Talk:Persian Gulf naming dispute/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Persian Gulf naming dispute. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Neutrality

For the neutrality and accuracy dispute, please see Talk:Persian Gulf. roozbeh 16:50, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)

This is NOT a suitable comment for inserting a NPOV or Accuracy Dispute. Following the link one finds a moribund discussion that doesn't help matters. I will remove this Dispute notice since there is no actual dispute going on. Merely some lazy messing around with our Wikipedia. If you are going to dispute an article titled "Dispute..." you'd better do the work to make your case clearly and succintly. Emyth 22:23, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

This article is obviously biased!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.253.219.99 (talk • contribs)

"obviously biased"? i don't see how. could you please specify which part is biased? the summary of the artile is that the dispute was started in the 1960s when some Arab nationalists began using the term "arabian gulf" instead of "persian gulf"; however it says the U.N. through at least two directives continues to recognize "persian gulf" as the only standard geographic name of the gulf. it also refers to U.S. State Department and National Geographic Atlas as other important sources to confirm the same position ... ok now, which part of that do you consider biased? it is merely stating facts, it is not even stating an opinion (let alone a biased one). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Barnetj (talk • contribs)

I think I see why he considered this biased, now. It's because the article is named "Persian Gulf naming dispute" over "Arabian Gulf naming dispute", and the introduction strongly implies that "Persian Gulf" is the officially accepted name and places only "Arabian Gulf" in quotes. However, that is a fact that it is the officially accepted name, it's OK to imply facts, and it's not valid to dispute a fact as biased. The only thing that could really be biased about this article now is if it's withholding relevant information on the "Arabian Gulf" side of the dispute, which hasn't been mentioned. --Tifego 22:51, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

The article has indeed a biased “feel”, though that is subjective. However, I can't pinpoint a specific part that I consider incorrect. Instead, I just feel that arguments used by proponents of other names (other than Persian Gulf) use, if there are any, are insufficiently mentioned. – Adhemar 10:16, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any bias at all. I think you feel its biased because you personally have a personal view towards the dispute and want it to feel right for your opinions which are not important to a very well written factually presented article as this one. My personal view is that we are not here to change history, Persian Gulf has been the name for the Persian Gulf body of water for more than 3000 years. What gives a few oil rich Arab countries the right to refuse a historical and a well established name, Persian Gulf that bears enormous amount of history and geographical importance for the region. America with all its might and power still uses the name Mexican Gulf when referring the to the body of water situated south of New Orleans. America could easily become arrogant, disrespectful like some Arab countries and refer to the Mexican Gulf as the American Gulf, but thank god America is still respectful to geographical facts and historical importances. We don't see Russia referring to the Caspian sea as the Russian sea do we? It is the illicit based Arab pride and their reluctance to accept the Persian history and dominance, which has led the Arabs to their arrogant views in regards to their neighboring Persian Gulf and its history. The term "arabian gulf" will be short lived for its justification is based on quick sand. We are not here to change history, but it seems some Arab countries are refusing to accept historical and geographical facts by trying to create their own illusionary terms and spread them through their oil based global investments. 81.179.109.117 03:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Come on, you guys! This article is obviously hugely biased. The only remaining shreds of description of the Arabic "side" of the dispute are:

- Acknowledgement of the fact that there is a dispute.
- Whisper of a mention that maps published before 1960 were not 100% in agreement ("On almost all maps printed before 1960")
- One sentence of summary of the Arabic "side" of the dispute; ("some Arab countries, including the ones bordering the Persian Gulf, adopted widespread use of the term "الخليج العربي" (al-Khaleej al-Arabee; Arab Gulf or Arabian Gulf) to refer to this waterway; this is the standard usage in modern Arabic.")

Everybody seems to admit that the evidence is "overwhelming" - but this is not the same thing as "unopposed". It seems somebody is hell-bent on erasing the evidence supporting the "other side." There's an ancient map clearly labeled "Sinus Arabicus" which some unlucky editor has been trying to include on this page. It's obviously relevant: those who keep removing it do so not on the grounds that it is unconnected to the subject matter, but on grounds that it is weak evidence. Point out that it's weak, but don't erase it.

The facts of the matter are simple enough:

- There is a controversy
- Both sides have evidence to support their position, and some evidence is stronger that other evidence
- The evidence is real (not forged)
- One or both sides may be politically motivated - one to support a change, and one to oppose it

You guys that keep erasing evidence from the discussion just don't get it. You can comment about the weakness of one side if you want (as long as you do it in a neutral, unbiased way, of course). Point out that the text accompanying a map says X and not Y. Point out that the publisher of a particular map also published another earlier, or later map, that says something different (and of course provide the visual evidence to prove it). Point out that the earliest map in Arabic which showed one name was dated X and the earliest that showed another was dated Y. Provide a modern map in Arabic which shows the use of one name, and another that shows the other.

But to repeatedly, consistently and zealously use the editor's scalpel is just the electronic-age equivalent of book-burning. Nobody is saying that you can't do that if you want; there are plenty of forums available for you. But to use Wikipedia for that purpose is not allowed. Surely your goal is not to quietly point out in some other forum that "Even the famous Wikipedia, which allows anyone to edit, does not support their position." Is it?

Let me phrase it another way. If the evidence on both sides really does show that the gulf was called the Persian Gulf in most sources prior to the rise of Arab nationalism, then the evidence will in fact show that. There is no need to bury part of the evidence to make your own claims "even stronger." Doing so might make it easier to convince uninformed third parties, but only at the expense of own personal credibility.

While you are figuring out just how to phrase things here, you could mention the fact that geographical place names do change from time to time, often for political reasons. What happened to New Amsterdam, New France, Khazaria, Latvian SSR, East Germany and the Ottoman Empire? How about St. Petersburg? How about Persia?

Come on you guys. Play fair. Come to the table and play cards with us. We have rules, but we really do want your input.

Cbdorsett 04:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

"hugely biased"? :-) Cbdorsett, it's too simple and clear. 1.there's a naming dispute. 2.the most credible sources in the world (including the U.N., the U.S., the U.K., the most prestigeous atlases, etc. etc.) have chosen to use one name as the standard international name over the other. That's all. That's all the article is saying, It's merely stating facts. Now if you think it's not fair that the U.N., for example, has chosen the Persian Gulf as the standard name, that's something to be discussed in a forum or a newspaper column or something. An encyclopedia article can only state the facts as they are. It doesn't judge them. The fact at the current time is that the term Persian Gulf is *the* internationally accepted name for this gulf. Do you accuse the article of being biased for informing the reader about this fact? Barnetj 19:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The picture

I added the geographer's nationality, since many people would read the Arabic text and infer he's an Arab, strengthening the Persian side. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MB (talk • contribs)

The tag should be added

First of all it strictly states the Persian side of the dispute only. Second, it isn't exactly neutral, in fact it's extremely biased. These would be enough, right? Well, the fact that there's another party in this dispute has no existance in the existing version of the article, it's as if silly ghosts are disputing the name. Accordingly, i'll add the necessary tag. MB 21:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Why not add the other side of the dispute yourself? You haven't even said what the other side is so you really haven't provided any justification for the tag. ~~I'm tempted to give you a {{sofixit}}~~ (Sorry. Looking at this later, it sounds very insulting, and I didn't mean it like that.) –T_if_eg_o^(t) _{00:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)}

And you say "it isn't exactly neutral, in fact it's extremely biased", but you need to explain that, you can't just say "it's biased" without giving any reason whatsoever. –T_if_eg_o^(t) _{00:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)}

I'll fix it, until then let's keep the tag, and please stop trying to isult me in the article, it's vandalism and in violation of WP:NPA MB 22:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, it stated a fact I didn't consider insulting. Also, somebody else removed the tag you added just now, that wasn't me. Anyway, I discovered there is a {{POV-check}} tag which more accurately expresses the issue, and added that to the page for now. Is that better? –T_if_eg_o^(t) _{00:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)}

UN paper

I have no idea why Tesseran cut off the recent UN paper from here and added it to the “Links”! Hardly anyone reads the links!

Are we hiding something here? Are we MI6? 82.70.40.190 03:07, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Uh, it was probably removed because you added a bunch of non-encyclopedic stuff along with the excerpts from the report. I'm still not sure exactly what you were asking for. And Wikipedia usually doesn't simply copy reports from elsewhere, or at least it shouldn't. –Tifego^(t)_{03:25, 14 April 2006 (UTC)}

What follows is the text that 82.70.40.190 added to the article, which fits better on a talk page since it's worded as a request. –Tifego^(t)_{03:12, 14 April 2006 (UTC)}

Help please: I need the direct links to the two UN Secretariat editorial directives in 1994 and 1999 affirming the position of the UN on the Persian Gulf name. Can someone add the direct links please I cannot find them, I found the document on other sites (http://www.marzeporgohar.org/folders/folder_10/Persiangulf.pdf) but I need the direct link to the UN website. The document is ST/CS/SER.A/29/Rev.1, I need it urgently to pass to BBC for their education!

By the way, I also found a recent document on the UN Website (UNITED NATIONS GROUP OF EXPERTS ON GEOGRAPHICAL NAMES, Twenty-third Session; Vienna, 28 March – 4 April 2006, Working Paper No 61): Historical, Geographical and Legal Validity of the Name: PERSIAN GULF (4 April 2006) which is very very interesting and very funny near the end where it explains how some people came up with alternative names!

Extracts from the UN paper:

'''Introduction'''

Geography, as the most ancient human knowledge is an applied science which has different aspects. It studies the reciprocal relation of man and nature and provides the results to the users in the form of documents in writing, books and maps. The names of features and phenomena including natural or man made ones have been considered by geographers for a long time, therefore similar features are distinguished by it. The name of a feature can not be observed on the land like the feature itself. Thus, by mentioning the case on maps, Atlases, and books, it will be protected during different eras as a part of historical, cultural identity and saved as mans heritage.

For the same reason, any change, destruction, or alteration of the names registered in historical deeds and maps is like the destruction of ancient works and is considered as an improper action. Therefore, the names of geographical features profiting from a unique historical identity, should not be utilized as political instruments in reaching a political, tribal, and racial objective, or in any clash with national interests and other's values.

This paper provides a short study of the historical background of the name PERSIAN GULF so that it might cast light on realities.

'''Background for Application of Incorrect Words Instead of PERSIAN GULF.'''

After England's attack on Khark Island in 1837, the government of Iran at that time protested to England's separatist policy in the PERSIAN GULF and officially warned the government of Britain to avoid mischief intended at separating the southern side of Iran. This warning caused the Times Journal, published in London in 1840, to name the PERSIAN GULF for the first time as Britain Sea, but such a name never found any place.

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. In these years, the States South of the Persian Gulf were either colonies of Britain or under its support. To compensate its defeat, the government of England published a book by Roderick Oven, an agent of English Spy Org., in 1957 which was immediately translated into Arabic. In this book the assassination of the name PERSIAN GULF began and in 1966, Sir Charles M. Belgrieve, the political agent of England in the affairs of Persian Gulf Southern States supported by England, published a book at the end of his mission named: Golden Bulbs at Arabic Gulf. After coup of Abdolkarim Ghasem in 1958 in Iraq and then coup by Baas and their claims for some lands against Iran, they avoided using the name of PERSIAN GULF for political reasons.

In 1960, after Iran and Egypt's disconnection of relationships and after the Arab-Israeli war, anti Iranian actions culminated due to the previous Iranian regime’s support of Israel. This occurred in Arabic Circles and in a congress of Baas Party convened at Damascus, in which participating heads demanded for change of the name of PERSIAN GULF to the forged name of Arabic gulf, without relying on any legal and historical document. Following this, to achieve the political motive, they altered this historical name in the text books of Arabic Countries.

After the Islamic Revolution, followed by breaking relations between USA and Iran, and commencement of the imposed war of Iraq against Iran, there have been some efforts to apply incorrect words instead of the Name Persian Gulf. Most of these efforts were not on purpose but resulted from unawareness of facts.

Though, in USA the geographic and publication institutes have been hardly influenced by other countries, but in 2005, we witnessed that the reputable National Geographic Society, with a past history of not accepting and using forged words in its works, distorted the name of PERSIAN GULF and Iranian islands and intentionally mentioned incorrect information. This action only helped damaging its own international credibility, but ultimately, it surrendered to protests of Iranians throughout the world and corrected its error.

It is interesting that Mr. Roderick Oven stipulated in Golden Bulbs at Arabic Gulf: "I visited all parts of PERSIAN GULF and believed that it was Persian Gulf, because I noticed no map or deed, unless it had named the place as Persian Gulf, but when I watched it closely, I found out that the people residing at the southern beaches are Arabs, therefore, to be polite, we should name it: Arabic Gulf." Either Mr. Roderick Oven should have noticed that on the northern sector of that water body, up to 1269 km of coast exists with a far larger population who speak Farsi. This is larger than the Arabian population he was concerned about. He did not notice the important fact that this sea was first named by the Greeks and neither Iranian nor Arabs took any part in it. The Muslims and Arab Geographers learned the names from the Greeks and Romans, and used it in their works, especially that they named Pars Sea, unanimously: Persian Gulf.

In the end, it is worth mentioning that the name of Persian Gulf has been admitted in all the live languages of the world so far and all the countries throughout the world, name this Iranian Sea, just in the language of the people: PERSIAN GULF.

Arabs do not need to alter a historical name to have a gulf of their own, because there had been a gulf in their own name previously mentioned in the historical and geographical works and drawings, which is called at present the Red Sea (Bahr Ahmar).

http://unstats.un.org/unsd/geoinfo/gegn23wp61.pdf 82.70.40.190 11:18, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Reply to Tifego: why on the earth did you remove the link to the UN paper on the External Links? What is your game mate? The document is the latest and the most comprehensive document I have seen on the subject from the UN! It states the UN’s stand on the subject and you remove it? It covers all the subjects already covered on the page plus some more and comes from the biggest International authority in the world and you delete it! Are you out of your mind? Stop messing about. What is your objection to it?

I also was asking for the URLs to the official UN websites that host the UN Secretariat editorial directives of 1994 and 1999 (I don’t like to refer to third party websites in my document, anyone can fake a document and put it on a website!)

82.70.40.190 11:18, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Status of the UN paper gegn23wp61.pdf

The article – which keeps changing under my nose as I type, so this may not hold when you read this – suggests that "the latest UN paper from the Group of Experts on Geographical Names" entitled "Historical, Geographical and Legal Validity of the Name: PERSIAN GULF (4 April 2006)" is an official UN document with an authoritative status. Instead, it is just a technical paper prepared for a meeting of the UNGEGN, submitted by Iran (see Technical Papers of the 23rd Session of the UNGEGN). Lambiam ^Talk 19:27, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I do invite everyone to read the following for a better understanding of the situation and having more factual elements in refernce to the validity of the Persian Gulf's name. I think that those trying to change this name, should feel shame as they're simply showing their sens of inferiority. Just leave the names as they're... It's PERSIAN gulf god sake.

