Talk:Persian Gulf naming dispute/Archive 3

Followup comment
Hi everyone. I apologise for my lack of protocol. (I am a registered user, but I've misplaced my password). I'm just writing here to justify an edit I made. The content of the Iranian position was formerly a quote from the Jerusalem Post. It is ipso facto POV to quote one party's sworn enemy as its opening statement. I replaced it with a simple, neutral, and accurate statement, citing an article from CNN. I'm not a great admirer of CNN. What makes the current citation superior to the previous one is that it is based on reporting of _actions_ taken by individuals, not by the description by a journalist of an attitude attributed to a country.

Thank you. I think my user name is Unrealisticidealism. Wait, that could be my youtube one. Arg. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.102.252.106 (talk) 22:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

You want to know what's funny?
The same people, admins etc who today say "No big deal.. This is an article for education" .. the same people, if their country had a naming dispute with another one - they would use their power to censor the article or anything similiar.

Now they come and tell us that we shouldn't care much about this.. well F* YOU... F**King thieves.

It IS PERSIAN GULF and it WILL BE PERSIAN GULF —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rux (talk • contribs) 08:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:British PG letter.gif
Image:British PG letter.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Bayrak contribution to the gallery
As an evidence for the dispute, User:Bayrak , add "Image:Arabia Agreable to Modern History" to the gallery. In the image, Herman Moll used the Gulph of Bassora instead of Persian Gulf .This cartographer use the term "Persian Gulf" in his map for the Encyclopedia Britannica : here,and here with better magnitude. I want to ask why should we use one of his maps in this dispute (with the name of "Gulph of Bassora") and neglect his other map with the name "Sinus Persicus" ?--Alborz Fallah (talk) 20:37, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

its not problem.. but both of them --Bayrak (talk) 22:38, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


 * OK ! Then let me edit the caption of that map to inform the reader that Moll used both terms.--Alborz Fallah (talk) 22:47, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Some Arabs or all Arabs?
Bayrak changed the text as all Arabs use the term Arabian Gulf. I don't think so, because at least the famous saying of deceased Jamal abd al Nasser shows contrary : من البحر الطالسی الی خلیج الفارسی ( from the Atlantic Ocean to Persian gulf ). Besides, the source that Bayrak presented is an Opinion Editorials and not a main report , thus it is not a source .--Alborz Fallah (talk) 19:59, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

arabian gulf ( the usage name in arab countries)
All arabic countries use the name of arabian gulf see www.britannica.com
 * "The term Persian Gulf (or Arabian Gulf, the name used by Arabs)"

but in this article claims that "some" arab countries use the name and others not and that no true --Bayrak (talk) 20:07, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Please provide a link to that statement. Just saying 'see Britannica ' isn't enough. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  20:13, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * and you can paste the Sentence on google --Bayrak (talk) 21:33, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It is "or Arabian Gulf, the name used by Arabs" ... does it means "all Arabs?" --Alborz Fallah (talk) 22:07, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec) Thanks for the citation. Other people want to respond to this? I will by the end of the weekend if no one else does. :)
 * Alborz points out an important failing of the statement; is the term Arabs used to express all Arabs, or some Arabs? Before someonese answers, understand that only responses with a citation will be given any weight. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  22:09, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Arabian Gulf Citation
I think that the current slo-mo edit war occurring needs to stop now, and let's get everyone here to discuss matters. removed the qualifier of some Arabs, and addeda a citation from Al-Jazeera - an editorial pieceb by two noted academics, Hassan El-Najjar and Nader Habibi. Now, if it had been a citation to some talk forum, or commentary by Joe Shmoe, it wouldn't be notable enough for inclusion either in Wikipedia or the article. However, such is not the case here. removed the added citationc, adding the edit summary: "Expressed opinions are the sole responsibility of their authors and they may not represent Al-Jazeerah's" While I often find myself in agreement with him, in this instance I disagree with the removal of the citation; if anything, I think the citation should be expanded upon in the body of the article, probably under the nomenclature section. The problem, I think, is a misapprehension by Alborz that the cited text is the official stance of Al-Jazeera, a reliable source, and that the citation can be removed because it is an opinion piece. It cannot. The authors of the piece, both published, accomplished academics, are notable in their own right, and their opinions have notable weight. Verifiability + Reliability + Notability = inclusion. Just because it might represent an opinion contrary to the popular one does not translate as a reason for exclusion. Because of this, I have revertedd the removal of the citation, and have requested in my edit summary - as well as here - that further discussion ensue, and that the citation be left in place until we have discussed the matter. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  04:10, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I removed the citation because I thought the Opinion Editorials are newspaper articles that expresses the opinions of a named writer who is usually unaffiliated with the newspaper's editorial board. These are different from editorials, which are usually unsigned and written by editorial board members.I mean usage of such articles as "sources" is something alike using blogs, that represent the writers personal point of view and not the official opinion of the newspaper.(See also Opinion journalism ) --Alborz Fallah (talk) 07:18, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If there is a guideline in reliability section of Wikipedia that allows the opinion section of the newspapers to be cited as "reliable sources", I will change my thought . Anyway , that seems to be incorrect to use an "opinion section" or "readers replay" as a reliable source in citations. --Alborz Fallah (talk) 07:30, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * And to add from Wikipedia:Reliable sources,section News organizations:"Opinion pieces are only reliable for statements as to the opinion of their authors, not for statements of fact, and should be attributed in-text"--Alborz Fallah (talk) 07:49, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

These statements by Habibi in the article may show that he does not think all Arabs use the different name : 1 - "While Arab countries have repeatedly used the name Arabian Gulf in the past four decades." ...repeatedly, and not "always". 2 - "as Iran shows more sensitivity to “Arabian Gulf” the Arab countries (specially the littoral states of Persian Gulf: Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, UAE and Qatar) will react by trying harder to promote this name."...."littoral states of Persian Gulf", not all Arabs. 3 - "Iran should also address the root cause of this issue by engaging in direct negotiation with the Arab countries that insist on changing the name of Persian Gulf. "... negotiation with the Arab countries that want to change the name, and not the Arab council (all Arabs). 4 - "Arab’s never challenged the name of Persian Gulf before 1960s. Calls for replacing 'Persian' with 'Arab' were first made by the Egyptian nationalist leader Jamal Abdul Nasser in reaction to Iran’s support for Israel." ....Basied on this, do non nationalist Arab countries , or the remote Arabian countries such as Morocco all use this new terminology ? 5 - "Iran can argue that since the name change was a reaction to Iran’s pro-Israeli position prior to the 1979 revolution, the Arabs must show their appreciation for Iran’s pro-Palestinian policies after the revolution by respecting the name of Persian Gulf." .... Again like the item # 4, is the wave of Arab nationalism so powerful that in every corner of the Arabian countries they change their previous terminology in a short time?! (Personally I don't think so ! especially considering their changing attitude toward Israel and etc!!!) --Alborz Fallah (talk) 09:48, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Our RS policy doesn't distinguish different sections within a news outlet; reliability of the parent organization is on point here, not whether the opinion section is used or sports or hard news. Likewise, verifiability, not truth is the key to inclusion. Lastly, a little research will yield that at least one of the authors of the piece are more than peripherally associated with Al-Jazeera, and both surpass the criteria for notability in their own right. Therefore, notability (and not reliability or verifiability) is more on point here, which would exclude non-notable folk's opinions from being used. As both of the authors are notable, it can be included. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  08:39, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, anyway, if -regardless of the Al-Jazeera -,we consider the authors notable enough to be included , is it sufficient to cite this single source as the representative of the whole Arab world ? ( I mean Undue weight ) ?--Alborz Fallah (talk) 09:05, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, that...no, I don't see that. Why don't you read the full text of the citation, and tell me what you see, and we'll meet up tomorrow (I'm heading off to bed) and compare notes on what we think it says, and come to an agreement. I don't think it will be an insurmuntable task. :) - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  09:09, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * OK ! I read it all . Find out the opinion of Nader Habibi is different with the Hassan El-Najjar.The first one appears to believe not all of the Arabian countries use the name, but El-Najjar is more radical and says :"Yes, Nasser and Saddam used it but it has been used by all Arab governments, political parties, and Arab intellectuals everywhere." versus Habibi:"Arab’s never challenged the name of Persian Gulf before 1960s. Calls for replacing 'Persian' with 'Arab' were first made by the Egyptian nationalist leader Jamal Abdul Nasser in reaction to Iran’s support for Israel."

