Talk:Persian Gulf naming dispute/Archive 4

Huge Mess
This article is a complete low-quality mess. Too many images and text trying to prove one name is the "correct" or "real" name, when there is no such thing. Different cultures HAVE different names for the same geographical feature. IMHO it isn't even a dispute, since absolutely nothing can actually come out of it. It is more of a controversy. I propose a few changes: What do you think? Uirauna (talk) 17:02, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Change name to Persian Gulf naming controversy
 * Remove large number of useless pictures
 * Focus first on the controversy between Iran and Arab countries and how it developed
 * Mention other names used by other countries and throughout history
 * Mention the fact that despite "Persian Gulf" is the most commonly used name in English and several other languages, there is no such thing as a universal and absolute name for a geographical body


 * I've created a draft new version at Talk:Persian_Gulf_naming_dispute/New_version, being as straightforward and pov-neutral as possible, removing dead links, unsourced information, and insignificant information such as google bomb, sports events, etc. What do you think? Uirauna (talk) 18:02, 6 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I just read the current version of the article. I believe it's fine.
 * However, There could be some minor changes per discussion and consensus. In fact 08:17, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * BY WP standards there are way too many pictures that add nothing to the article. We don't need a gallery showing all possible maps with Persian Gulf written on them. Just a couple is enough. Also, a google bomb is not relevant at all, as well as sports events. Uirauna (talk) 13:03, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Although the basic thesis of the page is correct, the page as a whole is constructed as an argumentative polemic. It sets out to prove a point and does not come across as a balanced encyclopedia article should. At least half the maps should be removed, and some of the others replaced by examples of maps showing other names. The David Rumsey map collection has well over 100 relevant maps to look at;linking to it would be more useful (and even more convincing) than showing a lot of maps selected on unspecified criteria. Zerotalk 14:14, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Here is "Gulf of Bassora". Zerotalk 14:28, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for joining the discussion Zero. I'm drafting a new version here: Talk:Persian_Gulf_naming_dispute/New_version. Could you take a look and comment or improve it? Uirauna (talk) 19:29, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to agree with Zero that illustrations should focus on the "exceptions to the rule". I'd also like to reintroduce the problematic Hondius world atlases of 1606-7 and their derivative works somehow (the subject of previous huge arguments on this talk page), but having spent a while browsing, I'm still not sure of the best way to do it. David Trochos (talk) 10:54, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 'Focus on the "exceptions to the rule"' is obvious violation WP:UNDUE I think. --Z 18:57, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe- the aim is not to represent minority viewpoints on the topic, but to illustrate the variety of names for this body of water which have appeared on maps. David Trochos (talk) 06:13, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Too many maps - that's what commons is for. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:34, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

NPOV
I don't think this article is within Wikipedia NPOV policy. There is a section about viewpoint of Iran, another section about viewpoint of third parties, but no viewpoint of Arabs? A common justification for this name from their POV would be that most of those who live around it are Arabs, even those in the Iranian part.  Mohamed CJ  (talk)  10:19, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * If that justification is common, one would expect that reliable sources reporting that would be easily available. An addition to this article asserting that and citing those sources would (my guess) likely be reasonable, considering WP:DUE. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:34, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The given justification above (those who live around Persian Gulf are Arab, hence the other name) is not sourced and even if sourced, is unjustifiable. The name dispute started in 1960's, before that all Arab countries accepted the international name of Persian Gulf like every other country in the world (see e.g. the map published in Saudi Arabia in 1953). Has the population around the Persian Gulf suddenly changed since 1960's? Of course not. Also, what is the source for the claim that those in the Iranian side of the Persian Gulf are also Arab? Khuzestan does have Arab inhabitants but they are not majority and not everyone in Khuzestan is Arab, even those Arabs are Iranian Arab. There are also other coastal provinces of Iran who are not Arab. If we accept this reasoning that inhabitants' language or ethnicity determines the name of international geographical places, then Atlantic Ocean must be renamed to English Ocean or African Ocean, depending on the claimant's location. BrokenMirror2 (talk) 14:39, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm just suggesting to include the justification for the Arabs POV in an independent section as it is done with the other viewpoints. That was just an example I saw in the Arabic version of the article. I will search for reliable sources and add them when I get time.  Mohamed CJ  (talk)  17:00, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Makes sense. If there's sources, a new section should be fine. CMD (talk) 17:04, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I found some sources presenting the Arabs viewpoint and also some interesting facts, , , . In Arabic: , , . I don't completely trust my NPOV in this topic, so I'd like someone to start this section then I'll see what I can add.  Mohamed CJ  (talk)  10:14, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Since the section explicitly is meant to present Arab opinion, there's less scope for POV issues than normal. From the above English sources, just the France24 and Aljazeera should be used. The others seem less reliable. CMD (talk) 12:53, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Alright then I'll start from now. Btw, the second English source was mentioned in France 24 (which is why I though it was ok) and the last one is a translation of a historical book by Pliny the Younger, Page 81.  Mohamed CJ  (talk)  19:13, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm also thinking about adding a historical map (from 1667) available in France 24 article which use the term "Arabian bosom". This can add some balance to images.  Mohamed CJ  (talk)  19:29, 11 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I've used most of the sources I could find to present the Arabian viewpoint in the newly created section. Feel free to edit or modify it.  Mohamed CJ  (talk)  21:52, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Images
Currently, there are 11 images in the article showing "Persian Gulf" as the name of the body of water and 19 images in the gallery for the same purpose. There are zero images showing "Arabian Gulf", zero images showing it as "Gulf" and zero images showing it without name. This should be fixed.