Read this and be factual if you don't agree, Don't post Naserian pan arabist propaganda non sens please: http://daneshjoo.org/article/publish/article_2385.shtml

The NPOV tag

I see this article as no different from the "flat-earthers" article. That POV is of course going to have an imbalance. If nobody disagrees, I'll remove the NPOV tag. --Ķĩřβȳ ♥Ťįɱé Ø 10:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

you cannot change the history

Guys, you cannot change the history you just make yourself known to the rest, do what ever you want, many have done it before and achieved nothing but disgrace. Basra is not even in the Persian Gulf you wanxxxs! The more you do it the more Iranians will hate you, keep doing it, I am for it, you just make us hate you more. Kiumars 01:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

This can be taken both sides hun! -dan

Viewpoint of Iran according to Jerusalem Post????

What the heck is that, how can a Israeli newspaper be represented as the Iranian view point on this matter? I am going to change this section since it is completely irrelevant, and add a true "Iranian" viewpoint- not what a Israeli newspaper says the iranian viewpoint is. just writing this before I change it. 129.16.248.218 16:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh no no no don't do that! According to this Wakopedia Jerusalem Post is the bible! Now you know who runs the show here?

Kiumars

Where's the Arab POV ?

All invloved parties views should be included, this is not neutral at all in an article about naming ((dispute)), I will wait for some time before editing/adding tag ! -dan

There is no such thing as "the" Arab point of view. There is a whole generation of Arabs who don't know any better: it is the name they were taught in school, and which they read in their newspapers and hear on television. They may be completely unaware of the existence of a dispute. And there are Arab nationalists who want to see the name "Persian Gulf" wiped from the map(s), also internationally. In summary, their argument is this: We hate the name "Persian Gulf". We love the name "Arabian Gulf". Therefore this body of water must be named "Arabian Gulf". Is this not obvious from the present article? Must this be spelled out more explicitly, and what would be gained by that? If there is a more "neutral" representation of this nationalist point of view (I've never encountered one), let those who adhere to it add it to the article. --Lambiam ^Talk 07:24, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

UN map evidence

Recently Dalbury commented out three inline citations ([1], [2], [3]) offered in support of the article's claim that "The group of experts on Geographical Names [...] has endorsed 'Persian Gulf' as the official name for this body of water." The edit summary was: hid cited PDF sources that would not open, and the inserted comment has this: "Documents cannot be accessed, Adobe Acrobat Reader says they are damaged".

I had no problem opening these documents. They all show the same "Map No. 3981.1 Rev 1" prepared by the Cartographic Section of the UN's Dept. of Public Information (and not the Expert Group), which shows the name Persian Gulf, and also carries the legend "The boundries [sic] and names shown and the designations used on this map do not imply official endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations." My interpretation of this text is that these maps cannot be used as sources that imply official endorsement by the Expert Group of the name Persian Gulf. Therefore, whether accessible with Acrobat Reader or not, these citations should not be reinstated. --Lambiam ^Talk 07:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I just tried to open one of them again, and the connection timed out waiting for a response. In any case, I suspect it will be hard to find any official UN stance on the name. -- Donald Albury 13:10, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

What a load of crap! UN stance on the name has already been stated twice in the last 10 years! Read the 1994 and 1999 directives. Why you guys don’t go to your local libraries and ask for a world map printed before 1960s? If you see any other name used for the Persian Gulf I will shut up otherwise you do. By the way, don’t waist your time trying to download those pdf files, the whole www.un.org is not working!

Kiumars 23:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Please remain civil. If the reference given does not support the claim in the article, then it is not a good reference and must not be used, period. It does not matter what we can find elsewhere, because it will not change the fact that this reference is a bad reference. This is so simple and evident to me that I don't understand that this needs to be explained to you. And further, what do you think, would this world map printed before the 1960s state: "The group of experts on Geographical Names [...] has endorsed 'Persian Gulf' as the official name for this body of water." No sir, it wouldn't. So why do you bring something up at all that is so completely irrelevant to what we are discussing? Please be careful what you write, because some people get mad when confronted with illogical arguments. --Lambiam ^Talk 00:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Iranians POV

Oh boy.. this article is totally biased toward the Iranian POV..I will try to rewrite it in a more neutral way.. This is Wikipedia, not Encyclopedia Britannica.. it is neutral and censored by certain authority..correct me if I'm wrong..--Alnokta 15:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Another thing, I will figure out a more neutral name like the one we use in the Arabic Wikipedia. something like "Persian/Arabian Gulf Naming Dispute"..what do you think?

I agree. The one in Arabic Wikipedia has much more english references.

I reverted your edits for several reasons

Not only Iranians call it the Persian Gulf
Not all Arabs call it the Arabian Gulf
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth, and according to the source cited in the intro, "the arrival of pan-Arabism and Arab nationalism, has caused the recently invented name Arabian Gulf to become predominant in some Arab countries".

Khoi khoi 19:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry.. but you reverted my edits because you can do so..and because you are biased toward the iranian point of view..if this article don't get a rewrite I will add it to Articles for deletion..I'm not playing or kidding here..you reverted the name too..this is a dispute, which part you didn't understand from my previous statements? oh ...right .. you didn't even read them... I will wait for your reply then restore my neutral version...please stop that childish acts!..--Alnokta 13:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Please remain civil. --Lambiam ^Talk 18:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

What I'm saying is verfiable..that is for sure ...I will add them(the sources)...

While the preponderance of old maps use "Persian Gulf" (Sinus Persicus), there are some old maps that have "Arabian Gulf" (Sinus Arabicus), for example this early 17th century map by Mercator; several more examples can be found at the last external link of the article. So the claim under Overview ("In possibly every map printed before 1960 ...") is overstating the case. In general I've noticed that some of the editors make more of the evidence than is there, as can be seen above on this talk page. I don't understand why people on side X of the chasm get so upset if people on side Y call it the Y chasm, and I hope we will not get a "Persian Gulf naming dispute naming dispute". --Lambiam ^Talk 18:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Im highly suspect of those maps. Possibly forgeries if you ask me. Heres why: Lets take Lambiam's example:

If the map Lambiam says is by the same Mercator, then either someone is lying here, or Mercator was crazy: How is it that the same Mercator calls the same body of water "Perficus" (Persian), and clearly uses the term "Sinus Arabicus" for the Red Sea? See for yourself: (Mercator map copy from Hong Kong University of Science and Technology collection) (smaller size)--Zereshk 22:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually that map has: "Mare di Mesendin olim Persicus sinus", where the part in italics is Latin for "formerly Persian gulf". In my opinion this is not the most convincing evidence that the name has historically always been only "Persian Gulf". --Lambiam ^Talk 08:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Here is another Mercator map, completed by Hondius, that uses Sinus Arabicus both for the Red Sea and the Persian Gulf![4]. How about that? Why to assume map makers in these days were always consistent in the names they used? To avoid a naming dispute? I don't think that in those days anyone attached any political significance to the names. --Lambiam ^Talk 00:27, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

That is an excellent question: How is it that "Hondius" uses the same name for two bodies of water? Is he trying to ruin his own reputation and go out of business, or is somebody nowadays going around reproducing forged maps and selling them in the market? That's just sad. It shows how desperate some nationalist Arabs have become. See for yourself: Hong Kong University has a verifiable map by the same Hondius that you mention. And he only mentions Perficus. Even if you use one name for 2 bodies, at least you must be consistent and do the same thing in all your maps, otherwise it kills any chance of reliability. See for yourself: [5]. In my opinion, we should be posting maps from established websites. Academic libraries, universities, LOC, etc. Not some private website by some Sheikh.--Zereshk 06:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

The maps sold by Sanderus Antiquariaat are rare antique original prints, guaranteed to be authentic, and they would ruin their reputation by selling forged maps. Do you think some Arab nationalists hacked their website and uploaded forged images? I don't believe Ross Old Books is run by a sheikh either. --Lambiam ^Talk 08:30, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

The website that has the map claims that the map is a work of Belgian cartographer, Gerardus Mercator. It says the map was published in 1606 while Mercator died in 1594..! I found Mercator's world map here:[6] you can zoom in and check the details of the map, in the place of Persian gulf the phrase mar mefen din or something like that is written and there is no trace of the phrase Sinus Arabicus. I might be wrong but I think the map is not what the website claims it is.-Marmoulak 22:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

That map is actually by Rumold Mercator, the son of Gerardus, based on an earlier map by his father. The legend is: Mar Mesendin; the character ſ, called the long s, is an old form of the letter s. --Lambiam ^Talk 09:06, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Pardon my previous message but I was shocked to see my NPOV edits are reverted that way..but the article needs a rewrite..perhaps not by an Arab like me(because you think I'm biased while I'm not) or by iranian biased like Khoikhoi and the other involved editors..can we get someone with a NPOV to rewrite the article? please .. and the name of the article.. what is wrong with my naming approach? can you suggest a better one?.. please accept my warm apologies...--Alnokta 21:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually you need to bring reliable sources from reliable websites and not websites that someone can easily upload a fake-map to. For example here is a map from university of texas [7]. --alidoostzadeh 02:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

That map establishes the fact that in the 19th century at least some people used the term "Persian Gulf". As far as I know, that is not being disputed, so I don't see the relevance of this contribution to the debate. --Lambiam ^Talk 09:14, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

The relevance of this contribution is the fact that some online store or antique shop is not a reliable source. Anyone can manage to have a picture of a fraudulent map on these kinds of websites. I don't see a repuatble univesirty or scholar citing or using these so-called historic maps, which is why they're probably fraudulent. --Mardavich 15:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

But why give a link to that 1856 map? I further question the claim that "Anyone can manage to have a picture of a fraudulent map on these kinds of websites." In fact, I think it would be a lot easier to produce a forgery on a university-run web server. However, if you manage to put up a forged antique map for sale on the website of a company specializing in antique maps, on which map Germany is labelled "Teutonistan", I'll gladly concede the point. --Lambiam ^Talk 16:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I never knew I had the reputation of being "iranian biased"... ;-) Khoi khoi 06:23, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

You don't understand what I'm saying..right? when you read the article in its current state..when you finish it..you will be totally convinced that it is called the Persian Gulf.. thus you exclude the disputes and you are insulting the whole Arabs by saying we are some wanna-take-names...the tongue of the article itself...you are making it sound like there is no dispute or whatsoever ...IMO this artice should be placed in an external website and change it to a few words like:

The Gulf Naming Dispute
Iranians say it is called the Persian Gulf.
Arabs say it is called the Arabian Gulf.

Until we can settle on something... don't bring me your maps trying to convince me it is the persian gulf.. there is a dispute already.. don't you get it? .. now ..what we do is to write some article about the dispute in question...not trying to bring the dispute itself to the wikipedia...you are trying to prove something here... well, this isn't the right place... so what do you think? add this article for deletion and forget the whole thing?...now I can see how hard it is to communicate with someone who don't know Arabic(no offence)...--Alnokta 08:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

We don't need to know arabic. This is an English article and English Wikipedia. And if you knew Arabic then you know there does not exist one Arabic source before Nasser that calls it Khalij-e-Arabi. And UN recognized name is Persian Gulf as it is the name from at least the time Strabo. As per Arabian Gulf it is forgery made by Nasser. Note the map you brought one has to be fraudalent since it calls the red sea as Arabian Gulf and the same map maker can not make the same map and call a different body of water with the same name he used for the red sea. Some maps could be reprinted and changed as well, but there is no texual evidence whatso-ever that any map before Nasser has called that body of sea Arabian Gulf. --alidoostzadeh 17:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I am afraid you are confusing some things. Alnokta did not bring you any map. If you really want us to think these maps are forgeries, then how do you expect other people to believe that the so-called UN directives linked to are true official UN standpoints? Why should they be more gullible than you? The links lead to a website run by an Iranian party! Such typeset documents are 1000 times easier to forge than an antique hand-coloured map. They don't even have a name or signature of the person responsible. And this is an official document?? Can you explain why they cannot be found on a UN website? --Lambiam ^Talk 18:59, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

As I said the maps are either forgeries or mistakes. Today I checked the library for the book and the author of the map Hondius describes the country of Persia and everywhere uses Persian Bay for the Persian Gulf. More will follow soon once one of my friends uploads some pdf to his website so everyone can see. --alidoostzadeh 19:46, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

We already know that there are plenty of maps that use Sinus Persicus or equivalent. Even if your friend uploads 1001 maps with the legend Sinus Persicus, that does not provide evidence that maps using Sinus Arabicus cannot exist and must be forgeries. If you can find two copies of the same map by Mercator/Hondius except that the legend for the Persian Gulf differs, yes, then we have a strong indication that at least one of the two is a forgery. --Lambiam ^Talk 19:54, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

You didn't read what I wrote carefully. I said in the text by Hondius he mentions it many times as Persian Bay. Now the map by meractor (which we saw) was publish by Hondius. I have the texts of Hondius about Persia which I will post soon. Note all we are asking is that you bring a single text before Gamal Nasser that mentions the area as Arabian Gulf.. Such textual evidence does not exist since Arabian Gulf has always been called the read sea. Now about the maps, if one is Persian Gulf and one is Arabian Gulf from the same author it can be explained in three ways: 1) forgery. 2) mistake. 3) Sincus Arabian could actually to the [Arabian Sea] but since the Persian Gulf leads to the Arabian Sea then maybe he put it there. Either way I have the text of Hondius which will be put in a website tonight for all to read. It's in 17th century English and consistently uses Persian Bay for Persian Gulf. No where does the text mention Arabian Gulf. And since in the end Hondius is compiling Meractor's map, then what we care about is what Meractor has illustrated which was brought by Zereshk and Mercator calls the Red sea as Arabian Gulf. Note the fact that UN and US recognize it as Persian Gulf is well known. Do not remove any quote, if you have a problem with it, just put a cite tag and it will be provided. Do not start a revert war. Here is the UN proof: [8] and this one from the UN website [9]. As per the US, I am sure you have heared of the Persian Gulf War. But even better documents can be provided. I will provide more later. --alidoostzadeh 20:04, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

