Talk:Gulf Cooperation Council/Archive 1

Untitled
I don't think that mentioning the dispute of the name of "Persian or Arabian Gulf" should be mentioned at the top few lines in this article. Since the GCC majorly is an economical intergeration, monetary union and other economical issues should take thr priority.
 * Agree, but should not be removed. So someone with more knowledge should better describe the economic and other issues in the beginning and move the Gulf-name passage below. Also GCC is already a functioning Customs Union.


 * Agree, should be, and has been removed. It is completely irrelevant to the article. It would only make sense to include it if it were called "Cooperation Council for the Arabian Gulf States", which it is not. There is no ambiguity, and therefore no need to mention the "dispute."

Get a new map image
That image is way too small. Change it to one that's more zoomed in. 205.174.22.28 06:03, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The GCC's logo itself is a map which is more zoomed in. ;) &mdash; Nightst a  llion  (?) 13:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

merge tags

 * agree with merge of Arab gulf states, but disagree with merge of Persian Gulf states. Chris 07:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * agree with merge of Arab gulf states as it is a de facto state and regional active organization, but disagree with merge of Persian Gulf states as there is nothing like this in real world, past or future. --Ralhazzaa 11:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * agree that Arab Gulf States should be merged in to Persian Gulf States, the correct term for the region per Google and Academic titles --Rayis 00:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * This is messy as both "Arab Gulf States" and "Persian Gulf States" are common terms for roughly the same thing, except that "Arab Gulf States" more usually refers to the member countries of GCC (only formed in 1981), while "Persian Gulf States" is less precise. "Gulf States" is often (mis-)used to include Yemen. I have merged one factoid about Irans explicit exclusion into GCC from the Persian Gulf States, and there is a lot of content on Arab Gulf States that could also be merged into GCC.  In the interest of avoiding confusion, I suggest moving Persian Gulf States to Gulf States (Middle East), redirect Arab Gulf States to Gulf States (Middle East) and structure the article so it clearly mentions the GCC (first paragraph) and then broadly cover any states which are (or have been) considered a "Gulf State", giving only due weight to each (i.e. the articles coverage of Yemen, Iran and Iraq wont be as great as the coverage of the core GCC countries). John Vandenberg 02:14, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * disagree with merge of GCC, agree with merge of Arab and Persian pages. The latter two are the same geopolitical region under a disputed name. The GCC is a separate organisation that happens to CURRENTLY include all, and no more, than those States. Any change in membership, e.g. membership of Yemen or Iraq or just one state leaving, would give different definitions. There wouldn't be too much overlap as the Gulf States page can talk about the area in general terms, such as culture and geography, and the GCC page can talk about the organisation - it's not exactly a State is it. -JLogan 07:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * disagree with merge of Arab Gulf states or Persian Gulf states. GCC is a supra-national organization, whereas Arab Gulf states refers to a geo-cultural region. It would be like merging ASEAN with Southeast Asia even though they cover the same area. "Persian Gulf states" includes Iraq and Iran, which are not covered by the GCC. --Jungli 14:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Regardless of the gulf itself being called Arabian or Persian, the term "Persian Gulf States" includes Iran and Iraq, so I disagree with using it to refer to the six Arab Gulf States.--KMF 02:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * disagree that Arab Gulf States should be merged in to Persian Gulf States. The Organization has a translatable name which DOES NOT translate as "Persian gulf" but as "Arab Gulf". We don't call the article for McDonald's "The Starchy Arches" because some people want to call it that. We generally call organizations by the name they give themselves, not the name that is necessarily most lexicographically accurate.Angrynight 04:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * agree with John Vandenberg's proposal except that if Arab Gulf States is found to be a common name with which the GCC is specifically referred to, it should redirect there.  Tewfik Talk 04:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * disagree with merging GCC with anything else. It is an intergovernmental politico-economic organization, not a geographic region!  I leave the debate about Persian vs. Arab to others...  Nicolasdz 17:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * disagree this is an organistaion, Arab gulf states are a group of countries. I do think Arab gulf states should be mergesd with Persian gulf states as it is the same thing. The Honorable Kermanshahi

PGCC??
Why does the first line say that the name of the GCC is also PGCC or "Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Persian Gulf"??