Per WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE, I suggest that to add balance, we need to make it three or four images showing the Persian Gulf. I'd choose, , and. For the Arabian Gulf, I think one is enough, I'd use the image found in this article. I also think we should use one of alternatives used by some third parties such as "The Gulf", "Arabo-Persian Gulf" and the no name. And one of the alternative historical names should be present as well.

Per WP:Gallery, I think the gallery should be removed, or at least most of pictures need to go, because many of them are similar or repetitive images that do not add to the reader's understanding of the subject or have encyclopedic value.  Mohamed CJ  (talk)  21:52, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It'd be good to keep a UN one as well, but you're right, the current image number is excessive, and the gallery should go. They should all be appropriately categorised, but definitely don't need to be shown on this page. A map using Arabian Gulf would be useful, but the one on that website is watermarked and edited. I'm also unsure of whether it is okay in copyright to take off the France24 site. CMD (talk) 22:37, 11 June 2012 (UTC)


 * After some searching in the commons and going through tens of maps which said Persian Gulf (lol), I was finally able to find the three following images:


 * 1) A French map, similar to that in France 24 article, it says "Seut Arabique".
 * 2) A US map saying "Gulph of Bassora".
 * 3) A map in an UAE museum with "Persian" removed, so it now says "Gulf" - I'm not sure if it's alright to include it, but this looks interesting to me .  Mohamed CJ  (talk)  13:26, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I've removed most images and the galler, and added two images. I think the image at top (this) should be changed to an older map, since there is a map from 17th century using the term "Arabic" and no older Persian map currently. Also, captions might need to be modified?  Mohamed CJ  (talk)  14:02, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I like the French Seut Arabique map. What do you think of using File:Persian-gulf-dubai-mus.JPG as the lead image? It actually shows a result of the dispute (albeit quite a sad one). CMD (talk) 14:06, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree (I laughed at first when reading "It actually shows a result of the dispute").  Mohamed CJ  (talk)  14:27, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, as the aim of the dispute is to change the name on maps, so I see no better example! I shifted all maps previously on this page into commons:Category:Maps of the Persian Gulf, in case anyone wants to sieve through them again. CMD (talk) 14:34, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


 * It would be better if we can find one of those maps using terms like "The Gulf" or the "Arabo-Persian Gulf" or no name, since parties using them usually claim they are trying to be neutral, but since none are available, we should put the one you suggested.  Mohamed CJ  (talk)  14:44, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Really? Is this NPOV?
It seems that in the name of "neutrality" and NPOV, you are removing all evidences that heavily supports "Persian Gulf", and trying to replace and enforce the "Arabian" Gulf, going so far as even suggesting to change the lead image to the one desecrated by UAE museum! Interesting that one user explicitly has "activist" in his/her id and mocks and laughs at "Persian Gulf" then requests and claims "neutrality"!

Also, sites lilke www.PersianOrArabianGulf.com is not a reliable source for supporting the dispute, even if it shows "Persian Gulf" has higher percentage of vote. It's not an official site and not everyone votes in such "advertisement-supported" websites. BrokenMirror2 (talk) 15:17, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Umm. This is the second time in two days I get attacked due to my username. Let me quote myself here "despite what my name can suggest, I actually try hard to keep a neutral point of view and avoid promoting my own view over the improvement of Wikipedia".
 * I would like to remind you to keep a cool head, stay civil and assume good faith. I did not remove any text, rather I removed images. There were 11 images in the article body and 19 images in the gallery showing just one name, while in text, there were multiple names. I cited the policy and suggested to fix this situation. I also did not mock or laugh at Persian Gulf, I laughed at the fact that almost all images were showing the term Persian Gulf.
 * You are welcome to share your opinion as you did in the second paragraph. This is what helps build an article and to reach consensus.  Mohamed CJ  (talk)  15:35, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

You mentioned Pliny called it "Arabian Gulf", but this is either misunderstanding or distorting the historical sources, as that 'Arabian Gulf' was used for the Red Sea. This is also mentioned by a Saudi scholar in the website of France24 you mentioned above: Abdel Khaleq Al-Janabi is a Saudi history scholar.

From a scientific and historical point of view, it has been called the Persian Gulf since Alexander the Great. [It has also had other names, such as the 'sea of the south' and the 'sea of Bassora']. It's this name that has been retained by history books and Arab historians, like Ibn Khaldoun and Ibn al-Athir. It's also in treaties signed between the governors of the gulf and the British who dominated the region from the beginning of the 20th century.