What do you think about changing the first sentence like this :"Since the 1960s, the name of the body of water separating the Arabian Peninsula from Iran has been disputed by many [1] Arab authorities" .Placing 1960s in the beginning, puts more stress on new nature of Arabic nomenclature (as mentioned in the source) and using the word authorities instead of countries, covers more the other groups like political parties that has been mentioned in the article , and also changes the sense in reading the previous sentence.--Alborz Fallah (talk) 20:26, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Good morning, Alborz. I can see you have a solid grasp of the problem. The citation is a good one, and useful, too. That said, I don't think its enough to come to the end in the lead paragraph to suggest that removing the qualifier of "some" to the statement about the usage by Arabs is an accurate interpretation of the citation. At best, El-Najjar proposes that all Arabs have used the term at some point or from some point onward, but not with any consistency before Nasser's ethnic nationalism began in the 1960's. That's reading between the lines of what Najjar says, I think (whcih might be an OR evaluation, but there it is).
 * Towards that end, I suggest that we do keep the citation due to its usefulness in understanding the subject of the article. Instead of the 'some' qualifier, we use 'many' instead (supported by the anorexic 'Viewpoint of Arab states section'). As well, we can expand upon the citation into both viewpoint sections. They could use a lot of expansion, I think. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  17:41, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * After reading it in detail ,now I think it's not a bad idea to use it as citation.Also in using the word "many" instead of "some", your native language is English and your understanding of an English text is superior to mine , so if you think the text means that , there is no problem in changing it.
 * I think that is a lot closer to what we need, Alborz. I would tweak it further:


 * "The name of the body of water separating the Arabian Peninsula from Iran has been increasingly disputed by many Arab authorities [1] since the 1960s."


 * I also removed the bold text from the beginning of the statement, removed the transwiki ("body of water" to "Persian Gulf") as it expressed a little bit less than neutrality, and addressed the most part in the Overview section. What do you think? - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  20:39, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The bold text is perhaps a remnant of Wiki custom of bolding the title in the body and I think it is better not to be used, because it is a sentence and not a word . Transwiki addressing to the Persian Gulf article is also like that (e.g a remnant) and with the title there is no need of linking to it in the body.Again according to the source , maybe using the word repeatedly is better than using "increasingly" (is it increasing ? or is it only repeated?)--Alborz Fallah (talk) 21:51, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * WHat I meant by "increasingly" is that the usage of the word has increased since the advent of Nasser's pan-Arabism. It was not meant to convey a continuing growth.Most ideas grow as far as they can and either morph or stagnate. -  Arcayne   (cast a spell)  23:04, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Is there any alternative word to show quality and not quantity ? --Alborz Fallah (talk) 12:02, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

by the way not only arabs use arabian gulf but also U.N by arabic documents see this --Bayrak (talk) 08:06, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It is disingenuous to suggest that the document is an example of UN usage of "Arabian Gulf." The document is reporting news about a non-UN organization that has "Arab Gulf" as part of its name, the AGFUND, which was created by Prince Talal Bin Abdul Aziz Al Saud (What is AGFUND), who is also the President of the organization (Structure), and the member states are among the usual Arab states who mandate the name "Arabian Gulf" as part of their playful despotism. In other words, we are just looking at another case of Arab usage; the UN is simply reporting the organization's name accurately. 67.194.202.113 (talk) 08:54, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

sorry it ismy mistake i will try to find some sources because i am sure that U.N use arabian gulf in the arabic documents --Bayrak (talk) 09:00, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

ok i found this the title is

الفاو تفتتح قريبا مكتبا شبه إقليمي جديدا لدول ""الخليج العربي""" واليمن

translation: FAO opens sub-regional offices soon, new to the arabian Gulf states and Yemen

but there is something with google he will never translte arabian gulf states but he will if you put persian gulf state any way Section the Sentence and translet it Separately --Bayrak (talk) 09:39, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not clear if that should translate as [Arab [Gulf states]] or Arabian Gulf] states] . For both us, however, it may be worth bearing in mind that analyzing primary sources just leads to [[WP:NOR violation if we decide to draw conclusions from it. Even if you interpretation of this selection is correct, it could be compared to the much greater usage of "Persian Gulf" across the same website. The conclusion would be odd (and probably would not lean in your favor), but it really is not in our place to make since we are supposed to rely on reliable secondary sources for our claims. 67.194.202.113 (talk) 10:05, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

also The opening speech President of the General Assembly of the United Nations on the Millennium Development Goals in 2007 mention arabian gulf in her speech --Bayrak (talk) 09:56, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Would you expect a Bahraini diplomat to say "Persian Gulf." Again, this is just another example of a Gulf Arab using "Arabian Gulf." 67.194.202.113 (talk) 10:05, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

but she is the President of the General Assembly of the United Nations... --Bayrak (talk) 10:11, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * President of the United Nations General Assembly is rotatory position that changes every year .I don't think their speech is more different from any other person in ground of officiallty .--Alborz Fallah (talk) 12:02, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Notorious/Famous
Some - and I will be neutral here - clever little fellow keeps adding in that Osama bin Laden is a famous person. He is not. He is wanted for murder, and has assumed responsibility for the planning of mass casualty terrorist incidents. That makes him notorious. Full stop. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  16:50, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

We as Muslims consider him mujahed like crusaders in christianity but  for Neutrality I suggest to say osama bin laden without adjectives --Bayrak (talk) 17:10, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Please NEVER say that for me . As a Muslim, me and almost every Iranian consider him as a malignant murderer , so please don't talk for me . But about using the word famous , I think Arcayne is almost right in not using that word , but maybe wrong in using Notorious: In Wikipedia we are going to use neuter language. So I think it's better not to use any of the words Notorious/Famous --Alborz Fallah (talk) 18:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but do you really consider yourself asmuslim?!! any way I agree with you about not to use any of the words Notorious/Famous --Bayrak (talk) 19:05, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I lived in Egypt and Iraq and travelled extensively in Palestine, Saudi, the UAE and Jordan for many years and can say there are many Arab Moslems who call him a muharibin, a murderous thug, a dog, etc... You are allowed to have your offensive opinions bayrak, but don't claim all Muslims agree with you. I've known too many moslems killed by those inspired by his disgusting, profane example, and spoken to too many of their family members to let a remark like that pass.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:51, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

maybe you have to visit kuwait :) --Bayrak (talk) 19:05, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Don't know about Kuwait, but here(page 10 under Militant Islamic Groups and Terrorism -section 2- ) is an interesting article about Iranian's opinion about Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda.That shows the majority have a very negative view about them .--Alborz Fallah (talk) 07:01, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * What do the sources say? Are there sources that use the term "notorious" or "famous"?  If not, the sentence should be reworked to the way that the sources do describe this individual.  Adjectives are dangerous, and must be properly sourced. --Elonka 19:00, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * if we called him Notorious this will be bias --Bayrak (talk) 19:10, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

according to some of the definitions here(in particular the last ones) he is notorious.--Xashaiar (talk) 19:46, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Notoroius is about as neutral an accurate qualifier for this guy there is ("infamous" i guess could also work). Sources that describe him as notorious: CNN [] NY Daily News [] New York Times [], Washington Post []. I spent 3 minutes (maybe less) compiling this brief list.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:09, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Newspapers are not a neutral.. see this A good description for him --Bayrak (talk) 20:18, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I see the point where western publications might not be neutral (remember that they also misspelled his name - a noted form of psychological warfare), but I think that when most of the sources refer to him as notorious or infamous (I could live with the latter), and the only ones on the other side are the ones applauding the sort of evil shit he's done/advocated - trust me, we are on firm ground sticking with the majority that call him for what he is. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  20:29, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