THe official website of the GCC does not mention "Persian" anywhere. The only sourced references which use the term are from Iran which obviously has an issue. I think we should stick to the official name used by the official website. I will remove the PGCC references unless anyone has objections. --Jungli 14:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Proposed merge with other entries
As far as I know, the GCC is the predominant regional body, and has formulated regional legislation and jurisprudence in the area of intellecutal property law with a GCC patent office in Riyadh. In my view, merging this entry with others may lead to confusion or misinformation regarding the role of the GCC itself in regional affairs.
 * I do not agree with the proposal to merge the Gulf Co-operation Council entry with other entries for regional organisations of Arab nations. I would have thought that an entry which discussed regional organisations or co-operative bodies of Arab countries would be a better option with links to entries for regional organisations of significance.

LostTemplar 20:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Diasagree as the GCC is a fairly recent institutionf or a region with a long history, and not even a powerfull one as such, unike say the EU the states remain very much sovereign and separate
 * Agree, for merging the articles of Arab states of the Persian Gulf and Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf. The council consists of only and principally the GCC states.
 * Agree, for merging the articles of Arab states of the Persian Gulf and Persian Gulf States. The article on Persian Gulf States is very small, it makes sense to merge it altogether.
 * Agree with Arab states of the Persian Gulf, using the current name Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf. Ammar  (Talk - Don't Talk) 07:02, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Diasagree, since this is an article on an organisation, whereas the "Arab States of the Gulf" article is on a region. Merging the two makes about as much sense as merging the articles on NAFTA and North America, or SAARC and South Asia. Rashed (talk) 07:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Leave GCC alone, it is a regional integration effort, not a region per se. This is in line with many of the above comments.  Nicolasdz (talk) 09:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Repeated vandalism by 99.244.251.130
99.244.251.130 Keeps removing "Arab" from the official name of the GCC (in Arabic). Seems like the raison d'être for this IP address is to vandalize this page. The correct official name is مجلس التعاون لدول الخليج العربية and not مجلس التعاون لدول الخليج--Fjmustak (talk) 22:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Removal of 'key indicators' table
I've removed this table today as it did not provide any sources, and did not match up with either the wikipedia pages on the individual states, or with realiable sources such as the CIA factbook. when correctly sourced it would be useful, so if sources can be given it should be reinstated. Marthiemoo (talk) 12:38, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Merger proposal
Member states of the CCASG should be merged to this article, as it is just a continuation of who is in it. Bluefist (talk) 02:08, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed and Done - no reason to have separate article fore member states - ArnoldPlaton (talk) 00:19, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Merger of Peninsula Shield Force
The Peninsula Shield Force article seems a bit thin. Given that it's „the military side of the GCC” maybe it should be merged into this article (WP:MERGE)- ArnoldPlaton (talk) 00:29, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * How many times has this force been used? It has more potential for becoming a larger article than the Patent Office. Flatterworld (talk) 15:05, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The force is not as big as NATO, but it's something like a centi-NATO (100 or so times smaller?) for a small multinational group of countries. The Peninsula Shield Force's entry into Bahrain seems to be notable and the amount of notable info is likely to expand because it is one of the political or military forces involved in one of the biggest international political issues of 2011 - the Arab world uprisings - and at the moment is actively opposed by:
 * Bahraini citizens (refs: easy to find)
 * citizens in Saudi Arabia, especially in and near Qatif, in street protests (done)
 * Iraqis in street protests (refs: see 2011 Iraqi protests or try news.google.com)
 * Iranian government (refs: easy to find)
 * IMHO now is in fact a good time to look for more RS's on the topic. i've done some work there, but i've only done the 2nd of the 4 points i've listed here... Boud (talk) 20:45, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Merger of GCC Patent Office
Same as above - short article. - ArnoldPlaton (talk) 00:34, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with this merger, as it's not likely to become much larger any time soon. Flatterworld (talk) 15:04, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Done - You're right, it's not going to get any bigger - ArnoldPlaton (talk) 12:13, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Membership Section
What on earth happened here? The text says that there are six members, but Morocco has been added as a seventh (it's my understanding that they haven't even been given a formal offer to apply). Also, all the countries in the list bar UAE are called absolute monarchies, but if you check the country pages only Qatar, Oman and Saudi show up as absolute monarchies. The rest are constitutional. Konchevnik81 (talk) 19:06, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Trade bloc
Many sources state that the GCC is a trade bloc rather than a "political union" and an example of "Arab unification". For example, Talal Abu-Ghazaleh Organization's "Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) Patent Office":

Quote: Under WTO Rules, member states of such regional trade blocs as NAFTA, EU and GCC, are permitted to grant each other certain trade privileges as most-favoured nations, without being required to grant similar privileges to all WTO members.