Things didn't change until Nasser came to power and the rise of Arab nationalism. The Arabs then began to use the name "Arabian Gulf" - even though in the beginning of Nasser's mandate, a popular slogan went: One sole nation from the Atlantic Ocean to the Persian Gulf.

It's true that the name of this gulf still stirs a lively argument. But, as a history scholar, I can't support nationalistic slogans. To say, like some Arabs, that the Romans already called it the 'Arabian Gulf' is without foundation. Only the Greek historian Strabon, in the 1st century AD, had used the term 'Arabian Gulf' while talking about the strip of water that we today call the the Red Sea.

This also supports my argument above that there is no historical justification for 'Arabian Gulf' and this 'dispute' has roots in 1960's post-Nasser Arab nationalism. Arabs prefer to ignore all sources from the Islamic period (even though those are in Arabic and easier to understand) up until 1960's and the maps published in their own countries (like the map published in Saudi), and instead rely on the misunderstanding/distortion of rare cases in ancient Roman/Greek sources! I don't want to make this a forum, rather I want to keep the article more balanced and scientific. BrokenMirror2 (talk) 18:25, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I partially agree with your last explanation. I'm glad I didn't use that source (I took it from the Arabic version of the article, but upon reading it, I though it could be fake because Red Sea had the same name - I didn't bother going further than that, so thanks for the explanation). This doesn't mean we shouldn't include the Arabs viewpoint. After all, Wikipedia is about veracity and not the truth. If there are sources which say Arabs "rely on the misunderstanding/distortion of rare cases in ancient Roman/Greek sources" for justifying the name, we can add that too. About the voting site, as I have explained above, I only used it because it was mentioned in the France 24 article.


 * That quotation is for a Saudi? Wow. I skipped it after reading the first line of it, sorry for that. It should definitely be there in the article.  Mohamed CJ  (talk)  19:08, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I've included the Saudi scholar opinion in "Arabs viewpoint" section. I've also added a quote box. The section became a bit long and might need some summarizing.  Mohamed CJ  (talk)  20:10, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with User:BrokenMirror2. This article is no more neutral, based on the reasons mentioned above. In fact 06:46, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I added some essential maps from different centuries to the article in the appropriate sections. I also removed the unreliable poll. In fact 07:37, 13 June 2012 (UTC)


 * You also removed the map showing "Gulph of Bassora". Also the images aren't organised currently; the map showing "Sein Arabique" is no more in the "Arab viewpoint" section and the quotebox is totally out of section as well. Before this edit, there were three maps showing "Persian Gulf" as well as three other images supporting the naming, one image for Arabian Gulf and one for Gulf of Basra. So you though removing Gulf of Basra image and adding four maps for Persian gulf would shift the article to neutral?  Mohamed CJ  (talk)  09:15, 13 June 2012 (UTC)


 * No, I replaced it with a map which shows both names. The second map which you mentioned is exactly the Arab viewpoint, as it is used in Arabic Wikipedia. Finally, please kindly remember WP:WEIGHT. In fact 10:05, 13 June 2012 (UTC)


 * What Mohamed CJ said was that "the map showing "Sein Arabique" is no more in the "Arab viewpoint" section and the quotebox is totally out of section as well" (emphasis mine). They are right, there's now an awkwardly floating quotebox from a Saudi scholar in the UN section (at least on my screen, it'll be floating in different sections for different monitor widths). A sleuth of images showing "Persian Gulf" doesn't somehow add more weight or make the argument look more convincing, it just makes the argument look slightly desperate. CMD (talk) 11:21, 13 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The correct policy for using images in this case is WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE:

Articles that use more than one image should present a variety of material near relevant text. If the article is about a general subject for which a large number of good quality images are available, (e.g., Running), editors are encouraged to seek a reasonable level of variety in the age, gender, and race of any people depicted. Adding multiple images with very similar content is less useful. For example, three formal portraits of a general wearing his military uniform may be excessive; substituting two of the portraits with a map of a battle and a picture of its aftermath may provide more information to readers. You should always be watchful not to overwhelm an article with images by adding more just because you can.
 * Per the cited policy, I removed the images which I though had very similar content and overwhelmed the article and inserted two images showing the other viewpoints/historical names (variety and near relevant text). Extra images (added by In fact) can be put in a gallery, since each of them is from a different century which is arguably within WP:Gallery since it can add some encyclopedic value.
 * Per WP:WEIGHT the article had three maps showing the term "Persian Gulf" and three other images supporting the same naming, while it only had one image showing "Arabian Gulf" and one image showing "Gulf of Basra". That's hardly undo weight for the non-Persian naming. With the addition of three (or four) further images, the article currently has excessive, overwhelming number of maps showing almost the identical point; the name is Persian Gulf. And as indicated above, the images aren't even in the correct sections (near relevant text).
 * Per IMAGE_RELEVANCE, the lead image has to be "natural and appropriate visual representations of the topic", but "[is] not required, and not having a lead image may be the best solution if there is no easy representation of the topic". From the above discussion, me and Chipmunkdavis (signing as CMD) though the current one is most suitable of the available images. I also stated that I agreed to use it, because other images, which its authors claim they are neutral (ex: "The Gulf", "Arabo-Persian Gulf" and no name) are not available.  Mohamed CJ  (talk)  13:23, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

International Organizations
International organization and Intergovernmental organization uses the Persian gulf as the international recognized term. .