We can not be Biased Because we are the majority...!! It is strange, I thought the westerns were open minded...!! --Bayrak (talk) 20:45, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I cannot debate this with you without becoming upset. I think others are doing a fine job or refuting the point. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  01:04, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * There are sufficiently reliable sources for the description of notorious. Therefore it certainly should not be changed to famous. We must AGF, but Bayrak's edit smacks of trolling. Unless there are other editors in favor of Bayrak's position, then the best thing to do is DNFT. On a tangent, the construction "Possibly the most notorious person who has used the term 'Islamic Gulf' recently has been" appears speculative/OR. The source for the statement seems to only corroborate the usage of the term "Islamic Gulf".--Agha Nader (talk) 05:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I missed the DFT sign. What do the rest of you think we should say? I do want to stay neutral, yet accurate and cited. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  07:07, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I feel sorry for this bias here, Wikipedia must speak neutrally and differently from Western publishers..--Bayrak (talk) 16:53, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Why don't we change it to:
 * The term "Islamic Gulf" was also used by Osama bin Laden as late as 1996 in his 12 page document effectively declaring war on the USA.
 * adding the current reference. Regards, ObserverToSee (talk) 17:36, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Excellent proposal --Bayrak (talk) 02:52, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree .--Alborz Fallah (talk) 10:01, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * My problem with the statement is that it tangents our on bin Laden's point in using it. Frankly, I am having trouble seeing how he matters at all to this article. Could someone explain that to me? - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  15:33, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Just tried to keep your prior beliefs out of the subject and everything will be fine --Bayrak (talk) 17:24, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Hello pot,meet kettle. I wasn't asking (or really needing) your opinion on my motivation. I asked a question. Maybe address it, or let others do so. Thanks in advance. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  17:29, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Why do you are always nervous? I do not understand the problem here..! It's not even worth this debate --Bayrak (talk) 18:01, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Not nervous, just not interested in dealing with your rather special views on life. Since you note it isn't worth debate, maybe repress the urge to talk to me; you will find I have little to say to you, and have less regard for your words to me. Not sure how i can be any more clear. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  18:07, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I went back and looked at the history of the article and since the apparent beginning of this article in January 2005, it has referenced bin Laden as famous. My suggestion was to make this reference neutral by removing the adjective that is the cause of a dispute.  The suggestion puts this in the context of a militant against USA referencing "Islamic Gulf" as the cited article mentions in bin Laden's effective declaration of war on the USA.  Personally, I have no objection to removing this entire reference to bin Laden, but will that improve the article by taking out Arcayne's noted (possible) tangent or will it remove an important item? ObserverToSee (talk) 18:25, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I support removing the reference all together. He is not an authority on the name of the Persian Gulf and his usage of the term Islamic Gulf is of no consequence. It really only belongs in a trivia section (which does not belong in this article).--Agha Nader (talk) 18:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is so important to know the opinion of Ben Laden in this matter at all, but including him alongside Khomayni is necessary to show the difference between the opinion of radical fundamentalists and ordinary Iranian point of view . It shows there are at least three groups in this dispute : Arab nationalists, Islamic hardliners and Iranian mainstream .So I think lets not remove OBL --Alborz Fallah (talk) 18:50, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * On this note, is "Islamic Gulf" even noteworthy enough to be included? There is no citation for this section currently to confirm that any of the Iranian officials actually used this term or that it was quickly abandoned when Iraq attacked Iran. Should this entire section be removed? If not, citations should be found for "Islamic Gulf" as associated to Iranian officials.  The same should be done for "Arabo-Persian Gulf". Citations are easily found for "The Gulf". ObserverToSee (talk) 19:54, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

The main Article here is obviously Bias.
the article did not mention anything about "other" names used for the Gulf, there are at least 7 names used for that gulf in history, which is ignored in this article and in the Persian Gulf page too, and its misleading to put Historical maps that uses Persian Gulf and totally ignore other historical maps which has Arabian Gulf in them. Wikipedia supposed to be Neutral with facts not biased information based on nationalism. Thank you. Ioj (talk) 13:14, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. I think most of us are willing to listen. Can you be troubled to present those previously-used names with citable references that meet our criteria for inclusion? (RS, V. N, etc.) So long as they meet our criteria, it might be helpful to incluse them, so long as we have a reasonable consensus. Consensus' prevents edit-warring, which this article has seen plenty of. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  18:54, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * There will be no consensus because there are no historical referrences to Persian Gulf as A.... Gulf.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 09:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The premise stated by Ioj, that "the article did not mention anything about 'other' names used for the Gulf" seems to have its own bias, given that several "other" names known to European geographers are mentioned in this article: Mare de Balsera (Sea of Basra), Mare di Mesendin (after the peninsula Ra's Musandam), Mare El Catif (after the Arabian port of Al Qatif), and the joke "Britain Sea". And it should be easy for anybody with access to relevant sources to add more historic names to this selection. David Trochos (talk) 20:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Arcayne and David Trochos for the polite replay, i used to get aggressive replays from persians whenever Arabian gulf mentioned, which shows how ultra-nationalism makes them deny and ignore facts. regarding the Other names yes David there are names mentioned in the article and i am sorry for not making myself, i meant other names as ancient names before the name Persian gulf used which are 1- Bitter Sea, 2- Lower sea, 3- Sea of the rising sun.http://www.jameswbell.com/geog001sumerianwaterways.html

regarding Historical maps having Arabian Gulf in them please see http://www.arabiangulfmaps.com/ just click on maps, then select any of the maps and it will give you details of the map. also here http://www.betzmaps.com/AS-155.html Thank you. Ioj (talk) 09:53, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Those maps have been discussed here:  It is 8 map out of hundreds and in those same books that the maps have been published, there are Persian Gulf maps.  But most importantly the text clearly state Persian Gulf in the text of the same books.  So end of OR.  Please see the discussion archives when mentioning the same site and also what scholars have stated. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 14:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * No worries, loj; I am not Iranian, but I think that discussing a stereotype of Iranians being ultra-sensitive over how they are viewed (not an uncommon stereotype at all) isn't conducive to this discussion. From the comment by Bax below (and others that might well be made), escalation is bound to happen, and that doesn't help the article at all. Please try to use only those arguments that can be supported by direct citation. Address the edits, and not the editor. Do not use the wiki to push a national/ethnic/cultural agenda, or to attack that agenda. It is unacceptable, and there is plenty of precedent for blocking folk who cannot play well with others.
 * What you need to provide, imo, is citable evidence that alternate names have been used in the pre-modern past. Since there appears to be a lot of revisionism occurring in the field of that region's history, I think some bitter differences are going to exist. Its probably why the article is called a dispute. Some parties are never going to be satisfied, and they are to be pitied for their inflexibility, not ridiculed for their inability to compromise for the good of all. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  14:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I see ultranationalism totally yours. How muuch the Panarbs hate Iranians that they spend so much money to popularize a fake historically non-existent name and publish fake mapas by forgery. Isn't it shameful? Honestly I do not see Iranians being agressive. They are certainly assertive in this case and support their claims by many sources. It shows ultra-nationalism by the Arab activists to whom referrence to a historic names evoke feelings of anger and hatred--Babakexorramdin (talk) 10:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Bax, just stop. Wikipedia is not a battleground. Keep the uncited claims out of the discussion please. Focus on the article, and not the editor. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  14:14, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

ُThanks for the Replays, Nepaheshgar sorry but iam not that familiar with the system here can you please refere the archive to me, also i am not denying nor ignoring the name Persian gulf, by saying Arabian Gulf name existed pre 1960s i am stating a fact supported by historical maps, which is clearly not mentioned in this article, even if it was just 8 maps or even less, that should'nt make it not worth mentioning specially in an article talking about naming dispute and there are historical maps as example, those maps with Arabian Gulf on them Do exist and must be aknowledged and not ignored.