Insomniaingest 19:20, 16 August 2013 (UTC)


 * This has nothing to do with my "opinion" and everything to do with accurately representing what RS say. Have you looked at the sources cited in the article yet?
 * Wall Street Journal: "GCC, an economic and political union"
 * New York Times: "The council, an economic and political union of Arab countries"
 * You suggestion that these two sources aren't reputable is really quite laughable. I'm not disputing that the GCC functions as a trade bloc (as your sources support), but it is clearly more than just a trade bloc as it deals with more than just trade issues.  There is a political element to the GCC; trade blocs don't have armies. As a compromise, how about something along the lines of:
 * "The Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf (CCASG; مجلس التعاون لدول الخليج العربية ), also known as the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC; مجلس التعاون الخليجي), is a political and economic union, featuring a trade bloc, of Arabian states bordering the Persian Gulf, namely Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates."
 * TDL (talk) 19:40, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The GCC is most generally regarded as a trade bloc rather than a "political union" and an example of "Arab unification" and "continental unification" like you're claiming. The GCC is rarely identified as a political union because it simply doesn't serve as one. Can you provide more reputable sources that identify the GCC as an actual "political union" and an example of "Arab unification" and "continental union" like you're claiming? The GCC don't posses a united security doctrine and the "unified military leadership" talk has been on offer for over thirty years:
 * Insomniaingest 19:59, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The sources in the article are reputable. What would be more reputable? None of your sources say it isn't a political/economic union. Your WTO source even mentions it in the same breath as the EU, which as far as unions go, it pretty advanced. As for the compromise, it seems redundant. An economic union is likely expected to include favourable trading, no need to specify one particular part of it. CMD (talk) 20:09, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, where did I claim it was a "continental union"? As CMD said, the sources in the article are really quite reputable.  I'm really not sure what you issue with them is.  And yes, I agree with you CMD, the compromise is redundant and I'm not a fan.  I was just trying to bridge the divide.  TDL (talk) 20:17, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I never claimed that the sources in the article aren't reputable. No other reputable sources aside from those two identify the GCC as a political union. A union is unlikely, since two and a half years later, still no agreement. If you want to know more about the lack of development regarding the GCC's proposals: Insomniaingest 20:35, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I never claimed that the sources aren't reputable. I didn't even realize the sources for political union existed until you mentioned it here. You reverted the edits removing the "Arab unification" and/or "continental union" category tags. It is misleading to claim that the GCC is a political union since hardly any other reputable sources identify the GCC as a political union. Can you provide more reputable sources that explicitly identify the GCC as an actual political union? The GCC is no where near that, as mentioned here: Saudi Arabia's 2011 proposal for political unification remains nothing more than a proposal. Proposals are ideas, why are you viewing proposals as matters of fact? As of August 16 2013, the GCC is not a political union and Saudi Arabia's December 2011 proposal for political unification is still a proposal two years later. Insomniaingest 20:35, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * No, you are either confused or making a Straw man argument. No one (including the NYT and WSJ) are discussing the proposals to deepen political integration in the GCC.  We are discussing the present situation.  Things like the GCC Patent Office and Peninsula Shield Force (which already exit) clearly go beyond what the term "trade bloc" means as they have nothing to do with trade.  Can you explain what the Peninsula Shield Force has to do with trade?  It is misleading to describe the GCC as a "trade bloc" when there are aspects of the GCC that have nothing to do with trade.  You've obviously got a strong opinion that these features aren't enough to satisfy your definition of a "political union", however we need to follow the sources. If you don't think "political and economic union" is the proper term, I'm open to alternatives.  Perhaps you can propose something that accurately encompasses what the GCC actually is?
 * "No other reputable sources aside from those two identify the GCC as a political union." - That's the same story you sold before you realized there were two sources. If I produce 2 more sources, you'll just say "yes, but there are only four reputable sources..".  But just for fun, a quick Google Books search turned up:
 * "Gulf Cooperation Council - economic and political union of states bordering the Arab Gulf"
 * "The GCC stands for Gulf Cooperation Council and is a political union that includes ...."
 * Yes, I removed the "Arab unification" category. I don't see how you can dispute that the GCC is a form of "Arab unification" even if you think that it's only "trade unification".  TDL (talk) 23:38, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

"No other reputable sources aside from those two identify the GCC as a political union." - That's the same story you sold before you realized there were two sources. 'If I produce 2 more sources, you'll just say "yes, but there are only four'' reputable sources..". But just for fun, a quick Google Books search turned up:''':*"Gulf Cooperation Council - economic and political union of states bordering the Arab Gulf" The links you posted don't mention the GCC or any form of political union. A political union is defined as: "a type of state which is composed of or created out of smaller states. Unlike a personal union, the individual states share a central government and the union is recognized internationally as a single political entity. A political union may also be called a legislative union or state union."
 * "The GCC stands for Gulf Cooperation Council and is a political union that includes ...."