According to http://www.PersianOrArabianGulf.com the name Persian Gulf has been added to all Google Maps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.63.246.165 (talk) 17:16, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Interesting fact
I found about this yesterday in Bahrain article. "Belgrave's colonial undertakings were not limited to violent deeds against Bahrainis but also included a series of initiatives that included removal of Iranian influence on Bahrain and the Persian Gulf. In 1937, Belgrave proposed changing the name of the Persian Gulf to the "Gulf of Arabia", a move that did not take place". Here's a direct quote from source: "The first person to propose changing the name of the Persian Gulf to the "Arabian" Gulf was Sir Charles Belgrave, the British adviser to the rulers of Bahrain in the early 1930s. Belgrave made the proposal to his masters in London, but both the Colonial and Foreign offices rejected it outright.

The next attempt was made by a more consequential individual. After the nationalization of the Iranian oil industry by the nationalist government of Dr Mohammed Mossadegh in 1951, the Anglo-Iranian Oil Co (AIOC) was desperate to sabotage Iranian interests in the region to avenge its losses. The task of reviving the "Arabian Gulf" project was entrusted to Roderick Owen, arguably one of greatest unsung heroes of the British secret state in the 20th century. Using the cover of a shadowy functionary of the AIOC, Owen was in fact a senior MI6 officer in the Middle East. The primary product of Owen's campaign was a book called The Golden Bubble of the Arabian Gulf. This book constituted the first literary work of any significance to popularize the term "Arabian Gulf". Thus the campaign to distort and eventually displace the historical term "Persian Gulf" originates in the retreat and defeat of British colonialism in the Middle East."

I assumed this info would have been mentioned in Belgrave's diary and memoir, but I couldn't find it. Article author is Mahan Abedin who is "co-edited Unmasking Terror: A Global Review of Terrorist Actitives (2005). He is an expert on Iran, Iraq and Islamic movements and ideologies. Mr. Abedin makes contributions to numerous publications, including the Beirut-based Daily Star and Asia Times. He gained his MSc in Political Theory from the London School of Economics in 2000. Mr. Abedin has since worked as a consultant on financial, political and security affairs related to the Middle East." What do you think about this?  Mohamed CJ  (talk)  14:28, 28 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Ah. The reference is used in the article (No. 2), but nothing mentioned about the quote above.  Mohamed CJ  (talk)  14:42, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * According to the British Library catalogue, "The Golden Bubble" was published in 1957, just after the embarrassment at Suez. Definitely quite interesting. David Trochos (talk) 06:50, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I've added a paragraph in the "Overview" section, but didn't include anything about Suez Crisis, because the source didn't link them together. Despite it having obvious links, mentioning it could be WP:OR, but I might be wrong.  Mohamed CJ  (talk)  16:34, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Removal of "Sein Arabique" and "Sinus Arabicus" images
An IP Address (109.165.157.86) has removed two images showing the body of water as "" and "". The first was in "Arabs viewpoint" section and the latter in "Gallery". He/she posted the following in edit summary "Irrelevant (WP:SYNTH), those few exceptions (as calling Arabian Sea as "Persian") have nothing to do with post-colonian Arab inferiority complex and pan-Arabism".

In the sense that IPs are also a human, I'm willing to discuss this instead of a direct revert. I don't think the policy cited has anything to do here. "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources."

To me this is clearly not the case. Both images are relevant to the sections because:
 * 1) Secretary General of the Gulf Cooperation Council claims that using the name "Persian Gulf" is "mocked history". This makes a historical image showing the alternative name relevant to section.
 * 2) In the gallery there is an image for Dutch map maker Jodocus Hondius using term "Persicus", so it is only fair to include his other map using the alternative name. Also if you pay attention, the images in gallery are from different centuries by different nations.  Mohamed CJ  (talk)  05:37, 30 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Also, it would be much better if controversial edits are discussed first.  Mohamed CJ  (talk)  05:39, 30 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Why do we stil have a gallery? On topic, both pictures are relevant to where they were located, as far as I can tell. CMD (talk) 23:54, 30 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The overview is talking about Arabian Gulf (Sinus Arabicus) as the ancient name of the current Red Sea. It is also telling us about Gulf of Basra and Persian Gulf being used at the same time. Therefore I brought the images to clarify the matter. In fact 04:55, 1 July 2012 (UTC)


 * And about the gallery, I had used them in different parts of the article, regarding different centuries, but user:Bahraini Activist collected them in a gallery. In fact 04:59, 1 July 2012 (UTC)