A possible explanation 4): In those days there was no strict notion of the "right" name, like this is correct and this is wrong. The same feature could be called then this, then that. Whichever was the most likely to be understood by the audience. Map makers did not particularly care for being consistent in the use of names. On the 1610 Hondius map in the gallery in the article alone we see three names for the Caspian sea: Mare de Sala, Mare de Bachu, and (olim) Mare Caspium. The same sea that the 1595 Mercator map calls Mare Rubrum is called Mare Arabicum on the Hondius map. The 1580 Ortelius map uses Mar Rosso (Italian for Latin Mare Rubrum), but this time for a different body of water, which we now also call the Red Sea. Most of these maps put olim before Sinus Persicus: they give some name like Sea of Mesendin and then add: formerly Persian Gulf. So they do not call it "Persian Gulf"; they only indicate that it used to be called so. These are the maps from the Hong Kong library uploaded by Zereshk; I hope you're not going to tell me these are also fraudulent forgeries. As to the refs concerning the position of the UN, I've explained on this page before why a working document prepared by an Iranian group for a meeting is not evidence of an official UN standpoint. And a fact sheet prepared by an Iranian engineer for some Iranian group at MIT is not exactly what is meant by "reliable published source", and particularly not for a matter in which there are two camps in a dispute. If there exists an official UN position on this matter, it should not be hard to find an official UN document giving that position. It should not be necessary to refer to a self-published fact sheet compiled by someone who has no authority or standing whatsoever in the matter, and who might easily be thought to be advancing a non-neutral point of view. And please do not remove the [citation needed] tags again, whoever did that. --Lambiam ^Talk 22:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Nope in those days in the maps Arabian Gulf was preserved for the red sea. And per explanations, you need to bring textual evidence that goes with the map like I will bring with Hondius map about Persia. He consistently calls it Persian Bay and thus does not contradict Mercator's Map. (Iran is between Caspian sea and Persian Bay). As per the UN documents, the relavent numbers are listed. They were published in the UN website as well as my second source shows. If you think those UN numbers ar efalse and forgery then bring evidence for it. Just like I am bringing evidence that Hondius writes Persian Bay for Persian Gulf. As per the word Sinus [10] note that sinus means canal and tube. So Sinus Arabicus actually refers to the Shat'al Arab or Arvand River in Persian[11]. So the relavent textual evidence is the most important. Note where the Shatt_al-arab is located [12]. Here ae twords of Hondius: The kingdome of Persia is situtate between the Turkish empite, the Tartarians, the Zaghatheans, the Kingdom of cambala, and the between the Hircarnian or Caspian sea, and the Persian Bay(pg 855). Babylon is situate betweene the Persian bay and Mesopotamia, and on the right and left it is enclosed with the desarts of Susia and Arabia,...(pg 858). (all this in the 1907 edition). --alidoostzadeh 23:04, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Now what is it you are trying to prove? That the Mercator and Hondius maps I gave links to are forgeries? I do not believe they are, and I do not see how what you write would support such a wild accusation. I believe that the UN documents exist, but if you read them you can see that they are not "official UN viewpoints" as advertised in the article. The directives are internal documents, and the other is a technical paper prepared for a meeting of the expert group and submitted by Iran. I've written that before on this talk page, on April 19 2006, and no-one has contradicted that since. If the Iranian delegation for whatever reason had wished to write that the only correct name for the Arabian peninsula is Ayaman they could also have put that in the document. So, in conclusion, the sources cited do not factually support the claims made. Therefore I consider them unsourced, and believe they ought to be removed in order to conform to established Wikipedia policy. --Lambiam ^Talk 23:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

There is no accusation. Meractor's map never uses any sinus arabian. And Hondius's text clearly write what I wrote above with the full article coming soon. As per the UN documens, indeed they are official since they are issued by the UN. The website is UN and the Iranian delegation has brought relavent UN documents where the name Persian Gulf is affirmed. If you think it is wrong then you need to prove it. I can easily prove ayaman is wrong. Can you prove those UN case numbers wrong? --alidoostzadeh 00:12, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

This map by Mercator (although published posthumously by Hondius) does have the legend Sinus Arabicus for the Persian Gulf (and also Ayaman for the Arabian peninsula). You wrote that the maps are either forgeries or mistakes. Are both maps "mistakes"? Somehow you seem to be under the impression that there is such a thing as "the right name", and that all other names are wrong, and that that can be proved, and that it is our task as Wikipedia editors to do so in the article. This is a mistake. If I use the name "Ayaman" for the Arabian peninsula, chances are that no-one will understand me. But at some time in the past this was a common name for this part of the world. So that name is not so much wrong in some objective sense that can be proved, but it is strange and unproductive to use it as a contemporaneous label. In an historic novel, on the other hand, it might be quite appropriate. What we must do as Wikipedia editors is not determine who or what is right and wrong in this dispute, but only make sure that we describe as accurately as we can what the dispute is and what the positions of the relevant parties are. This we should do while providing reliable published sources that can be used to verify what is written. See WP:NPOV and WP:RS. There is no need for us to imply that any of the parties in the dispute is more right or wrong than any of the other parties. I don't know what to say about the idea that documents "issued" by the UN are ipso facto official documents. If the UN editorial control writes a memo to its secretarial employees to always refer to people as Mr. So-and-so or Ms. So-and-so in the documents they produce, and needs to send a few reminders, do you then believe we could write in an article that "the United Nations on many occasions has requested that only Mr. or Ms. be used as the standard honorific designation for people"? What if they ask their employees to wipe their feet before entering the building on rainy days? Would that be another official UN viewpoint? --Lambiam ^Talk 02:09, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Again Meractor did not write Sinus Arabicus in his map. Now you are persuming Hondius did based on a link. Bought I have the text scanner by Hondius from the same alleged source here [13]. Note it is clearly called Persian Bay. Every single atlas that has been published has a relevant text. Note if Hondius calls it Persian Bay in his text then either Sinus Arabic is forgery or a mistake or refers to the Shatt al-Arab, or Arabian Sea or even Red Sea (but misplaced due to printing) or even the name of another river.. What is important is the textual evidence going with the map. Until that is clarified you have no proof. Whereas I just brought textual evidence from Hondius. As per US here is a good evidence As recognized by the United States Board on Geographic names, the name of the body of water that lies between Iran and the Arab states of the Gulf Cooperation Council is the Persian Gulf. For political reasons, Arabs often refer to it as the Arab or Arabian Gulf (The Persian Gulf at the Millennium: Essays in Politics, Economy, Security, and Religion edited by Gary G. Sick, Lawrence G. Potter, pg 8). Note the statement says for political reason not historic reason. As per the UN, the official viewpoint is the name used in their documents and the name has been reaffirmed twice. --alidoostzadeh

How can you say that this map is from the same source as the book? They are quite clearly two different sources. Why do you state that "Every single atlas that has been published has a relevant text". That is simply not true. An atlas is simply a collection of maps. And why do you keep repeating the irrelevant phrase "textual evidence" like a magic incantation? Where is your "graphical evidence"? Evidence of what, anyway? This is not a court case. And what is the basis for your repeated statement that it is either a forgery or a mistake. Is everything that does not conform to how you feel things ought to be a forgery or a mistake? Or is it perhaps possible that what you think is a mistake. I do not need to "have a proof". A proof of what? Did you read what I wrote at all? You handle this as if Wikipedia is a boxing ring, and writing an article is a match with a winner. If you insist that it is a forgery or a mistake, then it is upon you to prove it is a forgery or a mistake. --Lambiam ^Talk 03:27, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course it is from the same book. All the maps are in one book published by Hondius. [14]. I brought the textual evidence from the book. The book by Hondius describes every map and region. From Germany to Persian to Tataristan to Ottoman Empire and etc. It has textual evidence (600 texts and 200 maps). It is a very comprehensive book.Thus you need to find textual evidence for sinus arabicus and so far if you do a google search or any other search it is either the red sea or shatt al-arab. The criterion is proof and any proof is not just a map from random website. Sinus Arabicus could easily refer to Arabian Sea, Shat al-Arab, Red Sea or even some other river or concention in European language. But actual textual evidence from any atlas that describes the Sinus Arabicus as a body of water between Iran and Saudia Arabia. And no it is not upon me to insist it is a forgery or mistake. It is upon you to show the relavent textual evidence with any map. Read the title of the above text. The texts are from Jodcous Hondius publishing Mercator's work. Meractor calls the red sea as Arabian Gulf. Hondius calls the Persian Gulf as Persian Bay. So far there is absolutely no textual evidence from either Hondius calling the body of water as Sinus Arabius. And to add further book, there is not a single book in Arabic even about the Arabian Gulf from any Arab historian. And no the Atlas published by Hondius gives a background of each country. Many Atlase's give a background of the region and then produce a detailed map. As per Graphical evidence as you said we can bring 1001. But so far there has not been any textual evidence whereas all that is being asked is a single text that has called the Persian Gulf by the name Sinus Arabicus. So the burden of evidence is on you not me. Note also [15]. --alidoostzadeh 03:41, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, User:Alnokta is actually dodging the real al-noktah (if you know what I mean). The point is that, contrary to what he says, not all Arabs support his argument. Only nationalists do. Otherwise we wouldnt be seeing Arab publishers printing "Bahr ul-Arab" (Sinus Arabicus) below Oman, and "Khalij al-Farisi" (Persian Gulf) on their maps:

You know what? .. you can have it .. I don't care anymore .. if you want that type of articles; you can have it .. I did my best to explain .. and I won't revert anything, if Wikipedia wants it that way; then it is.. I'm finished here... cheers...

P.S. believe me I know Arabic, it is my native language...may be you meant history.. --Alnokta 21:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Lambiam,

Contrary to you, I think a university is a far more reputable source, as far as reliability is concrned, than a book store or the website of some private Arab sheikh.
The fact, which you havent explained, remains that Mercator/Hondius is using one name for 2 different bodies of water on 2 different maps (and even on one map!). How do you explain that other than one of the maps being a forgery? Especially considering that the ones I showed you all come from academic sources?
You said: "...how do you expect people to believe that the so-called UN directives linked to are true official UN standpoints? Why should they be more gullible than you? Can you explain why they cannot be found on a UN website?"

I implore you to refer to the following documents:

14 notes and correspondences can be mentioned by the UN containing the note of Secretariat of United Nations, containing the amendment of Deed IPPD14/UNIDB to use the term "Persian Gulf".

From among the other instructions of United Nations, the following samples can also 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.--Zereshk 22:12, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I notice that some people find it easy to believe that web-hosted maps are solid evidence when they contain the magic words Sinus Persicus, but when other examples are produced they must surely be forgery or are otherwise a regrettable lapsus of the somewhat inept map makers. Could it be that this asymmetry is the result of prejudice? Which web site is more reliable should be considered on a case-by-case basis. I have administrator permissions for web servers on several reputable academic institutions and can in principle put anything up there until someone notices I'm being a bad girl or something. But as long as I do it discreetly, I have free play. For me it is just too much of a conspiracy theorist syndrome to believe that a reputable antiquariat with no likely connection whatsoever to Arab nationalists would be willing to risk its reputation by offering forgeries for sale to help some rabid nationalists make a point in an issue that almost nobody cares about to start with. But I'm not proposing to link to these commercial stores. I just think they show rather conclusively that some of the absolute formulations in the article are wrong and caused by some editors being not as neutral in this matter as is desirable, and should be toned down. I hope you realize I was not entirely serious when I wrote "the so-called UN directives". But I do believe that some editors, who coincidentally happen to be of Iranian ethnicity, are overstating the case in order to "prove" something, rather than just describe the situation. Do you always ascribe such authority to the UN, or only when it suits you? These directives are internal and editorial guidelines written for the staff of the Secretariat of the UN; they are not external policy documents. Therefore it is misleading to describe this as "The United Nations on many occasions has requested that ..." and "affirming the position of that organization". As I have explained elsewhere on this page, the references for the following claims do not pass muster. I consider the re-instatement of the dubious unreferenced and challenged claims I removed, and the repeated removal of the tags "citation needed", POV pushing and vandalism. I believe that whoever does that is actually hurting the case they wish to support. Let us try to resolve this by discussion and not by revert warring. --Lambiam ^Talk 23:25, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually these are official UN documents with official names as posed in the UN website. If you think it is forgeries, then bring your evidence. As per the maps, what is important is textual evidence that goes with the map. Examples which I brought and you failed to bring any. As per conspiracy theory, the names Sinus Arabicus could refer to Shatt al-Arab, Arabian Sea, and Red Sea. Do a good search for it. What is important is that Hondius map have textual explanations. Here ae two quotes of Hondius from his 1647 version: The kingdome of Persia is situtate between the Turkish empite, the Tartarians, the Zaghatheans, the Kingdom of cambala, and the between the Hircarnian or Caspian sea, and the Persian Bay(pg 855). Babylon is situate betweene the Persian bay and Mesopotamia, and on the right and left it is enclosed with the desarts of Susia and Arabia,...(pg 858). (all this in the 1907 reprint based on 1647 version). Do you have any textual evidence that the Arabian Gulf is the name of the body water that is called Persian gulf? Do you have any proof that the listed UN documents are not from te UN? As per US here is a good evidence As recognized by the United States Board on Geographic names, the name of the body of water that lies between Iran and the Arab states of the Gulf Cooperation Council is the Persian Gulf. For political reasons, Arabs often refer to it as the Arab or Arabian Gulf (The Persian Gulf at the Millennium: Essays in Politics, Economy, Security, and Religion edited by Gary G. Sick, Lawrence G. Potter, pg 8). And this is a government organization [16]. So the US government officially recognizes it as Persian Gulf. So does the UN which uses it in all of its documents and the relavent documents numbers have been given. Now it is up to you guys to bring textual evidence that sinus arabicus is related to Persian Gulf from any of the relavents texts published with any map. Do a google search and all that comes up is either red sea or Shatt-al-Arab .. --alidoostzadeh 00:33, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I can't believe this is a reaction to what I wrote. Proof, proof, proof, do you have proof, textual evidence, ... Of what? Of what? Of what? It is meaningless and therefore impossible to "prove" that one name is the "true" name and all others are "false". Meaningless. MEANINGLESS. MEANINGLESS. Devoid of meaning. From now on I will not react to postings containing the words "proof", "prove", or "textual". --Lambiam ^Talk 03:39, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Fine. Well then please stop trying to prove your case as well. Because the "Arabian Gulf" is meaningless. It does not exist. Period. And btw, it wasnt Arab nationalist leaders that first started this fictitious "Arabian Gulf" revision. FYI, it was in 1952, after the confiscation of British Petroleum properties by the Iranian government that the false and politically motivated title of "Arabian Gulf" was suggested by BP. In fact, the credit goes to Roderic Owen (a British representative in the then colonialized Emirates) that for the first time put this suggestion in his book The Golden Bubble of the Arabian Gulf (LOC call# DS207 .O86 1957). His suggestion was only then imitated by some Arab extremists and fanatic leaders, and the BBC was first to support this dirty conspiracy.--Zereshk 08:57, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

The title of the article is dispute. In any dispute you bring evidence. The Arabs decide to call the Gulf 'Arab' or 'Arabian' during the height of Arab nationalism in 1950 and 1960(Iran's Persian Gulf Policy: From Khomeini to Khatami By Christin Marschall, Christin Marschall-Jones, pg 4). Fine if tommorow Iran decides to call Saudia Arabia as Israel, I hope these countries do not have a fit and some users do not bring up a dispute and just say who cares and it is meaningless and devoid of meaning... --alidoostzadeh 04:09, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Sinus

Latin sinus in a geographical sense means "bay, bight, gulf"; it can mean a small bay or harbor. It does not mean "canal", which is canalis. See Lewis and Short. (In general, it means "intendation, loose fold", like Ar. jaib; hence, sine.) To apply it to the Shatt-al-Arab is strikingly original research. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I will add here, in addition to the conversation at WP:OR, that the map in contention is clearly presented at image 12 (of 21) of this reference, cited above. Removing it, and denying that there is evidence on both sides of the case, constitutes the introduction of bias; and renders this page unsuitable for Wikipedia. In an article on a dispute, we present the arguments and evidence on both sides of the dispute; we do not declare one right (even if it is; I use "Persian Gulf" myself). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Not just a naming dispute