The state of Kuwait is a sovereign state. You simply can't claim that these countries are politically united because these countries are all independent states rather than a single political entity regardless of any sources you can find on the internet. Can we have an admin's view on this? Insomniaingest 20:35, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * This is a content dispute and no admin action is necessary (unless someone starts edit-warring, using personal attacks.. etc). The next step you might want to take is asking for a third opinion. Then if you still can't resolve it, you can take it to dispute resolution noticeboard. I'm not giving my opinion, because I conciser myself involved in another dispute with one party.  Mohamed CJ   (talk)  12:45, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * "The links you posted don't mention the GCC or any form of political union." - Um, did you look at the text I quoted from the sources? Both clearly define the GCC as a political union.  Please slow down and read my comments more carefully.
 * I disagree with your definition of a political union, it is far too restrictive. And as you've just copied this from wikipedia, you'll need a reliable source to back this up.  (Wikipedia is not a reliable source.)
 * "You simply cannot claim that these countries are politically united because these countries are all independent states rather than a single political entity" - So are you saying the the European Union isn't a political union because France is a sovereign state? That's one way of viewing to world, but that's not supported by RS.
 * "... regardless of any sources you can find on the internet"- So what you are saying is that your opinion is that it isn't a political union, no matter what the sources say?  That's not how wikipedia works.  We must report what sources say, not what our opinions are.
 * @Mohamed: A WP:3O is not an option here, as CMD has already expressed support for the current revision. TDL (talk) 19:14, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

The majority of news organizations and other info sources don't identify the GCC as a political union and the "googlebooks" links don't lead to anything related (?). The GCC's current state is no where near the European Union, as noted here: The GCC is a weak and loose organization and proposals remain proposals 30 years later. The European Union isn't identified as a political union by the The European Council on Foreign Relations (ecfr.eu's "What is a political union?").

The 2012 General Report on the Activities of the European Union by http://europa.eu/" explicitly says that the European Union is "working towards a political union". Europa.eu is the official European Union website. The Business Dictionary define a political union as "a larger and consolidated group of nations or states that share a joint government that is internationally acknowledged." Pearson Education dictionary defines a political union as "an economic union in which there is full economic integration, unification of economic policies, and a single government." Insomniaingest 21:33, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The googlebooks links lead to books which define the GCC as a "political union", which seems rather relevant to this discussion. I've quoted the definitions directly above.  You can search the book for them yourself if you don't believe me and would like visual confirmation.
 * I never said the GCC was equivalent to the EU. I certainly agree that it is not.  However, your argument was that the GCC can't be a "political union" because it is made up of sovereign states.  The EU is a perfect example of a political union that IS made up of sovereign states, hence proving that the entire premise of your argument was flawed.
 * Did you read the sources you've posted? For instance a search of the European Council report does not turn up the phrase ("working towards a political union") you've quoted (page number?).  Instead it states: "how the EU might move towards a deeper political union", "it will give renewed impetus to the debate on closer political union", "coupled with a deeper political union".  The position of the EU seems to be that it is already a political union, but of course it could always become a deeper political union.
 * Your definitions of "political union" are all very oversimplistic. As De Grauwe, Paul. "Some thoughts on monetary and political union." The Future of EMU, Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan http://cje. oxfordjournals. org (2009): 9-29 says, there is " a lack of clarity about the meaning of political union", "There are many dimensions and many gradations of political union", "there is already a significant degree of political union within the EU. "
 * Again, I'm open to alternatives to "political union" if you don't like this term. But surely you can accept that "trade bloc" doesn't accurately encompass what the GCC really is as it deals with aspects that go well beyond trade liberalization.  Do you have any alternative suggestions?  TDL (talk) 22:07, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Links
>> Saudi, UAE, Bahrain withdraw Qatar envoys[http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2014/03/can-kuwait-save-gcc-201436105011872371.html >> Can Kuwait save the GCC? ]Lihaas (talk) 16:43, 5 March 2014 (UTC)).