 * There are reasons to have a gallery instead of filling the article body with images, you should read my comments on 13 June (above) and yes it is still here. So from what I understand from above, there is no problem with restoring the images? After restoring them I think the article will have somewhat balanced use of images, while still not getting overwhelmed. Just don't add anymore beyond that to the article body, instead if some images have encyclopedic value please add them to the Gallery and if you would like to make controversial changes, discuss first to avoid a revert.  Mohamed CJ  (talk)  06:08, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Map games, POV-pushing, ignorance & pseudo-neutrality
I've removed Sein Arabique and Sinus Arabicus images with good reasons:
 * Some cartographers like G. Mercator, J. Hondius (1609) and J. Janssonius (1636) have indeed used Sinus Arabicus for Persian Gulf, but not on all their maps (see Hondius, 1610). Sinus Arabicus was used mostly on "Map of Turkish Empire" which was reproduced by Mercator's followers Hondius and Janssonius for decades (Mercator-Hondius-Janssonius-Atlases), but in mid 17th century Janssonius the Younger has corrected it to "Sinus Persicus" (1666).
 * Using "Sinus Arabicus" for Persian Gulf by few cartographers on few their maps was result of confusion and misinterpretation of ancient geographers like Herodotus and Pliny, so few cartographers mixed Red Sea (Sinus Arabicus) with Persian Gulf (Sinus Persicus). On early Mercator-Hondius-Janssonius maps you can see both bodies of water marked as Sinus Arabicus (1609, 1634). Also, that's reason why some cartographers even placed Mount Sinai in southern Iran (see Martin i Tallis, 1851). Other factor for confusion was that Arabian Sea is placed nearby Persian Gulf, so Janssonius has labeled Arabian Sea as Red Sea (Mare Rubrum) (see again 1636), while some cartographers like E. Bowen even named Arabian Sea as Persian Sea (1747). However, such markings on maps were simply mistakes and you won't find them on maps after 18th century because geographical knowledge was improved.
 * All of those facts which I've mentioned can be easily check because I've inserted links to maps in text, and it's not my WP:OR since United Nations Group of Experts on Geographical Names clearly states:
 * In Atlas of "Khalij (Gulf) in the Historical Maps" (1999) excluding three maps which were drawn after 15th century, seem to be included beside the other maps (all of which mention the name of Persian Gulf) upon persistence of the honorable person collecting them, where the name has been forged as: Arabic Gulf. In next maps, the same cartographers have corrected the name to Persian Gulf. (p. 4)
 * It is interesting that from among 6000 existing historical maps published up to 1890, there are only three maps mentioning the names of Basreh Gulf, Ghatif Gulf, and Arabic Gulf (p. 4)
 * Even our Arab brothers do not need to alter a historical name to have a gulf of their own, because there had been a gulf in their own name previously mentioned in the historical and geographical works and drawings, which is called at present the Red Sea (Bahr Ahmar). (p. 7)
 * ...in more than 30 geographical, historical, literary, books or the books on interpretation of morals, and jurisprudence, the Muslims and Arab scientists have described Persian Gulf. (p. 3)

The reasons why I excluded two maps inserted by Bahraini Activist aka Mohamed CJ are obvious: His attempts could be only explained as ignorance or intended manipulation, but I hope it's just first. --109.165.234.24 (talk) 22:52, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * He's trying to "balance neutrality" of this article by those maps, despite reliable sources states there was only few such exceptions among 6000 historical maps . The same goes for inserting maps with name Persian Sea in Arabian Sea article.
 * He's trying to use maps with Sinus Arabicus mistakes as "proof of historical usage" of name Arabian Gulf, despite clear fact that Arabs weren't even aware of those European maps and they used name Persian Gulf since caliphate until 1960s. It's not relevant to Secretary General of the Gulf Cooperation Council claims by any means, it's simply WP:SYNTH.


 * Comment: Since you're such an expert in this field (or you seem to), you should have explained such moves to other editors earlier. Thanks for explaining it now and I hope others will learn to do so before making changes that others might see controversial/unacceptable. I encourage you to assume good faith, stop calling others POV-pushers or ignorant. I'm not aware of the facts mentioned above, I will check them before commenting further. P.S. you didn't have to start a new section when there already was one above.  Mohamed CJ  (talk)  05:10, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Please note that I'm not aware of all of this topic's details, however I saw POV in the article, came to help and most importantly I discussed things first without attacking other editor/assuming bad faith. While you might be right about using the image in "Arabs viewpoint" section, you are wrong in removing it from the galley. The paper mentioned above is prepared by "Working Group on Exonyms, Iran" and they even say "our Arab brothers" which support that this paper was prepared by Iranians. It is the Iranians viewpoint that these names were/are "incorrect". I was able to find another paper which has a different POV . Now that I found about this, I think it is important to include in the article body that:


 * "While the Latin name Sinus Arabicus (Arabian Gulf) in old maps often refers to the Red Sea, it was also applied to the body of water between Persia, present-day Iran, and the Arabian Peninsula"


 * Addition of maps for same person using different term in each adds encyclopedic value and should stay, I'm referring to the maps drawn by Jodocus Hondius (1609), (1610) and (1634). There are more maps which don't use Persian Gulf, see those for example (I'd love to read you comments about them in the same way above):, , , , .  Mohamed CJ  (talk)  06:56, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Upon going through the paper, I was not able to find that it said the maps using "Arabicus" were wrong, they just said they were of unclear "identity and originality" and that they were used for "promotional" reasons by the Arabs (p. 5). Also material found in p. 6 supports the "Interesting fact" which I added earlier. In p. 7 it also supports the comment by Al Jazeera senior editor that the Arabs used the name due to Iran supporting Israel back then.  Mohamed CJ  (talk)  09:41, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