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

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

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

Why can't we be direct and clear about this and just admit its not just a naming dispute. The Iranians want to show to the world that this gulf is under their control; one way of doing that is calling it Persian Gulf. I just hope non-Iranians editors will join in this discussion, since they are the ONLY key to a NPOV article regarding this dispute. CheersJidan 02:31, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Correction: "Arabian Gulf" (Sinus Arabicus) has also been used on early European maps as a label for what we now call the Red Sea. Just follow the links in the previous section and look at the 1595 Mercator map in the article. Unless you too think these maps are forgeries or mistakes. --Lambiam ^Talk 03:46, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Where is the relavent text with the map. Note I already brought one form of deceit from the arabian Gulf website. Again Meractor did not write Sinus Arabicus in his map. Now you are persuming Hondius did based on a link. But I have the text scanner by Hondius from the same alleged source here [17]. Note it is clearly called Persian Bay. Every single atlas that has been published has a relevant text. Can you guys show any text whatsoever that has mentioned Arabian Gulf. Note if Hondius calls it Persian Bay in his text then either Sinus Arabic is forgery or a mistake or refers to the Shatt al-Arab, or Arabian Sea or even Red Sea (but misplaced due to printing) or even the name of another river. As per the name, once you guys calling Plaestine by Israel then we can settle this issue as well. Do a google search for sinus Arabicus and you will not see one textual evidence referring to Persian Gulf. Also the UN has officially recognized it as Persian Gulf as that is what it uses in all of its documents. And relavent reliables books have said the Arabs have adopted the name Arabian Gulf as political stance, not historic stance as there is no support historically in any Arabic text for such a name. And so far there has not been brought one textual evidence with any of these so called maps whose authenticity is disputed. I am waiting for actual textual evidence that goes along with any of these maps. --alidoostzadeh 02:34, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

The textual evidence presented by Ali makes it very clear. either this map, allegedy drawn by Jodocus Hondius, is a fraudulent map, or the name Sinus Arabicus is actually refering to the Shatt-Al-Arab river, which is a river that discharges into the Persian Gulf, or it is an error by the creator of the map, Hondius (The last scenario seems unlikely). The fraudulent map scenario isn't unlikely at all, after all Pan-Arab sheiks were able to bribe a reputable journal such as National Geographic into including a false name for a body of water in the journal, they might as well make fraudulent maps and put them anywhere on the internet.- Marmoulak 06:43, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh pleeease, when will this anti-Iranian drivel end? It was for this exact reason (control over this body of water and its oil fields) that Iran was brutally invaded in 1980 by Saddam's army, resulting in over 1 million deaths. The bastard even taught school children how to hate Iranians.--Zereshk 08:42, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Politcs should never mix with Science. Arabs are living on both side of this gulf, and they call it Arabian Gulf. Its that simple...Jidan 13:25, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

So are Iranians. Iranians are living in Bahrain (10-20%), UAE, Saudia Arabia and etc. Also many shi'i arab muslims who are not effected by pan-arabistic nationalism (and of course they are being butchered in Yemen, Saudia Arabia, Bahrain and other places). As per politics not being mixed with science, there is no science here but there is a lot of politics from the era of arab nationalism when they started to distort the name of Persian Gulf (Bahr-e-Fars according to the Hadeeth of Prophet Muhammad). And it seems it is not enough that there is a body of water called Arabian Sea. --alidoostzadeh 16:49, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the genuinty of the map. The owner says [18]:

"GUARANTEE We do not sell reproductions. We guarantee that this is a genuine and original antique map that was published on or near the given date. A certificate of authentication is provided on request. "

I am really interested what Ali's new "objection" will be. Jidan 19:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

As I said where is the textual evidence. It could easily refer to Arabian Sea, Shatt-ol Arab, another river or be an arrow pointed to red sea. The fact is no Arab sources has referred to as Arabian Gulf and there is not a single european text that refers to the body of the water as Arabian Gulf. Until there is at least one textual evidence, there is nothing to change the facts. And the facts are from the two books I brought that says the name change by Arabic countries are political. Yesterday another user was claiming something which was refuted. Meractor did not write Sinus Arabicus in his map. He persumed Hondius did based on a link. Bought I have the text scanner by Hondius from the same alleged source here [19]. Note it is clearly called Persian Bay. And any search on Sinus Arabicus will give red sea , Arabian sea and Shatt-ol-Arab. --alidoostzadeh 22:18, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't you see that Arab sheiks have bought up the European antique shops specialized in old maps and are using them as a front to peddle high-quality forgeries to unsuspecting buyers? It is good our Iranian friends are so vigilant; if we let them sheiks get away with this, soon we will see "guaranteed genuine and original maps antique maps" by Mercator and others on which America is called Nova Arabia. --Lambiam ^Talk 21:57, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I think what is actually more humarous is that when I brought sources that the US government officially recognizes it as Persian Gulf, you did not say anything. Shows your neutrality. And interestingly enough you can not find any textual evidence. --alidoostzadeh 22:27, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I am inclined to believe that a number of antiqued maps might have mislabeled the Persian Gulf. But to claim that this was the predominant and generally accepted view and insert this opinion into the article, you need to show a recurring trend. I've seen many maps from the 1500s to the mid 1960s, and almost all use a variation of "Persian Gulf". In fact, even the British protectorate of Kuwait used Persian Gulf in its agreements and declarations. Also, unlike Arvandrud, the Gulf is an international body of water and not a shared "geographical feature". Kaveh 23:30, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

The current article states this:

"In possibly every map printed before 1960 [...] this body of water is known by the name "Persian Gulf".

Is that so? There exist several maps from the 16th and 17th century, from major well-known mapmakers, that label this body of water as "Arabian Gulf". However, attempts to incorporate this information are immediately reverted by some editors, who claim that these maps are forgeries, or the result of mistakes in which the inept mapmakers misplaced the label. One editor keeps chanting the mantra "textual evidence". My main concern here is that we do not present facts in an incorrect or misleading way ("possibly every map"), and do not systematically suppress unwelcome information that does not support one partisan point of view. But as far as I am aware no editor has attempted to incorporate a suggestion in the article that any other name than "Persian Gulf" was "the predominant and generally accepted view". That is a strawman. What makes the debate here rather impossible is that several editors have the mistaken belief that the issue to be reported on in the article is which is the "correct" name, and that Wikipedia should present the "evidence" for the "correct" name − rather than that we should simply report on the existing dispute. Whether we personally believe that the antique maps "mislabeled" the Persian Gulf is not particularly relevant. --Lambiam ^Talk 07:40, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

This is not a normative take on the issue. It is an observation that the samples provided are not noteworthy and of dubious origin. To claim that there was a "Recognization [sic] of the europeans [sic] of the name Arabian Gulf" you need to provide solid evidence. Wikipedia simply cannot afford to lose the marginal respect it commands from the general public. Kaveh 08:01, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

As you can see I posted a "correction" to Jidan's statement. But I do not at all agree with you that these maps are not noteworthy and of dubious origin. The Mercator-Hondius maps are listed in Van der Krogt, Koeman's Atlantes Neerlandici (New Edition) Vol. 1. HES Publishers, 1997. Dr. Van der Krogt is a researcher of historical cartography at the University of Utrecht.[20] This is an updated edition of Prof. Koeman's bibliography from the late 1960s.[21] --Lambiam ^Talk 10:12, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

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

Can please sombody put these two maps back in the article! It continuesly being removed by ultra-nationlist. Jidan 01:17, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Again you are quoting Hondius. But we have already shown that Hondius calls the Persian Gulf as Persian Bay. Unless you bring textual evidence your map is misleading and the name could simply refer to the Shatt-ol-Arab or Arabian sea. --alidoostzadeh 03:42, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

No need, the map in fact refers to the Gulf as "Mare Basora". There must have been an engraving mix-up while working with Ottoman sources. I am yet to see a report that indicates Gulf of Oman was in any way associated with Basra. Coupled with other maps by Hondius that rightly use Persian Gulf and the immense body of work from the era that follows the same practice, one should simply dismiss this example. I'd like to see a clear trend before compromising the article. We are talking about thousands of maps from hundreds of years that use Persian Gulf, one or two ambiguous samples just won't do. Kaveh 07:08, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

If you search this website http://www.arabiangulfmaps.com/, you will find those maps (there are 29 maps listed there). Among the famous european cartographers who call this waterbody the arabian gulf are Gerardus Mercator, Jodocus Hondius, John Speed, Petrus Bertius, Claude Jollian, Peter van Den keere, and Johannes Janssonius. This is all verfiable[22]. You can go to any library or ask any profeessor if you think they are fake. Infact, if you still insist that they are forgery, as a comprimise we can email more than one neutral professor in universtiy and ask them if they are forgery. Salam...Jidan 21:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Another View

I think a neutral point of view is needed for this entry as well. However, I have one question: Why do the Arabic people around the Gulf insist on using the English term Arabian Gulf? And why do Persians get so offended in this name in all its uses? I mean, the French are perfectly fine with the "English Channel" when used in English maps but continue to use La Manche in French. The same goes for Lake Geneva (in English) and Lac Léman (in French). From my point of view the Arabs have the right to use Arabian Gulf in Arabic - Persians shouldn't force them to change it. At the same time, Arabs should use the term Persian Gulf in English/French/German/Spanish as that's the accepted name internationally. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.2.198.2 (talk) 23:30, 23 December 2006 (UTC).

Indeed. Nobody is trying to change what some Arabs call that body of water in Arabic. Some Arabs are however trying to change what it is called in English. And that is a bit problematic.--Zereshk 16:34, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Simple, the name was changed by Arabs due to their anti-Iranian racism during the Nasser era. You will not find Arabic sources whatsoever that has referred to it as Arabian Gulf before the anti-Iranian racism of the last 50-60 years. The name has been supported by such racists as Saddam, and other Arabi leaders who have commited genocides in Iraq and Sudan. The name thus is manifestation of anti-Iranian racism by Arabs. --alidoostzadeh 03:42, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

To 210.2.198.2: You cannot say "the Arabic people" insist on this. Some insist that "Arabic Gulf" is the only correct term to be used; others do not (from Saudi-Arabia: [23]; Bahrain: [24]; Oman: [25]; Qatar: [26]; Emirates: [27]). The most common is that they try to evade the controversy by using only "the Gulf". --Lambiam ^Talk 08:48, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

No, actually I meant the majority of Arabic People. The governments of these nations push this term, and the people learn only the term Arabian Gulf. This is obvious from the official websites of the governments (not private organizations as in your links) of Bahrain [28], Oman [29], Qatar [30], Saudi Arabia [31], and the UAE [32]. T he Sheik of Dubai even goes so far as to avoid the term "Persian" in his personal website [33] - There is mention of Herodotus in Achaeminid lands, but he fails to mention that Herodotus was visiting the "Persian" [Achaemenid Empire] and first called the Gulf "the Persian Gulf". I don't question what these rulers teach their people - That's fine! But to push the name "Arabian Gulf" in other languages when there's already an internationally recognised name is another matter. And it really is a push - Why else haven't these Arab rulers invited the Persians around a table and discussed the name in a diplomatic manner? Instead, they've stealthly pushed this term through influence and their petro-dollars [34].—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.2.198.2 (talk) 23:30, 23 December 2006 (UTC).

The links I gave for Saudi-Arabia and the Emirates were from government websites, and I think I could also have found examples for some of the other countries. In any case, how do you know it is a majority of the Arab people who insist on using the English term "Arabian Gulf"? Do you know of anyone who has conducted a poll among the Arab people? You may be right, but I think that actually a majority of them does not even know there is any form of dispute, and would perhaps not even know this English term. As I wrote, some insist that "Arabic Gulf" is the only correct term, but the fact that someone uses the term does not necessarily mean he or she is one of them. --Lambiam ^Talk 16:39, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Concerning the allegation directed at the Louvre on the Payvand website you linked to, here are some links to pages at the Louvre website that contain the name "Persian Gulf":

Can you find any page on the Louvre website that contains the name "Arabian Gulf" – not counting, of course, cases where it is listed as part of the title of an existing publication? --Lambiam ^Talk 21:50, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I realize that Payvand being an Iranian news source may seem biased, but here are some non-Iranian sources regarding the same issue, one of them being an Arabic source. [35][36][37] I believe that the Louvre has renamed the Gulf as the Arabian Gulf in their upcoming Islamic Art section so the changes are not online yet. Personally, I think this is kind of getting ridiculous: It's become a tit-for-tat kind of thing. And I agree with you that most Arabs don't know that the Gulf has another name because they are taught only one name.

