazonka (talk) 09:20, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
A very significant third party is a third party. The info can fit in the dispute article, the dispute section in this article or even the lead of both. It however has nothing to do with the extent section (duh?). Again, I ask and this time answer me, what does the extent of the Persian Gulf have to do with what the IHO calls it? Mohamed CJ (talk) 11:58, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 12 July 2013

In the Persian Gulf page, it clearly states that it is called Persian Gulf and the Arabian states dispute this matter and there are evidence that shows the correct name, however, in the Arabic page it says الخلیج العربی which means Arabian Gulf, it should be changed to الخلیج الفارسی !!!! Couldn't find a change request in the Arabic page. Zoha92 (talk) 16:19, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I assume that, by "Arabic page", you mean the Arabian Gulf page in the Arabic wikipedia. You would need to address that on that article's talk page (if you insist on beating a very old horse) – it is an independent site. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 16:31, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
The English Wikipedia reflects the most prevalent name in the English language. The Arabic Wikipedia reflects the most prevalent name in the Arabic language. There is no pan-Wikipedia requirement for these be the same. Bazonka (talk) 16:44, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Persian Gulf TV provides practical information about the Persian Gulf, Iran and presents many photos, and data about the Iranian islands of the Persian Gulf. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:39, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Persian Gulf Rename

The Gulf is not Persian, it's the Arabic gulf... Since Iran and Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Emirates, and Oman are surrounding it, and all of these countries are Arabic, in All of these countries all the maps replace the 'Persian Gulf' with al Khalij Al Araby (the Arabic Gulf). the Persian gulf should be changed to that Name, because 4 countries can change something 1 country named. It's likes 4 people against 1, with 1 attack, they all can defeat that 1 person. That is all.

Sources: Geography Classes Maps all around the country (talk) 11:32, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Not done. It's not a question of what Iran calls it v. what it is known as in the four Arab ountries you mention. As discussed in the article, it's a question of what it is primarily known as globally, which is Persian Gulf. DeCausa (talk) 12:20, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
In English Wikipedia, we use the most common name in English reliable sources, which is the Persian Gulf. However, in Arabic Wikipedia it's called the Arabian Gulf, because that's the most common name in Arabic and in Turkish Wikipedia it's known as Basra Gulf because that's the most common name in Turkish. I hope this clears the issue. Since this comes up a lot, maybe we should include something about it at the top? Mohamed CJ (talk) 15:38, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Excuse me? is it a fight ? 4 to 1? you cannot change history by fighting. this is all about the true (talk) 20:16, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
No. This is all about WP:COMMONNAME. Bazonka (talk) 21:21, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Hegel (the philosopher) on the Persian Gulf

First as to Geographical position, we see China and India, exhibiting as it were the dull half- conscious brooding of Spirit, in fruitful plains — distinct from which is the lofty girdle of mountains with the wandering hordes that occupy them. The inhabitants of the heights, in their conquest, did not change the spirit of the plains, but imbibed it themselves. But in Persia the two principles — retaining their diversity — became united, and the mountain peoples with their principle became the predominant element. The two chief divisions which we have to mention are: — the Persian Upland itself, and the Valley Plains, which are reduced under the dominion of the inhabitants of the Uplands. That elevated territory is bounded on the east by the Soliman mountains, which are continued in a northerly direction by the Hindoo Koosh and Belur Tag. The latter separate the anterior region — Bactriana and Sogdiana, occupying the plains of the Oxus — from the Chinese Upland, which extends as far as Cashgar. That plain of the Oxus itself lies to the north of the Persian Upland, which declines on the south towards the Persian Gulf. This is the geographical position of Iran. On its western declivity lies Persia (Farsistan); higher to the north, Kourdistan — beyond this Armenia. Thence extend in a southwesterly direction the river districts of the Tigris and the Euphrates. — The elements of the Persian Empire are the Zend race — the old Parsees; next the Assyrian, Median and Babylonian Empire in the region mentioned; but the Persian Empire also includes Asia Minor, Egypt, and Syria, with its line of coast; and thus combines the Upland, the Valley Plains and the Coast region. (Hegel, Philosophy of History, p.194, 2001 — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:19, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 April 2014