Weak Intro
Is it really that significant to inclue the Bahraini uprising article into the Intro as well as the potential membership of other members while leaving out important details such as its union status and its current geopolitical power? not even a brief history is included.. The intro needs to be rewritten Seektrue (talk) 07:06, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Currency Union
An update on the currency union for possible future use. It deals with the IMF playing a role. - Rudykog 09:43, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * It would be interesting to see an article about the currency. Since many of the GCC countries are wealthy oil-based economies, it seems plausible that the GCC Khaleeji(?) would be quite a major currency. 惑乱 分からん 13:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

It is wrong to change and deny the actual name of the authentic geograghical waters which has been called "Persian gulf" for the past 2000 years.

GCC's future unified currency, which is carried on with 4 member states Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain and Qatar, should not be referred to as "Khaleeji". It has not been called that by any GCC official ever. GCC unified currency or GCC common currency is more neutral than "GCC Khaleeji". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.208.139.159 (talk) 22:00, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Arabian Not Arab
It is 'Arabian {Peninsula} Gulf States'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.90.105.161 (talk) 09:35, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Agree, since Arab can be any Arabic speaking country. Arabian in this case refers to the geographic area of the countries which is the Arabian Peninsula. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.208.139.159 (talk) 22:05, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Iraq
The text said "Iraq's membership in the GCC institutions was discontinued after the invasion of Kuwait" and gave correct source (the GCC webpage itself). But that sounded as if Iraq had been a member of the GCC. I can't found any evidence of that in the GCC web, it's certainly not mentioned in the founding document (unless doctored later...) and in the documents speaking about the Iraq invasion, there is no mention of a member country attacking another member country. So I imagine that Iraq just cooperated in some points with the Media section of the GCC, without being ever a member. Therefore I put "Iraq's membership in certain GCC institutions". But if anybody can find out if Iraq was temporarily admitted as a member to the GCC as such, that would be an important information! Thanks --Ilyacadiz (talk) 16:44, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree, It was only an associate member in certain fields of cooperation along with Yemen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.208.139.159 (talk) 22:04, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

True, Iraq has never been member in the GCC. I removed the text. the cited references are not related.

Requested move 27 February 2015

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: page moved by. -- Calidum 04:09, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf → Gulf Cooperation Council – Per WP:COMMON, and pursuant to the precedent set by Arab League and NATO, among other articles. "Gulf Cooperation Council" is far more frequently used in media, academic, and even many governmental sources. Googling "Gulf Cooperation Council" yields 612k hits, compared to 119k for "Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf". The formal title can still be used in the lede and infobox per precedent. - Kudzu1 (talk) 01:37, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Support per COMMONNAME. Britannica uses this title as well. TDL (talk) 02:47, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Strong Support. per nom, per COMMONNAME. GCC and Gulf Cooperation Council are rather common even in formal use. –  nafSadh did say 21:43, 27 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Support – Much more WP:CONCISE, much more common, and also more natural. The proposed title meets all of our criteria better than the present title. RGloucester  — ☎ 21:56, 7 March 2015 (UTC)


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

Qatar
The article is inconsistent about whether Qatar is or is not a member state. First we're told "The Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf ... is a regional intergovernmental political and economic union consisting of all Arab states of the Persian Gulf, except for Iraq and Qatar" and that there are five member states. Yet in the "member states" section Qatar is listed as one of the six member states. The Wikipedia article "LGBT rights in Qatar" also includes the sentence "In September 2013, it was announced that all Gulf Cooperative Countries had agreed to discuss a proposal to establish some form of, yet unknown, testing in order to ban gay foreigners from entering any of the countries". This can only be of relevance to LGBT rights in Qatar if Qatar is indeed a member of the GCC.188.230.240.75 (talk) 11:52, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://studies.aljazeera.net/en/dossiers/2015/03/201533172623652531.html. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:41, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Name
"Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf" is apparently the official translation used by the organisation itself. However, the original Arabic name translates as Cooperation Council of the States of the Arabian Gulf. The adjective refers to the Gulf in the original, not to the states. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.74.105.217 (talk) 23:47, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

lost in translate
التعاون لدوله خلیج عربیه means cooperation for arabian gulf governments5.75.117.132 (talk) 08:27, 25 March 2019 (UTC)