Arcayne, thanks for the nice replay again, and sorry if i sounded like someone who generalize and i don't have such agendas, regarding evidence and sources i will do my best to contact that site to get references about names older than Persian Gulf name (Bitter sea ..etc), also i will try to get much more familiarized regarding the system in wikipedia, but don't you think that those maps are clear enough to show the existence of that name for this gulf pre-1960s?, and don't you think that they are worth at least mentioning here? and i provided two links of historical maps which can be used as an evident that those maps are genuine with details about their maker and their dates. many thanks again and i appreciate your understanding. Ioj (talk) 17:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * you say "i will do my best to contact that site to get references about names older than Persian Gulf name". If you can, then your name will be in history, as you are going to find a document older than 600 BC. Good luck.--Xashaiar (talk) 18:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Come on now, be nice, Xashaiar. I am sure that if such names exist, they have been documented by historians and/or archaeologists. So long as the source is reliable and not of undue weight, we can use it. I think it is best for the matter to be brought here first, so as to prevent the moronic revert-warring that has permeated this asrticle pretty much since its inception. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  18:39, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * As we have seen, maps can be manipulated. The further problem is that of synthesis - we are drawing a connection to the maps, when we should instead be citing historians making those connections. We cannot make these connections ourselves, as we are just editors of the wiki, and not the actual folk who get an opinion in the article. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  19:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Regarding older names Xashaiar as you must know there are non-iranian civilization that existed along the coast of the gulf, and they did not call it persian gulf, and they are older than 600 BC, and in one of the external links to the Persian gulf article here it says clearly " Prior to the stationing of the Aryan Iranians on the Iranian Plateau, the Assyrians named the sea in their inscriptions as the "bitter sea" and this is the oldest name that was used for the Persian Gulf.' http://www.thepersiangulf.org/information/index.html, which is clear enough to show the inaccuracy of the other external links that says its always been called persian gulf.
 * Arcayne, its not just one maker who wrote Arabian gulf, there are more than one, i am just wondering if there are any efforts in wikipedia in just acknowledging such maps exist even in article that its title Persian gulf naming dispute?, if there are any evidences that those maps are fake then they should be presented and made clear in the main article, if there are no such evidences then i think it should be treated as the maps which have Sea Elcatif and Busra Gulf which i didn't see anybody here arguing if they are fake or original.Ioj (talk) 19:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Map cannot be intrepreted without commentary from scholars. In the same maps you mentioned, in the same book, there is Persian Gulf  and furthermore the texts within these books use Persian Gulf.  Dr. Cyrus Alai who is a scholar on these maps has already mentioned what needs to be mentioned.  --Nepaheshgar (talk) 19:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. We cannot be the ones connecting alternate names. Scholars have to do that; we cite the scholars. Are you aware of scholarly work that counters this Alai fellow? - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  20:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No there isn't because that same author in his book uses Persian Gulf but more importantly uses Persian Gulf in the text. Also note there is nothing from the 19th century or 18th century.  Just several maps from 17th century that also use Persian Gulf in the text and the Atlas of it.  --Nepaheshgar (talk) 17:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

No i did not read what Dr. Cyrus Alai mentioned, it would be helpful to show us or give us a link, again i don't see how maps which clearly has Arabian gulf written on that part of them need to be interpreted, they are clear enough!, and why they are  ignored just because the book which has them has persian gulf written in them, obviously the author don't deny the older name persian gulf or he preferred to use it, which doesn't change the fact that those maps exists with more than one maker, even if some would consider those names where made by mistake, they are there and they must be acknowledged not ignored and totally denied. so i would ask kindly to consider even mentioning the existance of historical maps, and whoever is not satisfied or feel ofended can add that those maps might be a mistake done by more than one maker, its an article about naming dispute, otherwise this artice is biased, and no reason for anyone to feel ofended by me calling it that. Thank you. Ioj (talk) 03:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well you should read the link.  There is apparently 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 occasionally 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 nomenclature 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 apparently 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. (Dr. Cyrus Alai, General Maps of Persia 1477 - 1925 (Handbook of Oriental Studies: Section 1, the Near and Middle East) (Hardcover)), Brill Academic Publishers, 2005.  I would read wikipedia WP:OR and WP:synthesis.  You cannot intrepret maps or try make an invalid one valid without proper textual and scholarly references.  The same atlases were those maps were taken from have Persian Gulf maps but more importantly in the text they use Persian Gulf.  You will not find one Arabic text that uses "Arabian Gulf" before the 20th century for Persian Gulf.  Note I have about 300 names who have used Persian Gulf, even among the same author with the mistaken map.  So those maps at most were a catagraphic mistake, and you do not see them mentionedin the texts of the Atlas using the wrong name. Note you also do not have anything frm the 19th century, 18th century (the Bellin map was rectified).  Please read the archives again, that site of yours has been discussed.  A map needs corresponding textual reference.  The site you have is pure OR, for example lets look at Bellin.  The link I gave provides a map from Jacques Nicolas Bellin dated 1764 again much more recent then the date provided by the site you brought and uses Persian.  More importantly, in the same site of your, already the 1740 map of Bellin in the site already mentions Persian.--Nepaheshgar (talk) 17:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Nepaheshgar for the nice replay, based on the site you meant is this one http://www.azargoshnasp.net/PersianGulf/PersianGulfresponsetositeA.htm, then we are in agreement that these maps are not manipulated or fake they are Historical maps right? but they are in comparison to the textual evidences had errors on them along with other maps as the above site shows. based on the site if it shows all the facts then i agree to the possible error. without getting into much discussion of some contradictions from the article here and that site (which can be done later), i would simply ask why such research either by Dr.Cyrus or other analysis such as that site regarding maps with Arabian Gulf term put in the gulf between Iran and Arabia is totally ignored in the main artilce?, as i see its not OR or WP or if they were can you please explain it, the site argues that www.manpsofarabiangulf.com site is biased for not showing the rest of the maps with the name Persian Gulf and accuse it of hiding facts, i would do the same for hiding historical maps and totally ignore their existence even if they had historical errors on them which can be also explained in the main article by stating the conclosion the author of that site wrote at the bottom of his site, or a scholarly statement by Cyrus Allai. I am not denying the term Persian gulf nor stating that the gulf is historically known as Arabian Gulf based on these maps, i am simply saying there are maps which does not have persian gulf for that gulf, even if there are errors they must be acknowledged and the error explained, and since this exact artile about naming dispute such fact must not be hidden. Thank you. Ioj (talk) 16:09, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Your welcome. But there is two point.  No, they are not "historical maps", because they have no basis in history or textual refences.  It was simply a catagrophic mistakes printed in the same book that has Persian Gulf and then later on rectified.  It is no more than say having a book that has misprints and is corrected in later editions.  They are mis-prints which is why you do not see anything from the site you mentioned in the 19th or 18th century that has any other name than Persian Gulf.  Almost as if the author wanted to prove a point that it is a 18th/19th century conspiracy.  You also say: "i am simply saying there are maps which does not have persian gulf for that gulf".  No actually, in the same book, they have Persian Gulf maps and also in the textual evidence it is only Persian Gulf and nothing else.  A map cannot be independent of the book it is published in.  These were atlases, not just one map in the book.  You are assuming historical maps all have been perfect from day zero, but no, there could be cataographic mistakes, misplacement due to mistake and etc.  For example some of these maps have put Assyria in the center of Iran around Isfahan.  Where-as we know, Assyria was in Northern Iraq.  Please look at the index of names from the link I provided, all the same names used Persian Gulf but also in the text used Persian Gulf.  Note the reason I call that particular author and site biased, is that he put the 18th and 19th century maps from Bellin and others there (which are all Persian Gulf) to say Persian Gulf came at that time! and he does not mention that the same authors 16th/17th century use Persian Gulf in their maps and their corrected ditions but more imporantly they use it in the text of the Atlas within itself, nor does he have the 300+ authors (including the ones he named) mentioned.  But any intrepretation of those maps as valid is OR. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 16:49, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the Delay and thanks for the Replay, I see that even if it is considered a mistake or a misprint by many including Cyrus Allai, i don't see a reason of why not mentioning them, the assumption of them being a mistake is made later not by them in written texts by the makers ( or am i wrong?), other points is that there are names which is accepted in the main article such as Sea Elcatif, i wonder why this is not considered a mistake and denied from being mentioned in the main article?