Now please note that these articles all report in a neutral way on the fact that Iran has protested against the Louvre's alleged plan to delete the word "Persian" from descriptions of the Gulf. They do not actually claim that such a plan exists, and they contain no hint of the decision being influenced by Arab money. For the first accusation, we can only wait and see. The second accusation is only present in the Payvand article, which offers no evidence of any kind for it: it is an unsupported accusation. Maybe it is true, and maybe it is not true; we have no way of telling. I think we should avoid helping spread such hateful accusations as if they are facts if we have no basis for them but suspicion. --Lambiam ^Talk 00:37, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, but you'd have to kind of wonder why the Louvre would use the name Arabian Gulf when the French Governments acknowledges the terms "the Gulf" and or "Persian Gulf"? A museum as old as the Louvre just doesn't come up with other geographical names unless influenced in some manner. In anycase, the issue was big enough for the French Foreign Ministry to ask the Louvre to change the name back to the Persian Gulf. Sources for both claims from this Arabic website: [38]

I just added 10 maps from academic sources at my disposal to the article. I will resume adding more maps should I see further encouragement from the skeptics. And these arent from map shops or some Arab sheikh personal website. And you can bet there is no shortage supply of maps from the last 500 years that overwhelmingly use the term Persian Gulf. An "Arabian Sea" already exists in case you didnt know. It is located under Oman. Therefore Sinus Arabicus refers to another body of water. I advise referring to this book for more info.--Zereshk 16:45, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

There are thousands of maps that state "Persian Gulf". What is the point of putting so many maps in the article? This is getting out of hand. --Lambiam ^Talk 21:00, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Jidan 22:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

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

Dear Ali, do you know the meaning of the word "prejudiced"? Anything that does not fit perfectly with how you believe things should be, you immediately assume is false, a mistake, does not exist. We give textual evidence, you say that a later translation into another language takes precedence. We say look at map A for an example, you say: but map B says something else. Yes it does, but that does not mean map A does not exist, or that it makes map A disappear; it is still there. If someone says "mammals cannot fly" and someone else says: "but what about bats?", is it reasonable than for the first person to respond by: "you are wrong: look at a cow, it cannot fly"? --Lambiam ^Talk 06:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Again I have brought western sources that says the name change was from the last century. And do not mis-represent what I said. As per translation, the translation is exact and Jidan has no textual evidence from the Latin and he is making a complete invalid assumption. The 1642 Old English is clear. If indeed such a latin text did exist, then western neutral sources would not say the name change is from the last century and some of the arabian gulf peddlers would have mentioned it long time ago. I have brought enough evidence that sinus arabicus is also used for Arabian Sea. --alidoostzadeh 09:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Persian_Gulf_naming_dispute&action=edit&section=13

Editing Talk:Persian Gulf naming dispute (section) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What you are saying is original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. More specifically, it is synthesis of published material serving to advance a position. --Lambiam ^Talk 09:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you got it all wrong. If anything, User:Jidan's captions for the unverifiable maps in question, is original research, since there is no textual evidence that goes with his maps to support the conclusion that Jidan is trying to derive from these maps, that's interpreting selective questionable material serving to advance a position. On the other hand, Ali is citing published reliable sources, with textual evidence in English language to support his position. Speaking of original research, I've partially reverted your last edit, please explain where and how you got the translation "formerly Persian Gulf"? Do you have a reliable source to support this? Please don't tell me that you translated it yourself, because that would be unverifiable and original research. --Mardavich 13:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

This is a rather extreme position. If taken seriously, then all suggestions that Sinus Persicus means "Persian Gulf" should also be eliminated as original research. Maybe it means "Bay of Peaches". And how can I verify that the wiggles on the Istakhri map do not spell "Sea without Name" in Arabic? It is completely customary on Wikipedia to supply translations of foreign words and phrases, and this is the first time I've seen a suggestion that this would be "original research". It is not as if Latin is a secret language or something. If you don't trust the translation, ask on the Language Reference desk, or ask any editor who knows Latin. --Lambiam ^Talk 21:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Lambiam, I find it amazing that you accuse Ali of inserting original research in the article while you and Jidan have not presented ONE reliable source to refute the textual evidence presented by Ali. All I see is, you and Jidan rambling and accusing whoever is againts your POV without presenting a single reliable source to back your claims up. - Marmoulak 18:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

You say: "your POV". What do you think my POV is? Apparently you have no idea. I have an issue with all POV pushing going on at this page, whether from the "Arabic" or the "Persian" side. It just so happens that the editors advocating the "Persian" POV outnumber the supporters of the "Arabic" POV and handle this page as if they own it. Wikipedia articles must not attempt to prove anything. It is wrong to systematically suppress and eliminate all evidence that the Persian Gulf is called "Arabic Gulf" on some historical maps. It is silly to think that people reading the page will not notice it being abused to push one POV in a totally one-sided way. --Lambiam ^Talk 21:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is exactly YOUR biased point of view, since I haven't seen a single reliable source to support what you are trying to insert in the article. Once again you are rambling, insulting and accusing others without presenting a SINGLE reliable source to back up your claims. You have apparently mistaken Wikipedia for some kind of discussion forum, let me remind you that wikipedia is not a discussion forum but an encyclopedia , here we need reliable sources and nothing less. I dont know what "evidence" you are talking about, the only evidences on this page are posted by Ali and Zereshk. The reason you feel alone and outnumbered is not because of higher number of Iranian editors but is because of the solid ground we are standing on versus the soft sand you are sinking in. I assure you if your arguments were logical and just, you would have gotten much support here. Apparently nobody would step in to support this racism against Iranians, coining a fictionous name for Persian Gulf by the same movement that advocated genocide against us, "Persian Dogs". - Marmoulak 23:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Marmoulak, you did not answer my question: "What do you think my POV is?" Instead you now talk about "what you are trying to insert in the article". What I am trying to "insert" in the article is a neutral point of view. Is that wrong?

There exists one point of view that says: The name of this body of water is "Arabian Gulf". The name "Persian Gulf" is wrong.
There exists another point of view that says: The name of this body of water is "Persian Gulf". The name "Arabian Gulf" is wrong.
Both 1 and 2 are non-neutral points of view.
Attempts to insert a "proof" of either POV 1 or POV 2 into the article are POV pushing.
Suppressing material only because it does not support POV 1, or only because it does not support POV 2, is also POV pushing.
A presentation conveying that one name is the "correct name", and the other an "incorrect name" or "illicit name", is POV pushing.

Examples of this on this talk page and in the edit history of the article abound. These are not vague and unfounded accusations; it is there to see for everyone who does not keep eye blinds on. Claims are presented all the time more strongly than is justified by the material. For example, an internal editorial directive for the UN secretarial staff is presented as "the position of that organization". The statement "The group of experts on Geographical Names ... has endorsed 'Persian Gulf' as the official name for this body of water" is plainly false. The Group has made no such endorsement. My attempts to present some things less tendentiously, or even to insert a tag "citation needed", are most of the time quickly reverted with specious arguments, if any. If I feel alone, it is because I am the only editor working on the article who is trying to maintain the Wikipedia policies. --Lambiam ^Talk 09:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, In your opinion the term sinus arabicus on the map supposedly made by hondius is refering to the Persian gulf whereas there is no evidence of that it might very well be refering to the shat-al-arab river or the Oman sea, it could also be an error by the maker of the map, nevertheless from the first time you got involved in this discussion you have been trying to assert that the the false term "Arabian Gulf" for the disputed body of water has been used before 1960, that is your POV because there is no evidence to back it up, unless you could present a textual evidence to support it. You have decided to ignore the evidence presented by Zereshk and deny the fact that "UN in two resolutions has officially recognized that the body of water in the south of Iran is " Persian Gulf" (UNAD 311/Qen dated March 5, 1971, and UNLA 45.8.2 (C) dated August 10, 1984,)". There does exist a racist point of view saying that The name of this body of water is "arabian gulf" and that the name Persian Gulf is wrong, and the attention given to it is more than enough. This point of view is already mentioned in the article. - Marmoulak 07:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Lambiam is correct with his statemeant about authors writing the phrase the "correct name" - this is biased. The name Persian Gulf might be the "correct name" for Persian people, but for Arabs it is "incorrect". The same can be said for the term Arabian Gulf. I have to side with Lambian regarding the United Nations issue until I see UN documents stating otherwise - The document that is mentioned is a UN memo written by an Iranian author and does not dictate policy of the United Nations. Having said all of that, I also think that one person's "correct" geographic name is another person's "incorrect" geographic name. From what I gather, most of the world knows the name "Persian Gulf", vs the 300 million Arabs worldwide who use the term "Arabian Gulf" - so the "correct" name is the Persian Gulf. This argument, I must admit is a weak one but it does warrant some thought: It makes one wonder why there has been an attempt by certain groups to have the term "Arabian Gulf" more dominant - If the world begins to use the name "Arabian Gulf", then that's the name that will be the "correct" one. Is there a conspiracy? I don't know! Is this change political? Yes! The name change started in the 1960s for political purpuses. If there are groups/people/nations think that the term Arabian Gulf is "correct", then there should be some sort of discussion/negotion with all the parties involved and not stealth attempts by certain groups/people/nations to change to a new term "Arabian Gulf" without diplomacy/discussion. I think it's safe to say that currently, the name "Persian Gulf" is the "offical" name of the Gulf for a majority of languages/countries with the exception of the Arab World. Yet there is obvioulsy a push for change since the term "Arabian Gulf" is beginning to be used in English/French/German/etc Why is this happening if there is no push (stealth or unstealth) for change? People just don't change from one geographic name to another for no apparent reason. There are numerous geographical areas with different names in different languages (the English Channel, the Shat-Al-Arab etc...) but no one is pushing to have the name changed in all other languages. Why is there a push to change the name "Persian Gulf" to the "Arabian Gulf" in English? French? Etc? I think that this is the argument that should be debated, not whether the names "Persian Gulf" or "Arabian Gulf" are correct. They are both "correct" in the eyes of those debating the issue. We need to ask ourselves that if there is already an "official" (Persian Gulf) name for the Gulf, why is there a drive to change it? And is this change necessary? Why? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 219.3.72.32 (talk • contribs) 14:46, 4 January 2007.

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

Without analyzing the source of the map, you can not just come up with theories. And what is funny is that when we quoted Iranian sites about the US viewpoint, you did not like it. And no we do not quote sites by an Arab Guy unless it is backed up by neutral sources. And below I shall show how the Arab Guy on that site is deliberately deceiving people by not showing all the maps and the texts. --alidoostzadeh 01:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

New Data

I obtained through a friend: Author: Mercator, Gerhard, 1512-1594. Title: Atlas or a geographicke description, of the regions, countries and kingdomes of the world, through Europe, Asia, Africa, & America, represented by new and exact maps. The second volume. Translated by Henry Hexham, quarter-maister to the regiment of Colonell Goring Date: 1641 Reel position: Wing / 2503:01. Unlike what the Arabian Gulf site claims, the Sinus Arabicus is clearly used for Arabian Sea. He puts it in both the Red sea and Persian Gulf. And the textual evidence refers to the Persian Gulf as Persian Sea consistently with no doubt. So there goes another source of that site and I think three is sufficient to discredit this made up claim. And as I said we have enough Western references that the name change was from 1960's. I will hopefully obtain couple of more resources soon as well. --alidoostzadeh 00:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

This map is highly suspicious to me: [39] Why would two different bodies of water be labeled by the same name? This map has obviously been altered. Never have I heard of the Red Sea and the Persian Gulf both being called the Arabian Gulf at the same time! I havent even heard of any such thing for any other bodies of water.Azerbaijani 17:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The map does not imply they were being called the Arabian Gulf at the same time. The Latin word olim means "formerly".[40][41][42] So all this implies is that – at least according to the mapmaker – for both bodies of water the label "Arabian Gulf" has formerly been used, but not necessarily at the same time. Both Clinton and Reagan were formerly the President of the United States. That is possible: they just were not presidents at the same time. --Lambiam ^Talk 10:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, olim also means: "at that time", "for a long time now" [43] and also "in the future" [44] Could it mean that Mare di Mesendin olim Persicus sinus means: Mesdin Sea also known as Persian Sea?

Or Sea of Mesendin, to be known in the future as Persian Gulf? :) "Also" is not one of the meanings of olim. Literally it means: "at that time". In this context there is no doubt it means "whilom", "formerly", "in the days of old", which is the primary meaning in late Latin. The standard way to say "also known as" is sive, or less commonly seu. --Lambiam ^Talk 16:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I must concur, as a Latinist. The Perseus Project has an online copy of the standard Latin dictionary; I've linked to it below. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

The description in the book says Persian Sea. I have the book and I have sent it a friend. The relavent parts should be online tonight and should end the useless discussion. Note neither the red sea or the Persian Gulf in that map is Sinus Arabicus. It is just that Mercator is indicating the water flows into the Arabian Sea. If the person who tried to deceive with some maps actually read Mercator's book (or he did but wanted to deceive anyways) he would not have made such a mistake. --alidoostzadeh 01:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Nasreddin tells his friend: —There are no horses in Persia. —How so? asks his friend. —Well, I was travelling to Isfahan, and I encountered a donkey, and then another donkey, and another one. This proves that all are donkeys. —That is amazing, says his friend, did you not see a single horse? —Well, yes, says Nasreddin, then I saw a horse, but since all are donkeys, that must have been a forgery. --Lambiam ^Talk 10:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't mock other editors. It's rude, and it's against WP:CIVIL. --Mardavich 12:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh my! I just hoped that this little Nasreddin anecdote would be helpful to Ali in understanding my point; based on his responses to me it would seem that direct argumentation is lost on him. If he has read the article Jodocus Hondius he should know that over a long period about 50 editions of the Atlas were released in the main European languages. These were of course not all the same; not only does this include both the large Atlas and the Atlas Minor, they were updated all the time. But he just keeps repeating the same uninformed argument. I thought this story was a friendly way of showing him were he goes wrong, although I indeed doubt it will have much effect. Anyway, if Ali has no qualms in making the baseless accusation that some further unspecified person "tried to deceive with some maps", he should not be too sensitive himself. --Lambiam ^Talk 19:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

You haven't looked at a single text. Not gone to single library. And as per the maps, all the maps discussed are in mercator's book. Both the map Zereshk brought, the map in the Arabian Gulf site and the map that was just mentioned. They are all in the same book with the relavent text. IN the text he consistently refers to is as persian Sea and in the same book that the deceived map was taken from, it is called Persian Sea in two other maps. Same with John Speed who has called it Persian Gulf. And by the way we have sufficent evidence from western sources that the name change was recent. Until there is a single textual evidence, there is absolutely no compromise on the issue. And keep your jokes to yourself. thanks --alidoostzadeh 19:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Saying that all these maps are forgeries by multiple cartographers, is nothing but an act of desperation and very childish. Jidan 22:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The same books have maps that say Persian Gulf. Furthermore it is the text that is important and so far you have failed to provide a single textual source. Until you do, these maps can be interpreted in many different ways. And at most it be a cartographer error since in their same book, they refer to it as Persian Sea. --alidoostzadeh 02:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't make personal attacks. --Mardavich 22:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Forgery?

My recent addition of some maps was reverted with edit summary "the site does not have credibility, one of the maps was proven to be a forgery, what does that say about the other ones? puts them into doubt." When and where was which of the maps proven to be a forgery? What is the proof? What is the site referred to that "does not have credibility"? Can someone explain why the map shown here as a thumbnail is any less credible than the many images uploaded by Zereshk that are left alone? --Lambiam ^Talk 10:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I think they were talking about the Arabian Gulf Map website! Let's see what Alidoostzadeh "proves" tonight.