You saw "POV" because from young age you learn and hear only Arabian Gulf, thanks to your "wise leaders" whose actions actually promotes old stereotypes about Arabs as "barbarians, thiefs, uneducated, manipulative, etc." I don't see Arabs on that way, and I'm not Iranian. But those who try to manipulate with common names for political reasons or inferiority complex I see on very bad way, and the same goes for Indians who constantly insist that Arabic numerals should be renamed. We all know that Persian Gulf isn't inhabited only by Persians, that Rio de Janeiro isn't located on river but bay, that Arabic numerals aren't developed by Arabs, that Native Americans aren't related to Indians, but we still use it as common names.

Anyway, if you're not aware of the facts which I've mentioned (as you confess), just ask on Talk Page and you'll get answer sooner or later. You've made two mistakes again. First, UNGEGN's article wasn't written by Iranians but in Vienna (Austria), and second, article which you mentioned isn't UNGEGN's work but opinion of one Israeli. It also isn't comprehensive and it deal with exonyms and endonyms, and it has mistakes - Iran isn't forcing it's own endonym, because in that case article would be called Halij-e Fars, not Persian Gulf.

In short:
 * 1) I don't see any reason for using maps with mistakes as Sinus Arabicus in article called Persian Gulf naming dispute, simply because cartographic mistakes from early Modern Age are completely irrelevant with naming dispute started in 1960's. I'll remind you again that Arabs weren't aware of European maps (including such mistakes), and they've used Persian Gulf name.
 * 2) I don't see reason for using maps with Gulf of Basra because it's also irrelevant to naming dispute - Turkey uses both their own traditional Basra Körfezi and international Fars Körfezi and there's no any dispute. I also haven't seen even one Turk who promotes using Gulf of Basra on English Wikipedia.
 * 3) I don't see reason for having gallery in general, especially those with childish red arrows showing specific names. At least 6000 historic maps exist and it's enough to put 2-3 maps with Sinus Persicus for Persian Gulf and Sinus Arabicus for Red Sea, because it was accepted cartographic nomenclature and it's directly relevant to reliable sources.
 * 4) I don't see reason for inserting maps which has label Persian Sea for Arabian Sea, also because of point No.3. It's also childish, and it comes from Persians. The same goes for maps with two Sinus Arabicus, Gulf of Aden as Sinus Arabicus (example), and so on. Such exceptions are very rare, irrelavant to naming dispute, and for "balacing" we would need 100-200 maps with Sinus Persicus for every single exception. That isn't necessary, it's enough to have reliable source like UNGEGN which states "few exceptions exist among 6000 maps".

Have a nice day. --109.165.191.169 (talk) 10:35, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Ha! you too have a nice day. It is true authorities try to remove anything "Persian" in the history of the region, for instance I was doing a history project on Qal'at al-Bahrain. The guide told us that the "bow" shaped doors were of Islamic origin and the newer normal design door were of Portuguese. However, when asked about what he meant by Islamic, he said it was Muslim Persians, but instructed us not to include it, because he could lost his job if we do so. Back to topic, I think you did one too much revert at least. I stand corrected at much of the sourced facts mentioned above. I believe the article is in much better quality status than before I came here :)  Mohamed CJ  (talk)  13:17, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

You all are doing extra effort to tell us about the ancient name of the Gulf as if Arabs are saying no it wasn't the Persian Gulf in the past!!!!

All Arabs are agreeing that the name was Persian Gulf in the past when only the Persian Empire was controlling the Gulf coasts but when was that ? in the past I think more than 1300 years ago or maybe more .. but if you see the countries lying on the Gulf you will notice that there are 6 Arab countries so without any racism you have to admit that names are changing by times and fact situations .. I don't want to talk in politics and mention the Arab population and people in Ahwaz state in the west of Iran on the Gulf coast that are occupied by Persian country Iran ..

Names are changing by time and people living on or around a land... Red sea name was in Arabic Qalzam sea I don't know the translation of Qalzam in English, Costantine now known as Istanbul , Spain and Portugal was known as Andalusia , Sudan was part of ancient Egypt , — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.45.109.69 (talk) 14:20, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

"Scholars" section, DUE, and BRD
Here, Chipmunkdavis reverted the insertion of a word by an anon, and also removed an article section headed "Scholars", saying "Rv. That 'scholars' section is a bunch of historical non-English names, and the opinion of one former diplomat". The removed section read,

The removed section content seemed a bit one-sided to me, and I might quibble with the presentation, but it did seem reasonably well supported with cites of WP:RS sources. Here, I restored the expunged section, saying, "Reinsert supported content in Scholars section. Removal seems contradictory to WP:DUE. Perhaps other viewpoints need to be described."