 * What should it be?--SharabSalam (talk) 10:28, 25 March 2019 (UTC)


 * The GCC official website uses "مجلس التعاون لدول الخليج العربية" (the current Arabic name in the lede) and so does the Bahrain Ministry of Foreign Affairs which also lists the alternate name as "مجلس التعاون الخليجي" (the shortened version of "Gulf Cooperation Council", also accurately reflected in the lede). So the Arabic translations we currently have are correct. Elspamo4 (talk) 23:06, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Saudi-Emirati Coordination Council
I would like to suggest given the current situation that perhaps an additional sub-section should be added around the Saudi-Emirati Coordination Council and an additional alignment should be made to the euler diagram: the Saudi-Emirati Coordination Council has been quite active over the past year and would be worthwhile to denote. Frank0051 (talk) 08:59, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) https://www.thenational.ae/uae/government/saudi-emirati-co-ordination-council-all-you-need-to-know-1.737773
 * 2) https://gulfnews.com/business/saudi-emirati-coordination-council-announces-7-joint-initiatives-1.61540278
 * 3) https://www.khaleejtimes.com/region/saudi-arabia/uae-saudi-announce-strategic-partnership-in-44-projects

yemen?
"is a regional intergovernmental political and economic union consisting of all Arab states of the Persian Gulf except Iraq, namely:" and what about Yemen? shouldn't this be "except Iraq and Yemen"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oliversisson (talk • contribs) 09:27, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yemen doesn't have a border with the Persian gulf.--SharabSalam (talk) 10:35, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Resources for the correct name of the Persian Gulf Cooperation Council

 * https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227624118_The_interaction_of_the_Persian_Gulf_cooperation_council_GCC_with_Iran_for_a_new_security_arrangement_in_the_Persian_Gulf
 * https://www.researchgate.net/publication/342145396_A_Comparative_Study_of_Regionalism_in_ASEAN_and_the_Persian_Gulf_Cooperation_Council
 * https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333583115_The_Persian_Gulf_Geopolitics_and_the_Convergence_of_the_United_States_and_the_Gulf_Council_based_on_the_Approach_of_Aggressive_Realism — Preceding unsigned comment added by مصطفی کوهستانی (talk • contribs) 12:23, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Three researchgate papers from Iranian universities do not make either a wp:commonname or an official name. CMD (talk) 12:29, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

The original name of the Persian Gulf Cooperation Council
The correct name may be in Arabic, but in English the correct name is the Persian Gulf Cooperation Council. refer to Persian Gulf and Persian Gulf naming dispute. Denisarona — Preceding unsigned comment added by مصطفی کوهستانی (talk • contribs) 15:04, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * See . No Persian in the name. TDL (talk) 16:35, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Just answer this question, which "Gulf" is mentioned in the phrase "Gulf Cooperation Council"? مصطفی کوهستانی
 * Hi, this article title refers to the organization official name as stated in its official charter. We already have an article on the naming dispute over the body of water but this is irrelevant to this political organization official name. Even if, for example, the organization was called the 'Galactic Republics of Arabia' the article would still refer to it as that, it doesn't matter if it's not a galactic superpower nor the fact that those monarchies are not republics, or your personal opinion on the organization. I hope this silly example makes this clear :p A Contemporary Nomad (talk) 12:09, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Clean up the see also section
If someone can be kind enough to cleanup the 'see also' section: Aim for 4-8 links, with "most relevant" articles to be linked. I might be able to clean it up later on but currently my agenda is full (working on three articles of a related topic). Thanks — &thinsp;♾️ Contemporary Nomad  (💬 Talk) 16:07, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: Please don’t “just delete” articles from the list. Trim off the list by least relevance and if the linked article is poorly written (lacks content). Preferably by editors working on this topic/ME-Arab world politics topics. — &thinsp;♾️ Contemporary Nomad  (💬 Talk) 16:19, 19 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Done. — &thinsp;♾️ Contemporary Nomad  (💬 Talk) 19:19, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:37, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * GCC heads of states meeting 1981.jpg

Date Template
Oh ok thanks, I was trying to figure out how that worked. LAteeno (talk) 15:31, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Logo Colours?
Can anyone substantiate the claim that "On the edge of the hexagon are colors representing the flags of the six-member countries"; blue and brown are not colours on any of the member states flags! Shmoley (talk) 03:23, 28 February 2023 (UTC)