In the same book where that map is published, there are two maps that calls it Persian Sea. So then one has to look at the textual evidence and it is called Persian Sea. Relevant evidence should be brought very soon. Without brining the other maps from the same text and the relavent text that goes with it, there is complete attempt at deceiving the audience. The author takes a map from a book, ignores two other maps and the text completely. All from the same book, just to make a false claim. Furtheremore the map of Bellin from the same site clearly states Persian Gulf. And also can you tell us what is your problem with this sentence: In the United States, Persian Gulf has been the label sanctioned for U.S. government use. Until you guys bring a single textual evidence, just putting conflicting maps from the same text and claiming it is Arabian Gulf will not work. And to go further, we have evidence from Western sources that the name change was recent in Arab countries. That evidence has been brought. And that is why there is not a single Arabic source neither that calls it Arabian Gulf. --alidoostzadeh 19:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

If I understand this, Ali is saying: The map is not acceptable because it does not show the name "Persian Gulf". --Lambiam ^Talk 20:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I went through two books (4 versions) of the maps from the Arabian Gulf site. It has mis-placed lots of different names (Assyria, Red Sea..etc.) In the same books where the Arabian Gulf is citing from, there was clear maps from the same exact book with Maps that refer to the body as Persian Gulf. Thus one is forced to look at the textual evidence. Fortunaly I was able to get the text of both book. In the text the body of water is consistenly referred to as Persian Gulf and nothing else. Also funny some maps had the Gulf of Oman as Persian Sea and others as Gulf of Basra. Thus without textual evidence, a 400 year old map with that age of printing press might lack clarity. --alidoostzadeh 01:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Tinkering with quotations

If you want to have a quotation in the text, you must literally use the words of the source. It is not allowed to change the words. For example, if Mr. Bush said, This notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Iran is simply ridiculous, and you quote this, it must not be changed into An attack by the United States on Iran is an option that is on the table, even if you sincerely believe that that is what he meant. The Jerusalem Post writes, literally: Tehran believes in aggressively defending the historical term "Persian Gulf" against "Arabian Gulf," which it regards as a name dreamed up by Arab nationalists.[45] If you don't like this text, then don't quote it. But if it is quoted, it must be quoted as is. Changing it into something more agreeable is falsification. Many times now I have restored the quotation to the text of the source, and as many times it has been reverted without any attempt at justification. Please defend this behaviour, by explaining why you believe this article does not need to follow the principle that you do not alter someone else's words when quoting them, or stop it. --Lambiam ^Talk 22:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

You still didn't get it? As long as your edits are not in favour of the Iranian interests, it will BE reverted. Jidan 23:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

You need to watch you tone, see WP:Civil. User:Kaveh had already put back "aggressively", which is not NPOV either, but part of the quotation nonetheless. --Mardavich 23:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Supplying false citations

Wikipedia policy requires that all claims and statements in articles be verifiable, which means that it must be possible to back them up with citations of reliable sources that support these claims and statements. This policy is non-negotiable. It implies that if a citation is provided, it must support the statement for which it is a citation. Suppose that some editor writes in an article: "Some scientists believe the Moon was formed when it broke off from the Earth because of centrifugal forces." Hmm, you think, an interesting theory, but who says so? So you add a tag "^{[citation needed]}". Next an editor comes and replaces the tag with a citation: "Moon. World Book Online Reference Center, NASA". So you visit the link to find out more about this, and to your surprise you discover that the cited source does not mention "scientists", or what they "believe", or "centrifugal forces". The citation does not at all support the statement for which you requested a citation. It is a false citation, aiming to dupe you into believing that the statement is properly verified in accordance with Wikipedia policy, when in fact it is not.

The same is happening to this article, not for just one statement, but for several statements, and not once, but over and over again, over many months. If it was once, I might think it was a mistake. But I have pointed out both in the edit summaries and elsewhere on this page that the citations do not back up the claims made. No-one has even attempted to refute this; the "citation needed" tags are just taken down and the false citations keep reappearing. When instead the challenged content is removed, it also is quickly reinserted.

I have no choice but to conclude that this is a deliberate attempt by several editors working in concert to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. --Lambiam ^Talk 23:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that the Iranian editors intentions has been deliberate, Lambian. But, I think that the Iranian editors on this website really need to do as per Lambian suggested and avoid tinkering with quotations. Iranians need to present their case without even the slightest bias. As you have noticed, Lambian and Jidan seem to focus only on this bias as a way to further their argument. They still have yet to suggest why the name "Arabian Gulf" is/should be the "official" name for the Gulf. I think the author 219.3.72.32 (scroll up a bit) makes an interesting point.

I don't think at all that the name "Arabian Gulf" is/should be the "official" name for the Persian Gulf, so I may perhaps be forgiven for not offering a suggesting as to a why for that position. I think that that should be clear if you read over my other contributions to this talk page, such as for example this one. The only point I have that is essential is that the article must adhere to Wikipedia policy, which it does not, while some editors actively prevent its being brought up to our encyclopedic standards. --Lambiam ^Talk 00:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

That's because certain editors here are only interested in personal attacks and generalizing comments, to further an argument that lacks facts. Even when a citation from a university group affiliated with MIT is provided, they say it's not reliable. --Mardavich 00:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The "Iranian Studies Group" (ISG) at MIT is a group composed almost exclusively of Iranians.[46][47][48]. Its sole standing at MIT is that it is recognized by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Association of Student Activities.[49] So are various fraternities like the Alpha Epsilon Pi Fraternity, the Young Democratic Socialists, the Tae Kwon Do Club, Pro-Life, United Christian Fellowship and the Vegetarian Group at MIT, to give just a few examples.[50] The source in question is a "factsheet" prepared by Dr. Ali Mostashari for the ISG while he was pursuing a Ph.D. at MIT. It is not clear that it is endorsed by the ISG, but in any case, it is definitely a self-published source, and as such not acceptable. I am not making this up; this is part of an official Wikipedia policy. The exception for a well-known, professional researcher writing within their field of expertise does not apply; while I do not question the professionality of Dr. Mostashari, he is not well known, and this is not within his field of expertise (which is on engineering systems, such as transportation systems and energy systems). Now even if we assume for the sake of argument that this counts as a reliable source under the Wikipedia policies (quod non), what is the statement it supports? It is offered as a source for the claim that The use of the name 'Arabian Gulf' was described to be 'faulty' by the eighth United Nations conference on the standardization of Geographical names. But what does the factsheet actually say? This: The Eighth United Nations Conference on the Standardization of Geographical Names ... has based its decision of the discussion ... on the reference "TOPONYMY, The Lore, Laws and Language of GEOGRAPHICAL NAMES", by Naftali Kadmon ... which argues that the use of "Arabian Gulf" is faulty. It is not quite clear to me what this is intended to mean, but (1) the description 'faulty' is not attributed here to the conference, but to a book by Kadmon; (2) the source says that its "decision of the discussion" (what does that mean?) was based on the book; (3) it does not say what the decision was. Is that supposed to be a source for the statement? I have argued before that if the UN has a position, it should be possible to use a UN document directly as the source. So is there no official UN report of this conference? Yes, of course there is, and it is even online: http://unstats.un.org/unsd/geoinfo/eighthuncsgn-english.pdf. So what does it say the decision was? ... Search for the string "faulty". Response: "Total instances found: 0". OK, then let's search for "Persian Gulf". Same result: nothing. I rest my case. --Lambiam ^Talk 02:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh for GOD's sake, look up UNAD 311/Qen dated March 5, 1971, and UNLA 45.8.2 (C) dated August 10, 1984, resolutions where UN officialy recognizes Persian Gulf as the correct name for the body of water located in the south of Iran. - Marmoulak 02:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

You guys are wasting your time arguing historical facts with Lambiam, apparently he's a Turkish historical revisionist who denies the Armenian genocide.--ArmenianJoe 01:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

That's funny. Ha ha. Now that I've stopped laughing: I do not deny anything. But I feel that in particular on issues in which there is a dispute we as Wikipedians should be extra careful in maintaining a neutral point of view (and also a neutral tone), and make sure that claims and statements that are subject to dispute are backed up by reliable sources. Just as for this article, some people working on those articles have a tendency to make more of the sources than they actually support. Nobody has first-hand knowledge of what happened, and even if we had we could not use it, as being original research, so we should only report on the positions taken by others: historians, official institutions, politicians if notable enough, but without distortion and undue selectiveness. There is no need for Wikipedia to take a position in the dispute. That is completely independent of the position I have as an individual myself, which you simply don't know. That is all there is to it. --Lambiam ^Talk 03:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I should have noticed. I was thinking about translating some Persian travellers testimonies on the Armenian Genocide. I will do some in the appropriate time and make sure it is quoted in Wikipedia. --alidoostzadeh 02:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

UNAD 311/Qen and UNLA 45.8.2 (C) resolutions

Do you have the text of these resolutions? Are they online? Let us not get excited before we have verified that these sources actually do support that statement. --Lambiam ^Talk 03:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

It is already mentioned in the documnet posted by User:Zereshk. But, apparently, you decided to ignore it.Marmoulak 03:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Which document posted by Zereshk are you referring to? Where can it be found? Is it something on this talk page? Or in the article? And what is already mentioned in the document? --Lambiam ^Talk 04:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Document from MIT, [51].

UN has on two occasions officially declared the unalterable name of the sea between Iran and the Arabian Peninsula as the Persian Gulf. The first announcement was made through the document UNAD, 311/Qen on March 5, 1971 and the second was UNLA 45.8.2 (C) on August 10, 1984. - Marmoulak 04:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I was only aware of the link http://web.mit.edu/isg/persiangulffactsheet.pdf introduced by Mardavich, which apparently is an older version of the same factsheet and does not mention these resolutions. I do not see where Zereshk posted the document from MIT you give a link to. When I follow this link, the text that I see only states this: "Supporting UN documents include UNAD, 311/Qen on March 5, 1971 and UNLA 45.8.2 (C) on August 10, 1984." Nothing about "officially declared" there. As I explained in some detail above, this factsheet cannot be used as a reference, but even if it could be, this document does not support the statement being made. If these are official UN documents, it should be possible to provide a citation to the documents themselves. But what do they actually state? Do the documents make clear that they present official declarations by the UN (and not by the delegation of one member state), and do these declaration then declare a standpoint in this naming dispute? How can we look them up? The labels "UNAD, 311/Qen" and "UNLA 45.8.2 (C)" do not correspond to resolutions of the General Assembly or the Security Council. (The GA resolutions are online here, and the SC resolutions here.) So which body or bodies passed these resolutions? Without the text of the documents, how do we know the answer to any of these issues? My original questions stand. --Lambiam ^Talk 09:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Those are UN official documents. Not security council resolutions. And if you look at the website of the cartographic section of UN, they just use Persian Gulf. Thus that is the 'official' used name by the UN. [52] --alidoostzadeh 01:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at the document written by United Nations Group of Experts on Geographical Names here. .....any change, destruction, or alteration of the names registered in historical deeds and maps is like the destruction of ancient works and is considered as an improper action. Therefore, the names of geographical features profiting from a unique historical identity, should not be utilized as political instruments in reaching a political, tribal, and racial objective, or in any clash with national interests and other's values. This paper provides a short study of the historical background of the name PERSIAN GULF so that it might cast light on realities. 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. 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 abovementioned 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 state d that the motivation to change the name of PERSIAN GULF is purely political. Also see:[53], [54] - Marmoulak 06:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Marmoulak, that document was NOT "written by" the United Nations Group of Experts on Geographical Names. Instead, it is a "working paper" submitted by Iran for a meeting of the Group. I've explained that several times before. Was it discussed at the meeting? Yes, it was, according to the report of that meeting. So what was the conclusion? I quote:

106. 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.

The Convenor's conclusion is in full agreement with resolution III/20 of the third UN Conference on the Standardization of Geographical Names. --Lambiam ^Talk 10:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Potential sources

Some things I encountered while looking for the report on the 8th UNCSGN:

The Kadmon book should be a quotable source, as long as it is properly quoted (without distortion) and properly attributed. If someone feels like following this up: here is more bibliographic info. (I think the "second" author listed is spurious and a misspelling of the name of the first and true author.)
Another source that looks interesting from an encyclopedic perspective is this paper: Hamid M Almirian, A Historical Study on Nomenclature of the Persian Gulf. Onoma, the Journal of the International Council of Onomastic Sciences, vol. 35 pp 165–184 (2000).[55].

--Lambiam ^Talk 03:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The Necessity of textual evidence

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

Note so far the other side has not brought a single textual evidence. There is not a single evidence in Arabic either. Recently a non-neutral website [www.arabiangulfmaps.com] claims to have had brought some new maps. But what this site fails to show

If you go under collections in this site and then view a map and then click on map index. Click on the one from 1740(Jacques Nicholas Bellin) Then do a zoom. On the legend on the bottom left corner of the image it clearly says on the text Et Golfe de Perse.

Most of the maps are from that site Mercator and Hondius and John Speed (about 80%) who have left us with relevant texts. We will view each one of individually.

A)

First Mercator. It is from the first edition of Hexam's translation brought out by Jodocus's son Henry Hondius. The year of publishing is 1644.

[56]

Note the map on pg 10 of the PDF clearly says Persian Gulf (Sinus Persicus).

The map on pg 12 is ambiguous as it is has used the term Sinus Arabicus twice.

And finally the map on pg 20 uses Sinus Arabicus.

All these maps are from the same book. By the Arabian Gulf website owner failed to bring the map on pg 10 because it does not fit his agenda. Now let us quote the text (pg 19 on the PDF): This Kingdom is situate between the Turkish empire; the Tatar Zagatheans the Kingdom Cambaya, between the Hircanian or Caspian Sea, and the PERSIAN GULF . Similarly: On the South is Persian Gulf and the India Sea.

Thus throwing maps back and forth like Pokemon is not the solution since if assume the view of our opponents, these maps contradict each other. They are all from the same book. The Arabian Gulf deceiver site thus fails to bring the relevant maps from the same book and tries to make the user believe that the name of this body of water was Sinus Arabicus. But as the text clearly shows, Meractor considers it as Persian Gulf and in the same book he has a map with Sinus Persicus. In the end as will be seen, the map probably considers both Persian Gulf and Red Sea as part of the Arabian Sea.

B)

Hondius/Mercator:

http://www.azargoshnasp.net/PersianGulf/wikiphondisumercactor1635.pdf

Pg 6) Note Mare Rubrum (red sea) is mentioned below the horn of Africa! Thus this clearly shows that without textual evidence, one can not look at a map blindly.

Pg 10) Note Mare Rubrum (red Sea) is again below the horn of Africa.

Pg 11)

Note that there is Mare el-Catif where the Persian Gulf is. We will see from John Speed that these are not the same.

Pg 14)

Note the Red Sea is called:ARABICI SINUS PARS (PERSIA ?) Mare Rubrum. This suggest that the author is trying to show these bodies of water are connected.

Pg 21-25)

The text clearly says Persian Bay. And between the Hircanian Sea and Persian Bay

C)

Now let us try another Hondius. Hondius’s map are from Meractor and thus the same maps appear.

[57]

Pg 4 Comment: note misplacement of red sea (Mare Rubrum) all the way below the horn of Afica). Again showing without textual evidence, such maps can not be interpreted. Pg6 Comment: (note misplacement of red sea (Mare Rubrum) all the way below the horn of Afica). Again showing without textual evidence, such maps can not be interpreted. Note the Arabicus below Saudia Arabia. Pg 12: Comment: Note there is designation of Mare el-Qatif in the Persian Gulf. Pg 15: Comment: Note Sinus Arabicus is in the Red Sea. Note the difference with pg 4 and 6 where red sea is below the horn of Africa.

855-859 Note despite the mark of Sinus Arabicus on the map(see comments of C-pg 15) in the map, the text clearly calls it Persian Bay.

D) John Speed [58]

Pg 9)

Note the map. Persian Gulf is called Sinus Persica. Note that the red sea is called part of the Arabian Sea. (this could be the source of some confusion).

Pg 10)

Note the text on part 14: It is distinct from the Aethiopia so often mentioned in Scripture; For by all probability that was in another quarter of the world, and teacheth from the Red-Sea to the Persian Gulf.