and regarding Catagrophic mistakes, as its very clear all those historical maps are not 100% as accurate as Google Earth maps, so they are also can be considered maps with mistakes, that is including geographical sites and names.

again, if those maps do exist and they were painted pre-1960s, they are (even if considered a mistake in print by some) are worth mentioning in an article which its title Naming Dispute. I don't have much time for this discussion but hopefully will try to respond faster. Thank you. Ioj (talk) 15:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You say they are (even if considered a mistake in print by some) are worth mentioning in an article... Then explain what reliable sources are.--Xashaiar (talk) 15:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Stamps Pictures
There are two different images of iranian stamps showing the "Persian Gulf", one is enought and I proppose one of them is removed (I suggest the second one, the first one looks better IMHO). What do you think? Uirauna (talk) 13:55, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

As no one objected, I have removed the small stam. It is the same image contained in the bottom left stamp in the large stamp picture in the middle of the article. Uirauna (talk) 21:23, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Viewpoint of Arab states
The source mentioned (as I have already discussed with the user who added it) is not reliable. It is only a oppinion by an online user posted to the website of the newspaper. It is not an editorial (the opinion of the newspaper) or a news article. It is the sole oppinion of the individual (and he does not cites any reference to prove it). Also, I have not found anything that shows the author is an expert on the subject (so his oppinion can be regarded). So the source is not reliable according to WP:RS:
 * News reporting is distinct from opinion pieces. Opinion pieces are only reliable for statements as to the opinion of their authors, not for statements of fact, and should be attributed in-text. In articles about living persons, only material from high-quality news organizations should be used.

And there is no opinion on something being ilegal, it either is or it's not. So again the source is not reliable. Please answer here before making any changes as consensus was reached before you added the source again. Uirauna (talk) 18:23, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * First of all, please indent properly; everyone in this page has been using the proper protocol for doing so, so I am sure you can do the same. I've fixed it this time, but it would be nice if you were to self-police a bit more.
 * Secondly, when you add someothing that is reverted, you need to stop reverting, sit your bottom down and discuss your point of view. I can abso-friggin'-lutely guarantee that edit-warring isn't going to get your point across, and might very well get you blocked. Now, as the edit in question is contested, the article will remain as is until we have arrived at a solution. Uirauna, you are at 4 reverts thus far, and can be blocked at any time. Sina111, you are at three - one more and you will be blocked. I cannot prevent anyone else from filing complaints at WP:EW, but I am hoping that the immediate threat of being blocked is going to give folk pause enough to stop trying to manhandle the article and calmly discuss the matter. If not, I am sure we can provbide those unwilling to do so with a nice, long block. It's your choice, folks. Choose wisely. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  19:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * First sorry for my identing, I didn't see anything wrong on itemizing a section that is itemized in another article, I tought that was ok.
 * Second, let me clarify the situation: Yesterday an unsourced line was added, claiming that "Persian Gulf" was illegal. I removed it asking that it should only be added with a proper source. Latter Sina111 added it again with a source, over which we discussed and peacefully reached a consensus that while the source was not reliable (as I explain above), we should keep the phrase in the article and replace the source with a fact tag. That consensus was reached and we left the article that way. Today, without comming to the talk page other users simply reverted the changes. I undid it and asked them to look at the talk page, where I explained the situation. Instead of replying to my arguments they simply kept reverting. I know I have made 4 reverts in less than 24h, but two were made before reaching a consensus reached yeaterday, and two today after users simply ignored the comments on the changes.
 * I do not wish to take it to an edit war, I have already stoped reverting, my last changes were not about it anyway. My arguments on why the source is not reliable are explained above. Please reply to it so we can reach a consensus.
 * Third, Arcayne, I have a procedural ('newbie') question. If I post an argument or suggestion in the talk page and no one replies for some time, what should I do? Uirauna (talk) 19:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * That's a good question, Uirauna. While WP:SILENCE is a simple essay, it seems an unwritten rule about how most things go. What I do is lok at the traffic of the article; if there is a lot of traffic, the time you need to wait before inferring that there isn't dissent is short. In other, lesser-traveled articles, the wait is longer. The point is that you remember to a) not break 3RR, and b) realize that when you are reverted to make sure you head to discussion asap. Doing so means you are willing to discuss the matter, and not just try to stuff a given version of the edits down the craw of everyone else. Wikipedia works when all are involved, not just the ones who shout the loudest; it makes for a far more neutral article.
 * Maybe I am assuming the worst; I saw the article going back and forth, and edit summaries are the absolutely worst way to get a point across. Consensus may be built on silence, but it remains far more durable when most folk can agree on it. Wikipedia has protocols in place for those times when a consensus cannot be found; none of them include reverting back and forth. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  20:11, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks Arcayne, I'll start a new clean section with my argument and wait for an answer. Uirauna (talk) 02:05, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That would be awesome, Uiruana. :) Thanks. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  03:07, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Page protected
Page protected due to edit warring. Tan  &#124;   39  19:56, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Disputed Source
In Persian_Gulf_naming_dispute there is the reference to and I believe that it is not a WP:RS. The article linked to is not a news article, neither an editorial, it is, according to the article:
 * "Speaking Freely is an Asia Times Online feature that allows guest writers to have their say."

According to WP:RS:
 * "News reporting is distinct from opinion pieces. Opinion pieces are only reliable for statements as to the opinion of their authors, not for statements of fact, and should be attributed in-text."

The following problems appear: So this is why I believe the source is not reliable and thus should be removed. If no other source can be found, the phrase should be removed as well. Anyone disagrees? I'll leave this message here for some time. Thank you (sorry if I mess up the identation, I believe it is fine the way it is). Uirauna (talk) 02:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The cited article is a personal view of the author on the subject, and thus not a fact;
 * The author does not give any reference to his claim that "public use of the name "Persian Gulf" is illegal", so it is not verifiable;
 * As we are dealing with law, a personal opinion does not matter, unless you wirte "K Darbandi argues that it is illegal";
 * The newspaper holding the article does not seem to be a reliable source (we can ask the WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard if anyone disagrees with me);
 * The author does not seem to be an recognized expert on the subject (if anyone can find info on him it would be good, I could not);