Here, Chipmunkdavis redid the expungement of that section, saying, "Undid revision 551451878 by Wtmitchell (talk) It is not DUE to present one former diplomat as all scholars, nor is it DUE to list ancient names in other languages in a modern dispute section".

WP:DUE leads off by saying, "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." That seems to say if an article makes an RS-supported point with which an editor disagrees, and if a differing RS-supported viewpoint is not presented in the article and is reasonably prominent in RS sources, the differing viewpoint ought to be presented and the supporting sources cited. That is not what has happened here.

WP:BRD describes a technique for proceeding from a bold change to an article, to a reversion of that bold change, and from there to a resolution of the issue via talk page discussion of the change and the reversion. That technique avoids WP:EW edit wars, which often start with a cycle of change->revert->unrevert->re-revert->re-unrevert->etc. Chipmunkdavis appears to be starting down the EW path here rather than down the BRD path.

I have not reversed the re-expungement of the section. It seems to me, though, that from a WP:NPOV angle the expunged section ought to be restored and, possibly, RS-supported info about differing viewpoints ought to be added. Once that is done, it might be argued that the article presents a modern view (something which is not apparent to me from its title) and that historical information lacks due weight for presentation.

I'll leave it at that for now, and will leave it to regular editors of the article to work out the content issues here. This article topic is not a hot-button issue with me, but I do have the article on my watchlist and thereby happened to see the edit which I mentioned to begin this discussion. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:05, 21 April 2013 (UTC)


 * This airport wi-fi is inadequate, but I suggest comparing the list of old names to what was on Wikipedia already at the time of the Daily Mail article. That is not a particularly eminent newspapers and there is a chance they used Wikipedia as a source. Zerotalk 23:18, 21 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The BRD cycle notes that a bold reversion is reverted, and discussion follows from there. This maintains stability, and prevents users edit warring section in. This section was added boldly, and I reverted it. That's the cycle.
 * I don't see how DUE or NPOV indicate that the opinion of one British diplomat on the scotsman.com merits inclusion on the article. If anything, a mention based on some support is undue. CMD (talk) 23:56, 21 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't want to get into a long discussion about this, and I had not previously looked further back than the edits I mentioned above. I've now taken a closer look. It looks to me like an there has been an EWish pattern of edits lately starting with this April 4, 2013 WP:BOLD removal of content by you, followed by a revert->unrevert->re-revert, etc . pattern. The content I was looking at there initially appeared in this February 21, 2013 edit (see ).


 * Regardless of how the article got to its current state re the content which has lately been being multiply removed and reinserted, I suggest that the removal, reinsertion, or recasting of that content be decided by discussion here rather than by edit warring in the article. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:59, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

International Hydrographic Organization
I've read the IHO 1953 report in the article, however, I've also read this 2013 report about Bahrain. Which uses the term "Arabian Gulf". Thus, I'm going to include this piece of info in the article.  Mohamed CJ  (talk)  18:07, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * This is written by a spin-off committee and is not an official IHO document. I will edit this information out for now. Krzysztof hun (talk) 20:10, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Proposal to re-add the gallery of the most interesting historical maps relevant to the dispute
To my read, most early modern European maps of the area use the name Persian Gulf (there's a good selection in the article Ottoman Syria). But there were other names commonly used, so this article should not ignore them. Here's a few of the more interesting maps:

I suggest we re-add the gallery at the bottom of the page to show all of these and other interesting ones. We shouldn't go overboard as the previous version did, but the context is needed. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:43, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see why you moved three images from article body to gallery. Per WP:Gallery "Images are typically interspersed individually throughout an article near the relevant text" (also see WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE). I can see that some images have encyclopedic value, which supports having a gallery, but as discussed above, the number of maps using one term (Persian Gulf) is much greater than others and due weight should be given carefully.  Mohamed CJ  (talk)  21:38, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the ones interspersed in the article should have special relevance, to the sections they are in. Oncenawhile (talk) 07:25, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * That's exactly what I'm saying. When the section on overview mentions that Arab countries used the term Persian Gulf until the 1960s, then it makes since to add the 1952 ARAMCO map there. Same with using the term Sinus Arabicus to the red sea and Busra sea for the disputed body of water. All of them are relevant to the overview section and should be there.  Mohamed CJ  (talk)  09:19, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * If the maps by G. Mercator and J. Hondius are to be included, I propose (as already explained above) that it should be specifically mentioned that their later maps used the term Sinus Persicus. As it stands now, I don't believe this section presents the information contained in it in a complete manner. Krzysztof hun (talk) 08:11, 8 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Another map to the right, calling it Gulf of Basra.
 * No attempt to balance the images in the article has been made in two years, so I have added a POV tag. There are also some key citations missing which I have highlighted throughout. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:20, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Seems to have run out of steam here. It wasn't appropriate to leave this article with maps showing only one side of the dispute, so the gallery has been re added. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:37, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

The Main article is very pro Persian gulf and not Neutral
For the sake of Facts and love of knowledge. Please don't make this a propaganda themed article. Yes there is a dispute, Yes its most commonly called Persian Gulf but totally ignoring the existence of Hundreds of years old Maps that called it Arabian Gulf is just pure manipulation of History.