Pg 11) Note the text on part 10: The bounds of this Empire on the North are the Caspian Sea, and the River Oxus; on the South the Sinus Persicus

Pg 12)

Note the misplacement. Assyria is put in the place of Persia. Thus such misplacement can easily occur in maps and this again shows maps can have mistake. So again one has to rely on the textual evidence. Note the Persian Gulf though is called Sinus Persicus here and furthermore the red sea is called part of the Arabian Sea.

Note also the text on the next page:

It lieth betwixt Media on the North, and the Sinus Persicus on her South:

Note again the text: The bounds of this Empire on the North are the Caspian Sea, and the River Oxus; on the South the Sinus Persicus, and the Mare Indicum, heretofore called Rubrum;

Note again the text: Susiana, now Cuceston, seems to have her name from Cus, upon the South of Assyria, West of Persia, East of Babylonia, and North of the Persick bay. Upon the confines of the Persian Empire stands a potent Kingdome, which comprehends part of the coast of Persia, some Islands of the Persick bay: and a good portion of Arabia Foelix near to those Seas.’’ Pg 14) This is the map used by the Arabian Gulf site. But note from the same book two other maps on pg 9 and 12, clearly calls it Persian Gulf.

I have checked all the text and the textual evidence only calls it Persick bay, Persian Gulf, Sinus Persian. Thus there is no textual evidence whatsoever for Arabian Gulf.

Conclusion:

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

There is no evidence in Arabic that the Persian Gulf was called Arabian Gulf by Arabs before the era of nationalism in the last 50-60 years. This is an important point and virtually no Arab was aware of any European map. Here are sufficient evidences from Arab sources in Arabic that the Persian Gulf was called Persian Gulf during the Islamic era and there was no such thing as an Arabian Gulf. [

[59]

2) The Arabian Gulf site suppresses evidence from the same book. IN the same books there are clear maps that designate the Persian Gulf by its historic name. Furthermore all the texts in these maps only consider it Persian Gulf. Note some of these maps had mis-placed some names, for example the Red Sea and Assyria amongst the many examples that can be brought forth. Thus a map without textual evidence is simply useless as cartographers can make mistakes. Note virtually all the maps from that site can be traced to Meractor who has legitimate Persian Gulf maps from the same book.

3) Note this website: http://www.mayalords.org/cartofldr/medmaps.html need for subterfuge. There were number ciphers, symbols described, not as a written description, but in the translation of the word for the symbol. The cartographers had a more difficult time. They had to make an extremely accurate map, so that those fleeing could escape safely, but they could not give the same information to those persecuting them. On this particular map of Claudius Ptolemy, the land called Arabia Felix was very visible with a small cordiform projection inserted near the Oman Peninsula. But as usual, the Red Sea area, so faithfully colored in so many earlier maps,4 (here in the area where the red and white islands are located) was now in a new location, south of the Arabian Sea or Sinus Arabicus.’’

Note the following map from caecilli Metelli [60] from 1598.

Note Persian Gulf is different than Mare El-Catie (Catif).

Thus interpretation of a map without the textual evidence is again mis-leading. Specially when the same book has different maps that are bone of contention. Thus one has to look at the text.

4)

Thus all the textual evidence from these books have all called it Persian Gulf and ignoring other maps from the same exact book, the arabian gulf website is trying to deeive users. Thus there is not a single text in arabic that has called it Arabian Gulf until the emergence of pan-arabist nationalism. Any attempt to misguide users without providing relavent portions of the textual evidence and other maps from the same exact books is putting up personal intrepretation.E SAME BOOK IS ILLEGITIMATE AND PUTTING UP PERSONAL INTREPRETATIONS.

--alidoostzadeh 09:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

First of all, you have to STOP labeling everyone who disagrees with you as a PAN-ARABIST RACIST NATIONALIST. I will come back later when I find the time and mood to read all you wrote and then respond to you. Jidan 19:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Well you and some other people started the name calling: "Iranian ultranationalists".. Either way all the books I mentioned have maps that have mis-placed different bodies of water, they all have maps with Persian Gulf in the right place as well, and in their text they consistently use Persian Gulf. BTW I am still waiting for the Arabic sources which you promised as well. --alidoostzadeh 00:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The only occurrence of that name calling terminology applied to Iranians is in the last comment by Ali Doostzadeh. All other references to "nationalists" or "nationalism" on this page or in the article are about Arabs, and likewise for "racists" and "racism". --Lambiam ^Talk 03:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, even experts from UN believe that calling the Persian Gulf, the "arabian gulf" is the result of racism and ultra-nationalism of pan-arabists and purely political. Jidan is the one who constantly resort to name-calling as a result of losing every arguement. you yourself have used labels such as "rabid nationalists" in reference to other editors. I smell hypocrisy! - Marmoulak 06:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

You have completely and utterly misunderstood that contribution. I was referring to a conspiracy theory according to which others would be willing to believe that "rabid nationalist" Arab sheiks (not editors) were being helped by reputable antiquariats to make their point by offering forged maps for sale on the web sites of those antiquariats. That is completely clear from what I wrote; I find it hard to believe that you could read anything else in the text, in particular that the qualification was applied to other editors. --Lambiam ^Talk 11:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

In the Persian Gulf article when I added the alternative name "Arabian Gulf", user Marmoulak reverted my edit with "rvv"(reverting vandalism) [61]. So, in his view there is no difference if I added "Pamela is a whore" or "Arabian Gulf", its both vandalism to him. Now, if that is not ultra-nationlism then I don't know what it is. Jidan 12:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

You're wrong again. Jidan has been calling other editors "nationalists", "ultranationalists", "Iranians this, Persians that" in every other one of his comments or edit summaries. Anyways, lets just stick to the topic and Ali's comprehensive work outlining the unreliability of the maps in question.Azerbaijani 06:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Not in any comment or edit summary related to this page. Just who is wrong again? I'm calling your bluff. Show me a single example in the form of a diff. --Lambiam ^Talk 11:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Tone it down a bit, will you? Azerbaijani is entirely correct in his assessment, here is an example. By the way, nice try at diverting the subject and ignoring the valid arguments Ali has raised about the maps in question. --Mardavich 11:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Tone down what a bit? Is my word choice uncivilized, or what is your problem? The example is indeed not about this article or this talk page, although Jidan managed to now also produce an example here.[62] As to Ali's "valid arguments", I explained before why I think they are meaningless. He is apparently trying to prove something, I don't know what and I don't need to know, because as Wikipedians we are not in the business of proving things. I promised before not to respond to further comments containing the words "textual evidence",[63] and I am trying to keep my promise. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lambiam (talk • contribs) 16:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC).

Ha!, User:Jidan has used personal attacks, accusations and name-calling against other editors on several occasions: [64][65] [66][67].I am not sure if the aforementioned behavior is uncivilized or using rvv in place rv for once! - Marmoulak 23:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Nope, it's not just once, e.g. [68], [69], [70]. BTW, are we going to talk about the maps or are we going to continue talking about me? ;-) Jidan 00:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

When I try to make this article more NPOV, you say ohhh...Jidan is an arab racist nationlist. Now, Lambiam is NOT an Arab. Lambiam is a neutral editor(I think from Belgium?). You can't call him an arab nationlist if he is NOT an Arab. He is just trying to help make this article more NPOV. His edits were removed automaticllay without even reading what he edited: as in this example [71] by Ali, which was supposed to be an exact quaote. Apparently, there is also something called Wikipedia:Requests for comment and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration, which might be helpfull for these cases Jidan 17:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I do not think lambiam is neutral as she tried to hinder Biruni's ethnicity whereas Biruni clearly says: does not know the meaning of the Turkish months and their orders and The people of Khwarizm are branch of Persians. Her issue with the Armenian genocide also shows she has a nationalistic angle. I do not consider her neutral. When I brought official sources about US government's acceptance of Persian Gulf from a credible western source, she still asked for sources in the article. Thus that is why I reverted her article (and not about the quote). Either way I think me and you should end the personal attacks and I meant Saddam/Nasser.. و الله هو رب العالمین. --alidoostzadeh 03:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Whether you, Ali, think I am "neutral" or not is irrelevant. Your personal suppositions about me are not a valid reason for reverting my edits blindly; all that counts is whether my edits are improvements or not. I have carefully and precisely explained several times why these "official sources" were not at all official, or did not actually support the statement they were cited for as a source, or both. If you do not understand the objection, you should ask for clarification and not just revert. As to Biruni, I have no idea what you are talking about. The only edits I can find I made related to Biruni are this one and this one. For the rest, can you take discussion about me to my talk page? It does not belong here. Here we should discuss how we can improve the article. I think there is still some room for improvement. --Lambiam ^Talk 06:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Ali, do I understand from what you wrote that you have accpeted these maps as original not forgery, but that the problem is, that these maps alone are not enough, because you need textual evidence with it? Jidan 12:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

There are maps from the same book with clear reference to Persian Gulf. There are other maps in the same book where they put Assyria in central Iran! and the red sea below the horn of Africa. Thus either the maps are mistakes or mis-placed or refer to other geographical entities and thus the necessity of textual evidence that comes with the Atlas is self-evident. I found other ancient maps calling the Gulf of Oman as Sea of Persia and Gulf of Basra. Now I am not going to run down the Gulf of Oman article and call it Sea of Persia as well. Thus unless there is any textual evidence for Arabian Gulf, there is no reason to pick and choose which map one chooses from the same book with multiple occuring names. BTW did you find any Arabic evidence? As you see there is none. --alidoostzadeh 03:03, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Ohh,so what you are saying is that all these maps are "mistakes" because they don't have persian gulf written on them? If the term "persian gulf" was common and established at that time, then what do you understand when its written in the maps:

MARE ELCATIF olim SINUS PERSICUS = Sea of Elcatif, formerly Persian Gulf [72]
MAR MESENDIN ol. Sinus Persicus = Mesendin Sea formerly Persian Gulf [73].Jidan 20:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think Ali is saying that if they say "Arabian Sea", then they are most likely mistakes. The other olim (former) Sinus Persicus actually strengthens the argument that the term "Persian Gulf" was the established name for that body of water: There was an attempt to change the name to Mare Elcatif/Mar Mesedin but nobody would have known the "new" names unless they added the term olim (former) Sinus Persicus. That means that the name Sinus Persicus was the established name of the time. And from the maps themselves, the "new" names were only used for a short time (around 1560-1585) since the "new" names didn't stick. From 1588 onwards, nearly all the maps revert back to Sinus Persicus and from 1650, I have yet to see maps referring to the Gulf as anything but Sinus Persicus. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.2.198.2 (talk) 01:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC).

Olim means also future ... Either way all the texts say Persian Gulf. I have about 400 maps ready for wikipedia from 14th hundred to 1925. Unless you can find a single textual evidence in Arabic or English, then the name Arabian Gulf is madeup like the many books we have quoted state. Note in the same map, Caspian Sea has olim also, but everyone calls it Caspian Sea. So your intrepreation of the word Olim could be wrong and it could simply have another meaning in the context of English. As I said any plagarism can be easily met in articles like "Gulf of Oman" which some map have called Persian Sea and etc. Thus unless you bring textual evidence, your few maps out of the 400+ I have does not do your case any good. --alidoostzadeh 02:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

400 or 400 million maps, that doesn't change the fact that there are maps with Arabian Gulf on them. This one for example[74] has both, Red sea(Mer Rouge) and Arabian gulf(Arabique sinque), i.e. you can't assume 1)it is a placing mistake with the red sea 2) placing mistake with Arabian Sea, since sinque means Gulf/bay and 3) no where in is the word Persicus or similar found in the map. Also, in these two maps [75] and [76], its written: MARE ELCATIF olim SINUS PERSICUS - translated: Sea of Elcatif formerly Persian Gulf , and the other MAR MESENDIN ol. Sinus Persicus - translated: Mesendin Sea formerly Persian Gulf. This also proves that the term Persian Gulf was not common at that time. Also, a map is not a picture where you need some text to understand what it means. A map is an image with text. If its written there Arabian Gulf, then most probably it is the arabian gulf. Jidan 20:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually you are repeating yourself but so far you have not provided the text. I have brought the texts from Atlases and the authors use Persian Gulf throughout their texts. If you do not have the Atlas's text infront of you, then you can not intrepret the map specially since there is not a single textual evidence for the name you are proposing. I have shown many mis-placed maps. I also have maps that call the Gulf of Oman as the Gulf of Basra and the Persian Sea and Persia as Assyria and etc.. As per the name Persian Gulf, it was the common name as all the textual evidence from most of the maps from your site have only said: "Persian Gulf" as shown above. Thus it was the only name used in the text. You have not found a single text that uses Arabian Gulf. The points in my message above is clear. A site does not use all the maps about the Persian Gulf from the same book and it doesn't mention that the texts explicitly say Persian Gulf.--alidoostzadeh 01:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

..not when the same author uses the term Persian Gulf throughout his book.Azerbaijani 02:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Jidan - I recommend that your read all the new talk comments before you yourself write a comment. I find the idea put forward by 210.2.198.2 (scroll up a bit) a much more stronger argument for why the name Persian Gulf was common at that time than the term Arabian Gulf. Furthermore, by the early 20th century the Gulf was known as the Persian Gulf by the majority of the world, including the Arabic nations. The reason it was changed was political and lacked any real reasons other than politics. Please prove this point wrong otherwise, and stop focusing on the semantics. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 219.3.72.32 (talk • contribs) 02:22, January 12, 2007 (UTC).

Can't we stop talking about "proving" things? All material included in the article must already have been published by a reliable source. That is the only kind of material we can use. Whatever we "prove" is "original research"; it cannot be used and is therefore irrelevant to the article. --Lambiam ^Talk 17:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Old maps need complementary texts to make their geographical references clear. Assuming that the name "Sinus Arabicus" on the disputed map is refering to body of water which separates Iran from the Arabian Peninsula and not the Sea of Oman, the Arabian Sea or the Shatt al-Arab river is considered original research. - Marmoulak 01:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

If your interpretation of "original research" is correct here – which I contest – then for most of the maps in the gallery it is equally original research to assume that the name "Sinus Persicus" on the map refers to the Persian Gulf and not the Gulf of Bothnia. --Lambiam ^Talk 05:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Take a deep breath and read the texual evidence that has been mentioned and discussed numerous times on this talk page. According to the text written by Hondius, Mercator and other cartographers the body of water which separates the land of Persia from the Arabian Peninsula is called The Persian Bay. - Marmoulak 06:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

But what about, for example:

the 1808 British map;
the map of 1719;
the 1598 German map;
the map by Ortelius of 1580;
the French map of 1740;
the 17th century Jansson map;
Gastaldi's map from circa 1548;
the Swiss map dated 1540;
the next 16th century map;
the map by Sebastian Munster;
the map of 1531;
the French map dated 1540?