 * I'll wait a few days before responding fully, but I would initially point out that a simple good search seems to mark Darbandi as someone who actually is a scientist; it would appear that the article isn;t being written by someone they yanked off the street - the writer is notable. Furthermore, I think the RS policy is being misapprehended here. The publication where the guest response appears fulfills our criteria for reliability, and of course (as you linked it), it is verifiable. It hasn't come up ye, but the argument in these sorts of topics is that the writer being cited isn't neutral. In short, our policy on neutrality applies to us editors,and not those we cite. We just have to ensure that the view being referenced doesn't give a forum to statements that are only held by a very small number of people (ie, undue weight). I'll leave that to others to discuss and decide. I just wanted to make sure we were all on the same page as far as policy goes. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  22:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reply Arcayne, I do not intend on making any edits soon. As about Darbandi, the only thing I can find on him (except pro-Iranian or anti-US articles online) is this, what shows him (actually a K Darbandi-Tehrani) as "Protein and Antibody Engineer" and a few articles on microwaves. I can´t find any credentials. Does being a Protein Engineer makes him a notable person on international or arabian politics and law?
 * Also, when discussing if something is illegal in a certain country, does the oppinion of someone matters? Shouldn´t we need a reference to a news showing the law being passed, or being enforced? Or a reference to the text of the law in an official government website? That´s what bothering me. If Einstein himself said that wearing ties is illegal in Japan, without giving any references should we write that it is illegal?
 * Since he gives no references as to prove that it is illegal in the UAE to call Persian Gulf, shouldn´t we write "Darbandi claims that calling the Arabian Gulf 'Persian Gulf' is illegal in the UAE"?
 * Anyway, I have sent an e-mail to help[at]dubai.ae, the official governemnt communication channel asking about it. But I also found something more interesting. When searching "Persian Gulf" in all .ae websites I find more than a thousand results, including:
 * Abu Dhabi´s Environment Agency
 * Abu Dhabi National Oil Company
 * Abu Dhabi Authority for Culture & Heritage
 * State of the Environment Abu Dhabi
 * Dubai Land Department (the Government land management agency)
 * all mentioning the term "Persian Gulf". I guess that proves it is not illegal, since the government itself and many others call it "Persian Gulf". What do you think? Should that clear the matter?
 * Thank you and have a nice day (or night)! Uirauna (talk) 00:01, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I presume that in phrases like "all mentioning the term 'Arabian Gulf' " you actually meant "all mentioning the 'Persian Gulf' "- which does indeed tend to refute Darbandi's dubious claim. David Trochos (talk) 19:02, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are right! Sorry for my mistake, I´ve corrected it, thank you! Uirauna (talk) 21:03, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Anyone disagrees? Uirauna (talk) 02:40, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

No one has disagreed in more than a week, so I will go ahead an remove the claim from the article. Uirauna (talk) 15:30, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Your removal of all the sentence was unacceptable. As you point out there is a bit problem with " In the United Arab Emirates (UAE), which consists of seven emirates - Abu Dhabi, Ajman, Dubai, Fujairah, Ras al-Khaimah, Sharjah and Umm al-Quwain, public use of the name "Persian Gulf" is illegal.". Removal of this is fine to me. But the rest was not discussed here.--Xashaiar (talk) 15:38, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Xashaiar, "In the United Arab Emirates (UAE), which consists of seven emirates - Abu Dhabi, Ajman, Dubai, Fujairah, Ras al-Khaimah, Sharjah and Umm al-Quwain, public use of the name "Persian Gulf" is illegal" is what is described in the source, and that source is the only one this claim is based on. If we remove that source, there is nothing to support the claim and it should be removed. As I have proven above, that claim is incorrect, since at leats three of the emirates use "Persian Gulf" in their web-sites. If you can find specific info on a certain emirate banning "Persian Gulf" we can add it to the article. Before reverting please come to the talk page and lets discuss it. Uirauna (talk) 15:48, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * (←dent) I've reverted it back to it's pre-discussion version, so that we can focus our energies on finding a clearer consensus. I am not sure mediation is needed at this point, because I am not giving up on the idea that reasoned discourse can still resolve this issue. Myself, I do not care either way; my sole issue is that an article about a dispute doesn't become one itself. This means that if you are reverted, come to discussion right away; don't revert and come here. It also means reading more than just the surface of an argument, so as to understand the implications of that argument. This was an easily avoidable dispute, and I am hoping that we can get this resolved in the peaceable way that I know both of you are exemplary at. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  15:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You see, you misrepresent what I do understand from your discussion. You say As I have proven above, that claim is incorrect. 1. You have not. Because: You have proven that "the use of the English term Persian Gulf does not seem to be illegal." I agree with this part. 2. The source we have never said "use of the English term Persian Gulf is illegal". It does claim that "use of the term Persian Gulf is illegal". Do you see my point? In fact in UAE it seems to be illegal to use the term "khalij al-farsi" which the source, unfortunately, does not specify. But I think that's the meaning. 3. I recognise that what I said is OR and that's why I did not insist. 4. Here we HAVE to cite Arabic sources. In fact the article is wrong: instead of "Most Arab countries, including members of the GCC, endorse the name "Arabian Gulf" instead of "Persian Gulf"." we better write "Most Arab countries, including members of the GCC, endorse the name "khalij al-arabi" instead of "khalij al-farsi".--Xashaiar (talk) 16:15, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I have no problem with the "endorse" claim, but I believe we should use English terms, since this is English wikipedia. Using arabic terms will lead to confusion. Also, the source simply claims that "use of the term Persian Gulf is illegal", and I have proven that this claim is not true (as he does not specifies in which language and it is written in English we should not assume he refers only to Arabic). As I said before, if a reliable source is found that shows that "use of the term Persian Gulf is illegal" in the UAE, I have no problem in keeping that phrase. My problem is with the unsourced argument. The censored maps claim does not have any references supporting it, and the altered map in the begining of the make claims which are not verifiable. So nothing at the "Viewpoint of Arab states" has sources or references. We should either add a FACT tag or remove it. Do you agree? Thank you. Uirauna (talk) 16:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Anyone? Uirauna (talk) 23:14, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Please write here what you want to have within "Viewpoints of Arab states". At the moment it is "Most Arab countries, including ...from the Persian Gulf." What will be your version (including all sources and tags)?--Xashaiar (talk) 23:28, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd like to see this proposed version as well. :) - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  17:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I actually have a few proposals:
 * Most Arab countries, including members of the GCC, endorse the name "Arabian Gulf" instead of "Persian Gulf".
 * Most Arab countries, including members of the GCC, endorse the name "Arabian Gulf" instead of "Persian Gulf". In certain GCC countries such as the United Arab Emirates maps printed with the term are censored  and historic maps containing the term "Persian Gulf" are manipulated to remove it.
 * Or we could add the tag to the whole section and remove the . My problem here is not with the information, but with the fact that it is controversial and it has no references. I propose we leave the tags for a few months and if no reliable source is added we can removed the section. What do you think? Uirauna (talk) 21:58, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Anyone? Uirauna (talk) 16:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * In my view there are so many tags in the page, and only one is enough for the whole section. We should not remove the sources even if they are misleading. --Wayiran (talk) 18:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * If sources are misleading and not truly representative of the material it supports, they should be removed. Anything else is propaganda. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  19:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Wayiran on the tags and with Arcayne on the source, so my proposal is as follows. After writing it, I actually think that using a is more apropriate, we don't need a huge tag for just a small one line sentence. What do you think? Uirauna (talk) 12:36, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * So? The first or the second? Uirauna (talk) 00:28, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The second one sounds more accurate. i vote for the second. 188.34.6.171 (talk) 19:51, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No one has disagreed in two weeks, so I'm going forward and making the change. If someone objects we can arry on the discussion. Thank you. Uirauna (talk) 20:42, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Uirauna, did we not agree to remove the disputed source, but leave the sentence intact, so that someone could find a better source for it? There is visual evidence of the UAE`s altering of the maps to remove `Persian` from the Persian Gulf, we just can`t use them as it would violate the polices on primary sources and original research. But I am sure that an editor may be able to find a secondary source to support the statement, so a fact-tag is the better option, rather than deletion. --Sina111 (talk) 08:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Sina111, as you can read in the above discussion, I have shownthat the argument on Persian Gulf being forbbiden in the UAE is false (and thus the source is as well), since governament websites in the UAE use that term. Do you agree? Also, by Template:Fact, doubtful and harmful information should be removed, instead of being left so someone can find a source to back it up. Accusing a Country of censorship of current and historical maps without any evidence is harmful, so it should be removed. Do you agree? Uirauna (talk) 13:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Ulrauna. Respectfully, Sina111, you were given boatloads of opportunity to speak your opinion on the subject, and Ulrauna went ahead after waiting for what I think was an extraordinary period of time.
 * As per your revert, we do not add uncited material to articles, cross our fingers and hope for the best. We especially avoid this in controversial articles. If infor gets added, it needs to be cited for accuracy. There isn't a lot of wiggle room in this. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  19:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You should be consistent. If the whole sentence has no source why remove half and leave the other half? That's not the way it works.--Xashaiar (talk) 22:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Nope, it isn't; I missed the additional uncited bit; thanks for pointing it out. It's been removed as well as the other uncited bits. Now, the way it actually works is that uncited statements can remain if unchallenged. As it has been challenged here, it needs to have citation or be removed. Citation tags aren't going to work in a controversial article, especially tags that have been there for a long time. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  23:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Uirauna, you have not proved anything. Claiming otherwise, is original research on your part. The current wording does not say "it's been banned" either. So this argument is moot. --Sina111 (talk) 03:01, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, Sina. Now is the time for you to describe what Ulrauna has not proved, and how what he is saying is Original Research. I urge you in the strongest possible terms to use the article discussion page and not revert again. We do not allow uncited information to remain in articles about controversial subjects. Allow me to put it another way: if I were to state "Iran theological leadership practices pedophilia ", you - and likely every other Iranian here - would scream until their lungs ruptured. Just adding a cn tag doesn't resolve the underlying issue, and allowing it to remain is unacceptable, I am removing it yet again, and it should remain out until we arrive at a consensus that reflects our policies. If you have an issue with it, please find an admin, and seek their input. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  04:04, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Still waiting, Sina111. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  20:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Original Research is original research, it's self-explanatory. We, the editors, are not allowed to conduct our own research and tests (Google searches etc) to prove or disprove a statement that is sourced. I do, however, agree that the previous source was questionable, so I'll wait till I find a new source before restoring deleted information. --Sina111 (talk) 15:12, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