United Nations secretariat's decision on the Persian Gulf naming dispute

Abiii13wp (talk) 17:41, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Not done Please clarify your edit request - it's not clear what change you want made. Bazonka (talk) 19:08, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Deserves Geology section

The Persian Gulif is a foreland basin. How do I know this? The article on foreland basins features the very same photo from space of the Persian Gulf that readers see here. The Persian Gulf is a present-day example of a foreland basin in an early ("underfilled") stage. Readers deserve a Geology section here, devoted to discussion of how this geological feature formed–and what geological processes currently underway are affecting it. For example, is the Persian Gulf filling with flysch or molasse? The article on foreland basins notes in passing the "[t]errestrial part of the basin covers parts of Iraq and Kuwait." Is the Persian Gulf destined to resemble the (much older) foreland basin of the Appalachian Mountains, the Appalachian Basin?

Agreed. The early shorelines during the Copper period are not even mentioned. Basrah was covered in water for miles around. (talk) 10:10, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Map of the old coastline is used in other articles but the main Persian Gulf article is where I cam e to find an explanation of this ancient coastline only to find nothing.
Ancient coastline of the Gulf.

gulf or sea

Currently, it is categories under seas of Indian ocean — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arjunkmohan (talkcontribs) 18:14, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

It is a sea. It is called Gulf. Not a problem. Bazonka (talk) 19:02, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Being at equal distance

First of all, I like to mention that I'm an Arab of Iranian origin. So, I'm at an equal distance from both camps of the debate. Personally, I think the Arabian vs. Persian debate in naming the Gulf is ridiculous. I always hoped that a compromise could be reached on this stupid matter by naming it the Islamic Gulf, which reflects the prevailing feature of people on both sides of the Gulf, but it seems that historical nationalism still runs in the bloods of leaders and thinkers of both sides of the debate, despite their claim of adhering to the principles of Islam. Having said that, and until people come to their senses by dropping their ugly nationalism for a commonality such as religion, I think that respect is due for both camps. I admit that "Persian Gulf" is the prevailing name in English, but for all practical purposes, "Arabian Gulf" should be used in articles that talk about things on the Arab side of the Gulf, so as not to offend people who relate to it. For example, why not use "Arabian Gulf" in articles of Arab countries? Those who oppose such idea are purely disrespectful to Arabs, who are entitled to believe whatever they want to believe, regardless of whether it is correct or not. All I'm saying is if the article speaks about things on the Arab side of the Gulf, then the common naming at that side (which is "Arabian Gulf") can be used. As for articles that speak about both sides, then the most commonly-used name in English (which is "Persian Gulf") can be used.Imdashti (talk) 06:16, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

That's not how Wikipedia works. We just follow the weight of reliable sources - whether they or not they show "respect" for one "camp" or another. We don't broker compromises and we are not concerned if one side or another is offended. DeCausa (talk) 17:01, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 May 2015

"The Persian Gulf is a mediterranean sea in Western Asia." Should say, "The Persian Gulf is a body of water in Western Asia.

The Mediterranean Sea is the Mediterranean Sea and the Persian Gulf is in no way connected. Source: Any map of the region (talk) 14:57, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Not done Please click on "mediterranean sea" (note the small M and S) in the article and it will take you to Mediterranean sea (oceanography) which explains:-
A mediterranean sea is, in oceanography, a mostly enclosed sea that has limited exchange of water with outer oceans and where the water circulation is dominated by salinity and temperature differences rather than winds. In English, the similarly-named Mediterranean Sea – which is almost completely enclosed by Europe, Asia, and Africa – is a notable example.
The Persian Gulf is, therefore, a mediterranean sea, (but not The Mediterranean Sea) so this usage is correct - Arjayay (talk) 15:48, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Persian Gulf Or Arabian Gulf Vote — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:20, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Voting in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates? very funny — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:36, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Persian Gulf. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

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

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:04, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 October 2015

Yaghub (talk) 07:48, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

No specific edit requested but appears to be a reference to changing the article name to "Arabian Gulf". Per many previous discussions, that's not going to happen per WP:COMMONNAME. DeCausa (talk) 07:55, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Persian Gulf. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

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

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:08, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Arabic description for Persian Gulf does not follow other language descriptions!