Fine you Iranians think these maps are wrong FINE, put them in the article and Say "YOU" think they are wrong, but PUT them THEY DO EXIST. Making the whole argument is post 1960s and nothing before that is not true.

Also this is supposed to be Encyclopedia and you need to control your emotions, nobody will die if you wrote Arabian gulf, I am Arab and I am Happy to Say Persian Gulf no allergies here it only exist with you, probably insecurity and lake of self confidence?

Finally there are Other names of this body of water and they existed before the name Persia is known, there are older Civilisations lived here thousands of years before 500BC and they did not call this gulf Persian gulf, the older names which are ignored here are the Bitter Sea, the lower Sea.

Some people need to work on their Identity crisis more often. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ioj (talk • contribs) 18:44, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Persian Gulf naming dispute. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130521171101/http://english.irib.ir/news/political/item/60225-persian-gulf-national-day-in-foreign-ministry to http://english.irib.ir/news/political/item/60225-persian-gulf-national-day-in-foreign-ministry

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 02:23, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Section - United Kingdom
WP:BOLD deletion of the section "United Kingdom". The text was: The United Kingdom government's Permanent Committee on Geographical Names for British Official Use (PCGN) has endorsed the term 'The Persian Gulf' as the correct term for the body of water.[35][36] Sir Richard Dalton: "Undoubtedly, the correct geographical term in history is the Persian Gulf."[37] Citation 35 is to a dead link to a website that may not be a Reliable Source. Citations 36 and 37 are the same and refer to a newspaper article. The newspaper article does not refer at all to the PCGN, but does quote Dalton as "British former ambassador to Iran ". His opinion, while valid, does not represent UK policy, in a section that is about the "viewpoint of third parties". The UK might have policy on the name, but I do not see it in the citations. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:42, 29 April 2016 (UTC) (Edit: I've just notice the newspaper article is the same as the one referred to in "Scholars..." section above. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:07, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

United States material not matched by source
I have just removed text as follows: "In the United States, Persian Gulf has been the label sanctioned for U.S. Government use since a decision by the State Department's Board of Geographical Names in 1917: As recognized by the United States Board on Geographic names, the name of the body of water that lies between Iran and the Arab states of the Gulf Cooperation Council is the Persian Gulf. For political reasons, Arabs often refer to it as the Arab or Arabian Gulf." The first source is an archived map illustration which does not necessarily infer "sanctioned" use. More importantly, the text "since 1917" cannot possibly be from the indicated source (which is a book I have no access to) since the GCC did not exist in 1917. (My interpretation of the text is that preamble before the colon and the quote in italics after it are supposed to be from the same source). The quote could be reintroduced without the preamble but I cannot put it in context because I don't have the book. Nevertheless, the U.S. policy is still adequately explained by the remaining text in that paragraph. I recognise that this is a contentious subject, which is why all material should be reliably sourced. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:38, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:57, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

 * More info here: www.PersiansAreNotArabs.com/persian-gulf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.127.108.52 (talk) 05:13, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Persian Gulf naming dispute. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110724234550/http://www.aljewar.org/news.aspx?id=14787 to http://www.aljewar.org/news.aspx?id=14787

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 00:18, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ✔️ -- The Voidwalker  Discuss 20:37, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Persian Gulf naming dispute. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110109213325/http://www.iran-heritage.org/articles/conspiracy.htm to http://www.iran-heritage.org/articles/conspiracy.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110109213325/http://www.iran-heritage.org/articles/conspiracy.htm to http://www.iran-heritage.org/articles/conspiracy.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110109213325/http://www.iran-heritage.org/articles/conspiracy.htm to http://www.iran-heritage.org/articles/conspiracy.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120911145741/http://0-dla.library.upenn.edu.librus.hccs.edu/dla/newbooks/record.html?id=NEWBOOKS_4974631 to http://0-dla.library.upenn.edu.librus.hccs.edu/dla/newbooks/record.html?id=NEWBOOKS_4974631

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:15, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

UN endorsement of the term
I have corrected the reference in this article to reflect the named source: Report of the United Nations Group of Experts on Geographical Names on the work of its twenty-third session. Document E/2006/57, Economic and Social Council, United Nations. New York, 2006

You can see that document here - https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/575568/files/E_2006_57-EN.pdf, which is the link I added.

The original document linked to is a "Working Paper" presented at the meeting:

http://unstats.un.org/unsd/geoinfo/UNGEGN/docs/23-gegn/wp/gegn23wp61.pdf

The reference to ""working"" is to the fact that it's a "working paper", not that the pdf  originally linked to incorrectly doesn't work.

Regardless, neither source states that the UN endorses any particular term. The current text is too strong in its inferences from the sources provided.

I should emphasize that I'm not trying to push the term Arabian gulf here. I have edited other articles using that term to correct them to Persian Gulf, so I don't have an agenda on this.

Thanks Heliotom (talk) 15:34, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Further I have removed the section regarding Kadmon’s book, as this is not a UN publication, and is not even referred to in the source linked to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heliotom (talk • contribs) 08:13, 10 March 2018 (UTC)