UN usage
For anyone who reads Arabic, the article on ar:خلاف على اسم الخليج العربي, which unsurprisingly favours "Arabian Gulf", has some interesting material. Among it is the claim that the UN uses "Persian Gulf" in English publications, while using الخليج العربي in all Arabic documents (Arabic being one of the UN official languages, of course). This is backed up by a google search: un.org. If this observation is correct, it would absolutely need to be included here.--84.190.36.246 (talk) 10:29, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I see that information is already included in the Arabic version of this article:

http://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AE%D9%84%D8%A7%D9%81_%D8%B9%D9%84%D9%89_%D8%A7%D8%B3%D9%85_%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AE%D9%84%D9%8A%D8%AC_%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B9%D8%B1%D8%A8%D9%8A Then again, that article is also conveniently illustrated by a fair sample of the very few antique maps not to use "Sinus Persicus"; and it repeats the old falsehood that Pliny's Geography uses the term "Sinus Arabicus" in describing the location of the city of Charax, although his actual words [in the Lacus Curtius online text] are "Charaz, oppidum Persici sinus intimum". David Trochos (talk) 17:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but the bit about the UN - if correct - should by all means be mentioned not only in the Arabic Wikipedia article, but also in the English one.--84.190.35.46 (talk) 15:24, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, sort of. Unfortunately, because there does not seem to be a UN policy statement explaining the circumstances in which the Arabic or English version of "Arabian Gulf" is to be used in UN documents, it would be necessary to do some Original Research to establish that such use is indeed routine in curent documents (as opposed to old documents archived on the un.org site). The reference provided in the Arabic version of the page (I won't try putting the link in again, after the mess I made last time) is not really acceptable. Another tricky-Wiki situation, I'm afraid. David Trochos (talk) 18:45, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Map Alteration
I was unable to find a source for the claim that the picture of a map in the beggining of the article. I'll add a cn tag, ok? If anyone can come up with a RS for that, please include. Does anyone disagree? Thank you. Uirauna (talk) 13:21, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't quite understand the question, sorry. David Trochos (talk) 18:45, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The map image in the begginig of the article claims "A historic map is manipulated and altered to erase the word "Persian" from the Persian Gulf." without any citation or source confirming it is from "Sheikh Saeed Al Maktoum House, Dubai, UAE". As if was phogographed by the user who uploaded it, it should count as OR, unless a source is specified. So I am proposing to either remove it or to place a "Citation Needed" tag. I placed the tag but it was reverted, so I came to the talk page before doing any more changes. So, what do you think? Uirauna (talk) 20:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Generally speaking, photographs do not count as OR, unless they have been altered in some way. However, I note that over a year ago another user asked SeekEquilibrium, the original uploader and copyright holder, to provide more details of the circumstances in which the photo was taken, without getting any reply. I think it unlikely that SeekEquilibrium went to the trouble of retouching a poor photo without improving its artistic quality, but it would certainly be nice to have more information about, for example, where in the museum it was displayed. David Trochos (talk) 18:00, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Background of the dispute
Clearly this dispute is not just about names. Otherwise there would be no reason to get so worked up about it. If someone more knowledgeable than me could therefore add a section on background, this would help. It would have to refer to the territorial disputes between Gulf countries and Iran about adjacent territories and mineral resources as well as the difficult historical relationship between Iran and the Arab world (Iran-Iraq War, Islamisation of Iran, Iranian nationalism, Shia vs. Sunna etc.).--84.190.36.246 (talk) 10:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Anyone taking this up should start at Territorial disputes in the Persian Gulf. Earthlyreason (talk) 18:07, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Usage by Gamal Abdel Nasser ?
I happened to see a picture of a letter (dated 1968) by Gamal Abdel Nasser (the leader of Egypt and a significant player in the rise of Arab nationalism) in which he used the term "Persian Gulf" ... I taught to share it with you, if it has any worth ... check here:... Of course the letter is in Arabic language (published in an Arabic news website), but the use of the words الخلیج الفارسی is obvious (though, I'm no expert in Arabic) Smhni (talk) 09:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC) smhni

P.S: the aforementioned page claims that this letter has been published before in issue No.7523 of another Arabic newspaper, al-khaleej.

Proposed alternative names
This section is not verfiable and no reference is noted. I suggest noting or removing if there is no reference or verifiable source

After the Iranian Revolution of 1979 some people in Islamic groups suggested the use of "Islamic Gulf." The originator of the term Islamic Gulf is not known, while some people suggest that prominent figures of the early years of the Islamic republic including Ruhollah Khomeini, Mehdi Bazargan, and Sadegh Khalkhali may have supported the idea. The idea was quickly abandoned after Iran was invaded by its predominantly Arab and Muslim neighbor, Iraq.Magjir (talk) 09:05, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

The Gulf
There seems to be remarkably little mention of 'The Gulf', especially given the acceptance of 'Gulf War', here and in most places. While the term presumably originates solely in 'Persian Gulf', its prevalence is surely worth making more of, and there must be some who support its adoption as a compromise. (Sorry not to have more hard references in support.) Earthlyreason (talk) 17:43, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The article does mention that some have used that term, but as a solution to the problem it's not very useful, because the world is full of Gulfs. To Floridans, for example, "The Gulf" is just as likely to mean the Gulf of Mexico. David Trochos (talk) 18:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Add source
After the Iranian Revolution of 1979 some people in Islamic groups suggested the use of "Islamic Gulf." The originator of the term Islamic Gulf is not known, while some people suggest that prominent figures of the early years of the Islamic republic including Ruhollah Khomeini, Mehdi Bazargan, and Sadegh Khalkhali may have supported the idea.