Hereby I would like to ask you to "correct" the description for "Persian Gulf" in Arabic. When you change the language from English to Arabic, it shows non valid description about Persian Gulf which is not in accordance with other languages descriptions. BR80.254.154.105 (talk) 11:18, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly, you're concerned about the content of this page. The Arabic language version is a different version of Wikipedia. This talk page is for English Wikipedia only. You should discuss your concerns about the Arabic version on the Arabic Wikipedia talk page. Bazonka (talk) 13:22, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Persian Gulf. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

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

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:22, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 March 2016

The following links from United Nations and Merriam Webster shall be added to support legally recognized name of Persian Gulf:

Thank you (talk) 11:54, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Not done - we already have three references including the United Nations and the CIA - we do not want or need a WP:LINKFARM - Arjayay (talk) 15:14, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#RfC: Persian Gulf and Arabian Gulf

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#RfC: Persian Gulf and Arabian Gulf . Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:45, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Arabian or Persian Gulf? A look at history

They lived as nomads, untill Mohammed came and gathered them together.

Historically the region has almost always been in controll of Persians.

--Arsaces (talk) 11:34, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Historically the region has always been in control of the Arabs. The persians only had control for a total of maybe 600 years. The Arabs however, to answer your question above, did the following - destroyed your ancient empires (Iran is not a continuation of those empires) - changed your religion - made you follow their religion - made you more civilized and less barbaric... as persia was a bloodthirsty ambitious expansionist empire....

The name should always be Arabian Gulf as this is the name that was used by all people who ruled the Arabian Gulf (except the Persians and the West, who are both at war with the Arabs) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:05, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't know how attacking a country and killing its people makes Persians barbaric...--Irrational number (talk) 08:43, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
That's all irrelevant. This is English Wikipedia, and the name most commonly used in English is Persian Gulf. That may seem illogical to you, but rightly or wrongly, that's what we call it. See WP:COMMONNAME Bazonka (talk) 08:23, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
The Arabs did not "destroy ancient empires", the Romans and Persians were worn out (from fighting with each other for hundreds of years) by the time the Arabs arrived on the scene. Persian culture to a certain extent developed and changed the way Islam was practiced and conceived. First translation of your Qur'an was by Salman e Farsi and the first complete translation of the Qur'an was in Persian. The first developers of Arabic grammar were Persian as well (see Ibn Khaldrun's work). Also ask yourself who are the greatest Muslim scholars, poets, scientists and writers? They were 90% Persian (look up list of Persian scientists and scholars on wiki and compare that with your own -- by the way, ALL "Arab" scientists and scholars were not from present day Saudi Arabia). Instead of making wild claims and making yourself sound like an idiot in front of these educated and hard working editors, actually pick up a book on Islamic civilization and culture for you might learn something valuable about "your" religion and to your dismay, the influence of Persian architecture, arts, literature, etc on Islam as it is known today -- after years of being developed by different cultures and civilizations such as the Turks and Mongols after they assimilated. Arabs made Iranians more civilized and less barbaric? That has to be the funniest joke I have ever heard, I'm flabbergasted by your level of intelligence. Tell your monarchies to keep selling your oil and buying American made weapons, recycling is good for the environment. And by the way, what did your pious and God fearing people ever do for the Palestinians? Oh right, they got their ass handed to them by the Israelis who were outnumbered six to one. If it weren't for the West and the Persians, I'm sure the Arab world would be flourishing and spreading its wings for all the world to see. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:57, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
This talk page is not a forum. Bazonka (talk) 08:24, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

and Mr. Bazonka, who are you to have the final say on what that gulf is called? it should also say "Also known as" Arabian Gulf..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:09, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