Is showing these here original research? If not, why are these not original research, while the Mercator–Hondius from 1634 is (according to you)? --Lambiam ^Talk 11:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Simple. Numerous texts support the name. As I have shown from the Atlases above. --alidoostzadeh 05:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, the evidence regarding the reference, Persian Gulf, is overwhemling and therefore nobody has questioned the validity of it. Arabian gulf, on the other hand, is a suspicious reference and is questioned frequently. Nevertheless, I am sure complementary texts can be provided for most of the aforementioned maps. I dont see anything wrong with demanding complementary texts for the maps you mentioned above. - Marmoulak 22:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The usage in question did not prevail; but the maps do exist, the inscriptions on them say "Sinus Arabicus", and the text is in the Persian Gulf. So much requires no more than the map itself; much more would be a conclusion, and require another source. I will add, on Talk, that arguments which imply that sinus is used of a river, like the Shatt-al-Arab, or the open Arabian Sea, are unlikely to inspire confidence from anyone who speaks Latin. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you need to first carefully read the evidences and explanations posted on this talk page, specially the one made by Ali doostzadeh here, before jumping into the discussion. - Marmoulak 05:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I have read it; it is an incoherent rant, ending with a scream in FULL CAPS, which, as best I can tell, attempts to demonstrate that the POV that the Gulf should be called Persian is correct; this article should explain that correctitude; and that therefore these maps should be excluded. As it happens, I agree with the first point of view; as this page will show, I use "Persian Gulf" myself. But I believe in writing for the enemy. Any article which is attempting to prove one side of a disputed case has no place on Wikipedia. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually it is very coherent. All the texts from those books use Persian Gulf, besides having maps with Persian Gulf. Thus until there is a classical textual testatement directly refering to the Persian Gulf as Sinus Arabicus, then one can not simply accept contradictory statements from the same book that has a map Persian Gulf and textual evidence Persian Gulf. I removed the caps. --alidoostzadeh 19:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

When the source itself is self-contradictory, the apppropriate thing to do is to point this out, not to decide which side is "correct' and ignore the other side. CMummert · talk 19:53, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

(lowering indent) The map itself exists, and so the statement "This particular map has these words on top of the persian gulf" can be sourced directly from the map. There is no implication in WP:RS that a second source is needed for descriptive claims about a primary source.

The real question is what purpose the 16 maps in the gallery have, if the standard for including them is that they agree with a book. The article should just cite the book once and leave out the maps if that is the case. It appears that the purpose of the map gallery is to argue that many maps use the phrase persian gulf, which is certainly true. If that is the purpose of the gallery, then for NPOV the fact that at least one map calls it something else should be included. CMummert · talk 15:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I can say that virtually all the maps brought so far agree with a book. Also see my latest comments. And if you want to set the criterion that the map agrees with the textual evidence of the book, I totally agree with this criterion as it seems natural. So we can remove maps that do not have textual evidence. --alidoostzadeh 04:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment: If not greed then what?

Having a bunch of Arab states around that body of water is no reason to change its name. Otherwise we should be calling the Black Sea, the European Sea.

What I cant understand is why all this fuss? The Arabs already have the Arabian Sea and Sea of Oman, and now they want a third body of water named after them?--69.153.70.147 10:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

That is a very interesting question. However, this talk page is not for general discussion about the naming dispute, and we cannot use the talk page as a platform for our personal views. This talk page should be used for one thing only: the topic of how to improve the article. Thank you. --Lambiam ^Talk 17:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Relevance of Resolution III/20

After I added the text of a recommendation of Resolution III/20 adopted by the third United Nations Conference on the Standardization of Geographical Names concerning the names of features beyond a single sovereignty, my edit was reverted because, according to the edit summary, this resolution doesn't apply here. Now, as far as I know, the Persian Gulf is a geographical feature not all of which is within a single sovereignty. Am I perhaps mistaken and is all of the Persian Gulf within a single sovereignty? If not, can anyone explain why this resolution does not apply here? While awaiting enlightenment on the issue, I've reinstated the deleted text. --Lambiam ^Talk 20:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The resolution is about local names, it has no relevancy to this article or the usage of Persian Gulf in the English language, the United Nations' position on the name of Persian Gulf is clear and documented. Drawing POV conclusions from irrelevant UN resolutions, when UN has a position on this name, is original research --Mardavich 20:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

This is getting really tiring and taxing. How can you say the resolution is about local names? The resolution does not mention "local names". It is about names of features beyond a single sovereignty. How do I know? Because that is what it says in the title of the resolution. Can the name of a feature beyond a single sovereignty be local? No, it cannot. Maybe you have difficulty understanding a word like "sovereignty", but surely you can understand the plain English text that you removed: "when countries sharing a given geographical feature do not succeed in agreeing on a common name". Countries sharing a given geographical feature. So the resolution is about all names except local names. It is the precise opposite of what you claim. Why is it that you make such a patently false statement? The Persian Gulf is not the sole province of one country. It is shared by all the Gulf states. That is precisely the situation addressed by the resolution.

Then further, you state that the United Nations' position on the name of Persian Gulf is clear and documented. Well, resolution III/20 is a clearly documented position of the United Nations, but I am not allowed to present it because I am "drawing POV conclusions"? Who was complaining about attacks and impoliteness again? I was not drawing any conclusions; I believe that our readers are fully capable of doing that for themselves, and that they don't need all the conclusions already drawn for them that the article is full of. All I did was factually present a relevant UN resolution.

The present article does ascribe certain positions to the UN. As I have argued extensively before, with ample documentation, the citations offered in support of these claims are false or against policy; nevertheless they keep getting reinserted. Now again bad citations have been reinserted, plus a new one added. The UN position is clear and documented? The UN position described here is clearly falsified; that is what you should have written. --Lambiam ^Talk 01:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

The old resolution is irrelevant to this article, United Nation's documented position on Persian Gulf's name takes precedent to any general resolutions. If you have a resolution specific to Persian Gulf, bring it forward. Otherwise, citing/interpreting irrelevant resolutions to draw a conclusion and support your personal thesis or point of view, is nothing but original research. --Mardavich 02:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Please stop these insinuations about my "personal thesis or point of view". They are barely hidden attacks on my integrity, not justified by anything I've said or done. You have no way of knowing my point of view, and it is irrelevant here, because I am not defending my point of view but instead the reliability of the material in Wikipedia. Your selective interpretation of what is relevant, and the freedom you take to remove documented material because of your idiosyncratic interpretation of its relevance amount to censorship. I am equally appalled by your apparent unwillingness to aim for reaching consensus. --Lambiam ^Talk 08:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

You need to be civil, calm down and assume good faith when dealing with other editors. I wasn't commenting on your views specifically, I was making a general comment and used "your" in general terms, as a figure of speech. It's ironic that in the same breath that you falsely accuse others of "hidden attacks", you openly attack another editor by making accusations of "idiosyncratic interpretation", "selective interpretation", "censorship", which is an obvious violation of WP:NPA.--Mardavich 08:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

How far do I need to go in assuming good faith? How ridiculous can "you" (in general terms, as a figure of speech) get in "your" (in general terms, as a figure of speech) replies? Did "general" users cite what you called "irrelevant resolutions", or was it perhaps a specific user, Lambiam? Earlier today I wrote on user Mardavich's talk page: "I like to assume good faith, but how can I continue to assume good faith in the presence of continued evidence to the contrary? Please explain to me how your actions can be reconciled with good faith assumptions", a message this user elected to promptly remove rather than to respond to.[77] I call your interpretation idiosyncratic because it is idiosyncratic. If you interpret all criticism as an attack, you have a problem. As before, you do not respond to the content of the criticism but only to how it is delivered. --Lambiam ^Talk 16:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

You still haven't learned the basics of WP:NPA, comment on content, not on other contributors or people. --Mardavich 18:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

At some point it becomes necessary to discuss the actual behaviour of other editors. Otherwise we could not have the process of requests for arbitration. If an editor, after having been warned repeatedly that their edits violate Wikipedia policy, with careful explanations of how and why they do so, ignores this and persists in making the same one-sided edits, supplying false citations in response to requests for citations while removing other editors' sourced contributions, if not supportive of only one side, with totally weird arguments, thereby compromising the integrity of Wikipedia and making a joke of the labour of other editors to adhere to verifiability and a neutral point of view, yes, unfortunately, then it becomes necessary to bring their behaviour to the attention of others. If describing this behaviour has the appearance of a personal attack, it is because the behaviour itself is totally unacceptable, and any factual description of it will inevitably present the perpetrator in a bad light. --Lambiam ^Talk 20:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Stop throwing around accusations. Don't make personal attacks, consider this your last warning. --Mardavich 22:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

The Persian Gulf is an international body of water, it is not local. As Mardavich has pointed out, it does not apply. This is like trying to apply this resolution to the Atlantic Ocean, or the Arabian Sea, or the Indian Ocean, etc... Again, this resolution only applies to local bodies of water, such as the Shatt al Arab/Arvandrud waterway.Azerbaijani 02:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

"The Persian Gulf is an international body of water, it is not local." That is correct. Therefore, the resolution does apply. For example, the lake between France and Switzerland that Geneva lies on is an international body of water. It is shared between several countries. The French call it Lac Léman, the Swiss (if they are German speakers) Genfersee. Neither of these attempts to regulate how Arabs or Iranians should call it. No conflict; everyone is happy. The same connections between the Atlantic Ocean and the North Sea, international waters, that the British call the English Channel and the Strait of Dover, the French call la Manche and le pas de Calais. They do not fight in UN expert groups or Wikipedia to get one of the two standardized for international use. How about that. All are situations covered by Resolution III/20. This resolution has not been recalled or updated since it was issued, as can easily be checked from the document listing these resolutions. It is still valid.

I have explained again and again why the sources offered as references for the so-called "United Nation's documented position on Persian Gulf's name" are unsound and invalid, and must not be cited. There is a simple explanation for why it is so hard to find reliable sources for it. The reason is simply this: they do not exist, because the "documented position" is made up; it is a fabrication.

Look at the newest source supplied as a reference for the false claim in the article that "the use of the name 'Arabian Gulf' was described to be 'faulty' by the eighth United Nations conference on the standardization of Geographical names", namely the December 26 article by the respected Iranian journalist Niusha Boghrati. The text of the relevant paragraph in that article is copied almost verbatim from the article in Wikipedia, including this particular statement, for which I have repeatedly asked for a citation. How can that then be used as a "reliable source"? We might as well give the Wikipedia article itself as the source. What this means is that this well-respected correspondent, usually a reliable source, has been tricked into inserting false information in his article because this Wikipedia article contains false information, which is reinserted each time I remove it. This is ridiculous and must stop. --Lambiam ^Talk 08:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

III/20 is not relevant because it is not referring to international bodies of water which technically no nation has any sovereignty over. This article refers to bodies of water such as lakes or rivers that are not international and bordered by several nations of which each have some territorial bound over. This is why this article was not a deciding factor when the UN twice said that the term Persian Gulf is the only term for this body of water.Azerbaijani 02:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

And again and again and again and again and again and again and again

Ali doostzadeh, you have again inserted the false citations. Are you proud of yourself for so valiantly protecting, with false citations, these so-called "official UN positions", which are actually fabrications disseminated in a war of disinformation propaganda? Are all means allowed here? Have you no shame? --Lambiam ^Talk 03:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Please stop the personal attack and concentrate on [78] where you blatantly assumed I have no sources for my claims. The fact is the UN geographical board and catographic center [79] utilizes Persian Gulf in their maps. Go also visit the UN building. And furthermore, the fact is that when I mentioned the US board on geographic names, you deleted my reference. Have you no shame? And note you have made several personal attacks on me and other users. --alidoostzadeh 04:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Text to pictures claiming Sinus Persiscus?

You have not provided any texts as to pertaining the naming of these maps...where are they? MB

They are in the PDF files mentioned in my previous long posts. Read them. Now where is a single text for sinus Arabicus? --alidoostzadeh 04:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Uh-huh. Would it kill you to provide them here? I would also ask you to take a chill pill and calm down, don't tell me what to do. Your attempts at cyber-bullying are really pathetic. MB

Go read the PDF's. For example the one just provided [80](use right mouse button to do save-as as the file is big). It has a has a map and the relavent text. Strabo's text is also readily available. Text from Mercator was already brought.--alidoostzadeh 18:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

New information and correction in their latest editions. Once again highlighting the necessity of textual evidence with maps

(first if anyone wants to open any of the link, use the right mouse button and do a save as , as the files are relatively large).

Regarding the English map of Meractor-Hondius-Jannsonius (they have it in variety of languages and only the English one seems to have a problem) which has Sinus Arabicus and which some users want to use it as evidence. I will quote very reliable source and also include the more recent maps There is apparantly an error in this map regarding the name of the Persian Gulf. All editions of Mercator's Geographia contain one map of the world and one of Asia. Following the Ptolemy tradition, in all of these maps the Red Sea and occasionaly the Gulf of Aden, is called 'Sinus Arabicus', and the Persian Gulf 'Sinus Persicus'. In the map of Persia included in the Meractor-Hondius atlases, however the Persian Gulf is named 'Sinus Arabicus'. This nomeclature contradicts not only the Ptolemic tradition but also the world map and the map of Asia in the same atlas, both of them surely prepared by Meractor himself. The reason for this disrepency could only be the fact that the map of Persia was not completed and probably not even prepared by Meractor, but by Hondius twelve years after Meractor's death. Hondius or his assistants apparantly mixed up the two Ptolemaic terms Sinus Arabicus and Sinus Persicus. Janssonius must have noticed this error, for he rectified it by using the term 'Sinus Persicus' again for Persian Gulf in his atlases which appeared during the 1640s and later. [81]. Note the information is taken from this extremly referenced book: [82] with over 400+ maps. The book can be found in every major university (chicago, columbia, harvard) and the author has given many talks in cartographic centers.

a) Note I have already mentioned as has the author above that in their map of Asia as well as in the texts, the authors of the previous editions exclusively used the term Persian Gulf/Persian Bay. There has not been a single text evidence found with Sinus Arabicus for Persian Gulf in any classic european text or in any classic Arabic source. And of course none exist in Arabic until the rise of pan-arabist nationalism. b) For this article any map should have the relavent textual edition. Specially since there are many editions of the same atlas, and it is important to also have the latest edition as well since previous mistakes might have been corrected, whereas the texts have not changed much from edition to edition. c) Here is another map with textual evidence from Ortelius Abraham.(again large file)[83]. Note there is a map and textual evidence besides it. I think such maps are very useful and should be used in the article based on agreements with several other users.

--alidoostzadeh 04:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

To much writings and discussions.....

Hi there:

It seems that this discussion is never ending and it's difficult to get the overall picture. As an independent person without any regards to my citizenship I should say that this problem is caused by incompetent politicians/clergies and the only way to solve/stop this dispute is democratization of ALL Mid East. Because of the overall timesprit which makes "things go slower" than usual it makes all parts climbing on each other. Try to take it little bit easier ok?! After all there is a life to live:=D —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Graduation (talk • contribs) 16:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC).

Minor changes without any POV implications

Since the article is currently protected, would some admin mind to do the following?

correct header #United Stated to #United States
add [[Category:Hydronymy]]
perhaps fix a few dates: put square brackets around them so everyone can see them in their preferred format, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Dates containing a month and a day

Thank you! Wikipeditor 18:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)