What is the source supporting such a claim? If there is any... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.80.113.143 (talk) 21:26, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I just happened to see the above while looking for something else. Some sources:, , , , , , , , , , , , . I'm guessing that other sources exist. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 14:48, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Lack of maps showing the arabian gulf name?
Please visit arabiangulfmaps.com and you will see over 30 maps from the 1600's and onwards which show case the name arabian gulf in historic maps, please review it and would somebody like to add such maps and information to this very biased aricle. thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.1.199.54 (talk) 03:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * There is just one problem with the arabiangulfmaps site- because the complier doesn't known much about maps in general, and has been misled about the dates and attributions of some maps included on the site, viewers will not be aware that what they are actually seeing is the result of a misguided update of Mercator's atlas by Jodocus Hondius in 1606, which was then copied by numerous other 17th-century mapmakers. In essence, pretty much all the maps on that site are actually pirated versions of the same original! David Trochos (talk) 05:58, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * We are better off keeping the issue open to the subject matter experts; who are equiped with tools and knowledge and could check and investigate all those maps and claims. Until then, we can not simply take either claim as a fact.--Nizarsh (talk) 07:51, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Again with the denial, this site suppose to be a source of information regardless of emotional and personal liking, Its a fact that this article and the Persian gulf article totally denies the existance of Other names ( god forbid) to the holy name of "persian gulf", i wrote about this before but apparently the 'Persian gulf Defense gang' are still in power here, hopefully one day older names of the persian gulf such as the Bitter sea, the lower sea and the sea of the rising sun will find away to be recognized and put in a page that talking about this gulf's names. the same with names newer than persian gulf, including maps (even though some think that they are a mistype) still considered part of a hundreds year old history to be put here. people like David Trochos need to know that even mistakes (if they were) are considered part of history and deserve to put in the article and you can proudly write beside them that they are mistake maps and it was corrected or pirated or whatever makes you feel good, denying their existence or even mentioning of them is an obvious pure bias.  Thank you. Ioj (talk) 13:25, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Acknowledge Both Opinions
Kindly keep both sides of the story: The Arabic view and the Iranian view. Hence, please keep the arabic view posted in the site. You are clearly disagree with the arabic view but we need to keep it since it is a serious and merited view - we agree or not - that it not the point. But at least we show the disagreement. So as long there is a unsettled dispute, we can't take one view as a fact, discarding other viewes. Don't you agree? Thanking you.

The bellow lines are being deleted or altered, kindly keep it for Neutrality
The name of the body of water separating the Arabian Peninsula from the Iranian plateau, historically the name has changed over time 2 and currently is it known by some countries as the Persian Gulf after the land of Persia (now called Iran), has been disputed by some Arab countries since the 1960s.[1] Rivalry between Persians and Arabs, however, along with the emergence of pan-Arabism and Arab nationalism, has seen the name Arabian Gulf become predominant in most Arab countries.[2][3] Names beyond these two have also been applied to or proposed for this body of water.

In the Arabic version of this site, there is a big and very rich discussion along so many historical and scientific evidence that name of the gulf evolved over time and "Arabic Gulf" was used as late as Romanic periods. While in modern days, the term is used in UN, American, and British official resources 3.

Hence the generalization that most of the maps used the term "Persion Gulf" is not scientifically correct. There are many historical maps shows Arabic Gulf and other names 4'. Check this map as an example 5.

Viewpoint of the Arabic Countries:
For a complete investigation into the Arabic view point, please check 7. Kindly note that the english version of the above page does not match the arabic version. Hence it is better to maybe translate it directly into english or any other language.

--Nizarsh (talk) 07:48, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * To expand my comment about Pliny when I undid the Arabic Wikipedia reference for the article: contrary to what Arabic Wkipedia states, the "Natural History" (written by Pliny the Elder, not Pliny the Younger!) makes the following statement (in book 6 chapter 31 / section 138) about the location of Charax: "Charax, oppidum Persici sinus intimum". That's "Persian Gulf" not "Arabic Gulf". David Trochos (talk) 06:27, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The last time I checked, this website was a 'wiki' that may be edited by any member of the public. Why is it that there is no reference to the opinions and reasons for naming the body of water in question, the Arabian Gulf?  There are many valid arguments for this opinion (besides the Arab nationalism period that this article seems to repeat ad nauseam) and frankly I am shocked not to see any one of those arguments mentioned here.  I hope there will be a change to this soon. --Abhairi (talk) 07:52, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, Wikipedia may be edited by any member of the public. Anybody who cares to find some scholarly sources (and I think for this particular topic, that can include scholarly sources in Arabic and Persian) can summarise them and reference them here. Anybody who tries to introduce material that is demonstrably untrue (such as the claim about Pliny referred to above) should anticipate swift disappointment. David Trochos (talk) 20:27, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Validity of arabiangulfmaps.com or arabiangulfmaps.org
Wikipedian policy in citing websites and validity of sources is clear:WP:RS.Please do not change the sourced matherial.--109.162.226.93 (talk) 09:12, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

wikipedia and google
The number of wikipedia languages which refer to name of Persian gulf proves the importance of Persian gulf name rather than arabi...n gulf. The google result about name of Persian Gulf is related to out-of-sense arabian gulf claim. Alborzagros (talk) 21:19, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


 * WP does not judge if a claim is "out-of-sense", it doesn´t even tries to make a point. It presents referenced information about each side. Also, your addition is WP:OR. Please keep your POV out. Thank you. Uirauna (talk) 22:43, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


 * ok you're right. I'll try to pick the subjects which have been out of original research.Alborzagros (talk) 11:06, 20 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your understanding. Also, I apologise if I was a bit harsh in my answers, I was having a rough day. Uirauna (talk) 12:53, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Serious lack of neutrality
All the images, names and language used lean towards the Persian-argument. We should insert a map simply with the name "Gulf" to show which area is meant. Or else Wikipedia would be picking sides in the argument. Also, how come somebody seems to lobby all kinds of images of maps with "Persian" into the article..? Hidden agenda anyone? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.209.199.204 (talk) 03:05, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * What would be really useful to restore balance is some examples from pre-Nasser non-European maps showing names which are not versions of "Persian Gulf". David Trochos (talk) 06:26, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Added --Z 17:08, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Not quite what I was suggesting :-) David Trochos (talk) 06:41, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Quotations in reference list
We now have three substantial quotations in the reference list for this article, and I fear it may go the same way as the map gallery, acquiring more and more quotations as a way of point-scoring. I haven't removed any of the quotations yet, but in my view it would probably be better to have none than a random selection. Thoughts? David Trochos (talk) 06:49, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Historical Atlases of the Persian gulf Maps
this part should be added to the main article: all 253 maps of this atlas has been printed in color and 3 languages and have the corect name of Persian gulf also the maps in pages:-141-226-323-322-331-345-347-363-355 have mentioned persian gulf for the Gulf and also persian sea for the body of water of current Arabian sea and Oman gulf, such as the hours shape map of  Bunting H.S.Q34/24CM Hanover,1620. Tehran.all the maps have the name persian gulf. and many other atlases have also been published and they  have been described in the book: Documents on the Persian Gulf's name.
 * some of the most important historical atlases of the persian gulf are as:
 * 1- Atlas of The Arabian Peninsula in Old European Maps (253 maps) by Khaled Al Ankary, Institute du Monde Arabe,Paris and Tunisia University,2001
 * 2- Atlas of Historical maps of the gulf by sultan muhammad al qasimi Sharjeh 500 maps of the persian gulf.
 * 3- Atlas of Iraq in old maps. by Ahmad Sussa 39 old maps of arabic and islamic sources  all have the correct name of persian gulf(Bahre Fars)
 * 4- Kuwait in the maps of the world 1992 . contan 80 maps all have the Persian gulf name.
 * 5-Kuwait reading the historical maps, 200 maps ,1994.
 * 6-Roots of Kuwait ,15 maps ,1991.
 * 7-description of the persian gulf in the historical maps by Iranology foundation, 40 maps of Islamic scholars and 120 maps of European famous cartographers 0f 1500-1900 AD.by Dr Hassan Habibi 2007.
 * Documents on the persian gulf
 * 32 historical map of Persian gulf

.


 * The purpose of this article is NOT to show what is the "correct" name (as there is no such thing, only the most commonly used name), but to show both sides of a controversy. That way, there is no need to show dozens of maps that give no additional information. Uirauna (talk) 16:14, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Old map.JPG Nominated for Deletion
keep it .there is no copy right for that map and picture.the image is freely licensed. i say that according to a radio interview with the writer of the book and the  atlas. click :