It's not up to me. It's up to common usage in the English language. If you can provide a reliable source that shows that "Arabian Gulf" is a commonly used name in English, then we shall use it. (What it is called in Arabic is not relevant in English-language Wikipedia.) Bazonka (talk) 21:25, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Not going into the current political conflict, here are some facts. First of all, Persia is located deep into the land with a mountain range separating the Gulf from Persia. This range of mountains serve as a geographic barrier separating persian people from the Gulf. Whereas the people residing along the coast of the Gulf, all around, are Arabs. Hence, Arabian Gulf. In addition, historically, there are no known Persian sailors. Meanwhile Arabic (Arab / Arabian) sailors are well known through history and their presence and the effects of their presence is clearly found across seas and oceans. Effects like the spread of Islam, the trade and communication between cultures throughout the continents was carried by Arab merchants and sailors. Hence, Arabian Gulf. Now if we want to trace the beginning of the name Persian Gulf, here's the story we believe is true. The real story of the Persian Gulf Myth. After the rising of Europe from the dark ages, as a result of enlightenment by Arab scholars, European nations realised the great potential for economical and political power that Arabs, and Muslims in general, have. Targeting the Muslim Empire and Arab world all around, the Gulf area was no exception. Different European military campaigns came with that target. The last of which, and most cunning, was the British campaign. After the downfall of the Muslim Empire, British began feeding the conflicts between the newly independent Arab states and tribes all around the Gulf. This lead to having some of these states conquered by the also newly formed but a bit older Persian Iran - which was built on hatred to the Arabs (who destroyed their "Persian Empire"). This British - Persian coinciding of goals lead to an Alliance between them. So, when the British campaign reached the gulf, it owed its 'success' of destroying the area and conquering the Arab states to its alliance with converted Persians, currently Dominating in Iran. As a result of that alliance, the Arabian Coast Lands (now in Iran) was given these Persians as a reward, along with converting the name of the Gulf to Persian Gulf. This is the TRUTH. This is the real, tragic history of the Gulf. Until this day, Arabs residing in Iran along the coast of the Arabian Gulf are being violently harassed by Persian racists. And until this day, they fight for survival. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:11, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

All irrelevant. See WP:COMMONNAME. Bazonka (talk) 16:16, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

This gulf is called as the Basra Gulf in Turkish — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:10, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

What did the Arabs do when Cyrus The great conquered the Huge Babylonian, Medean and Lydian empire and created the Persian empire?
What did the Arabs do when the Parthians created an empire which even managed to compete with the romans?
What did the Arabs do when the Sassanid Persians conquered the middle east?
  • — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:12, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
I would say that Persian Gulf is pretty universally used, that said I don't see why we can't be inclusive and mention Arabian Gulf as an alternative in the first line with a link to the dispute section. Changing the main article name seems excessive but acknowledging their viewpoint immediately would imo acknowledge them sufficiently to mostly diffuse the disagreement.Paolorausch (talk) 22:04, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes we can call it Arabian Gulf not the Persian Gulf, we can call it both actually, on the west and south coasts lives Arabs from Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Bahrain, Oman, North is Kuwait, Iraq and Khuzestan Province which is is historically an Arab Sheikhdom of "Mohammerah" until the shah took over and since Persians started exploiting the region's resources while diminishing the Arabs and their rights and Displacement of locals and bringing the Persians settlers from other regions in Iran to change the demographic equation, There are 360 million people officially acknowledge the gulf as Arabian Gulf and that alone would make you mention Arabian Gulf at least as an alternative in the first line, wikipedia if you decided to close the article for editing, at least you should be precise and fair in the same time! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:09, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
See WP:COMMONNAME. Bazonka (talk) 12:49, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

@Bazonka, Ok I got your point, in English language it's commonly called Persian Gulf, so why in the first line you stated the name in arabic is : الخليج الفارسي‎‎ "alkhalij alfarisi" which translated to Persian Gulf? that's not true, no one call it like that in Arabic, we call it الخليج العربي "alKhalij alArabi" Arabian gulf, I think that's fair enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:03, 19 April 2017 (UTC) he is right, all politics aside calling it al khalij al farisi in arabic is really messed up, at least that needs to be changed for certain. there are many many streets and localities named الخليج العربي. its definitely the standard in half of one bank of the gulf!Paolorausch (talk) 18:43, 2 May 2017 (UTC)