User talk:JosephLondon

With regard to your comment, this IP address is from a shared office. I cannot speak to the particulars of the edits to which you are referring, or the validity of your apparent complaint, only to say that there are numerous different individuals in this office who frequently use Wikipedia.

I hope this clarifies the situation for you.

Kind regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.79.79.199 (talk • contribs)

Persian Gulf/Arabian Gulf naming issue
The correct name for the waterway is the Persian Gulf, and should not be referred to as the Arabian Gulf when using the English Language. The Persian Gulf is the preferred term in Unites States English, UK English and United Nations, as well as the Wikipedia naming policy. I do not disagree with a mention in the article Arab World which mentions that the term Arabian Gulf as a term used by certain Arab countries, but I believe that by putting Arab/Persian Gulf, it only confuses people. As there are two 'gulfs' around Arabia. The Red Sea (known as the Arabian Gulf in certain publications and the Persian Gulf. (JosephLondon 22:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)) ---


 * Hey Joseph,


 * Thank you for your kind message and for your interest in the Persian Gulf vs. Arabian Gulf naming issue. I agree with you that this matter requires the conscientious attention of Wikipedia contributors to ensure the presence of full and accurate information in the various articles which include mention of this waterway.


 * With regard to your specific points:


 * • As you are aware, the extent to which any term referring to territory or body of water can be judged to be the "correct name" is dependent on a whole plethora of different, and sometimes conflicting factors. The "correct name" according to one government or organization might be deemed incorrect by another. What was once the "correct name" might now be anachronistic. The descriptive quality of a name in one language, or to one culture, might not be equally valid in another. For these reasons, to state that the "correct name for the waterway is the Persian Gulf" to the exclusion of all other names or variants is far too generalized and sweeping a statement, and does not reflect the inherent complexity or nuances of such issues.


 * • Any contention that Arabian Gulf is presently a valid, accepted, or even widely understood term for the Red Sea is clearly without merit. Whatever the extent of such former usage in an earlier stage in history, in the present day there are no circumstances in which any credible organization would use the term in that sense, lending credence to the above statement regarding anachronisms. Since one of the criteria you mention for correct terminology is the preferred English language and United Nations term, naturally you will accept that there is no genuine basis for using the term Arabian Gulf to refer to the Red Sea in the present day. Thus, any allegation that confusion might arise in this regard would obviously be disingenuous.


 * I feel confident in stating that you were acting solely in good faith in making reference to the Red Sea issue as I myself have encountered occasions when the same claim has been advanced. Without exception, the source of all such claims has been partisan propagandist literature seeking to further a somewhat extreme form of revisionism, as can be demonstrated by even the most cursory Google search on the subject. Without adequate materials at hand to refute such claims, I can totally appreciate why one might treat this material less cautiously at first.


 * Further to the above, with regard to the Arab World article itself, the primary reason I included the edit "Arabian/Persian Gulf" in the opening paragraph of the article was to immediately inform the reader of the naming issue as it is directly relevant to the Arab World article. For, in the Arab World, the term Arabian Gulf is used almost uniformly, and the very issue is one of immense sensitivity to many in the Gulf Arab states. As such, I felt that this was a wholly appropriate means of informing the reader of the two names used for the body of water, knowledge which if lacked might result in understandable confusion when encountering the different names for the first time. I had considered using "Persian Gulf (also known in the Arab World as the Arabian Gulf)", however, one might opine that such a qualification/explanation of the term is not suited to the opening paragraph of the article. Indeed, in the course of typing this message, another contributor has made the following edit "Persian Gulf (often referred to as the Arabian Gulf by Arabic speaking countries)", which similarly I feel is not suited to the opening paragraph.


 * Moreover, as other contributors have noted and reverted, the editing history of the Arab World article has witnessed attempts to insert the term "Persian" before every mention of the term "Gulf" (e.g. "Persian Gulf states" rather than just "Gulf states"), in what might be seen as an over-compensatory measure by the same revisionist propagandists mentioned above in response to the use of "Arabian Gulf" therein, or elsewhere. As you know, this is not the standard form; in academic, political, and vernacular usage, after the first mention of the Gulf (be it prefixed with "Persian" or "Arabian"), all subsequent mention is simply of "Gulf".


 * I of course recognize that "Persian Gulf" enjoys more general and longer established historical usage than "Arabian Gulf", and Wikipedia's editing guidelines direct that this fact should not be omitted or minimized. To do so would not only misinform and confuse the reader, which is the most important consideration, but would also be a gratuitous insult to Iranians and those of Iranian descent. While the sensitivities of individuals or groups should never dictate the content of articles, they are a valid consideration in the editing process. Furthermore, it is in the interests of all contributors than an acceptable, while still wholly accurate, form of words be used in all articles to avoid the severely negative consequences of edit warring.


 * It is for those same reasons of accuracy, sensitivity, and pragmatism (while remaining wholly accurate) that mention should be made of "Arabian Gulf" is such a manner that the reader will be provided with the relevant facts pertaining to the issue.


 * I hope this makes the my edits on this specific issue more illuminating to you. I would certainly welcome any further thoughts you have on this matter, as it is only through such amicable dialog that the shared goal of ever more accurate and informative Wikipedia articles can be realized.


 * Finally, your contribution gave me impetus to reconsider the opening paragraph of the Arab World article. As you will see from the article's editing history, I rewrote most of the opening paragraph back in the Spring of 2007 to give it approximately its current form. In doing so, I neglected the fact that the Persian Gulf/Arabian Gulf is not the most eastward extent of the Arab World. The most eastward extent is in fact the Gulf of Oman opening into the Arabian Sea. As such, the opening sentence would be more accurately worded as follows:


 * The Arab World (Arabic: العالم العربي; Transliteration: al-`alam al-`arabi) stretches from the Atlantic Ocean in the west to the Arabian Sea in the east, and from the Mediterranean Sea in the north to Central Africa and the Indian Ocean in the south. It consists of 23 countries with a combined population of some 325 million people spanning two continents.


 * Once more, I welcome your input on the ongoing editing process.


 * Warmest regards. Louse 13:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

February 2008
Hi, your recent edit to OPEC erased some sourced material and did not list any reasons in the edit summery. I have therefore reverted the edit. Please feel free to contribute to pages, but if you feel a need to delete sourced material it is important to explain why it has been deleted (or even better, discuss the deletion before hand on the article's talk page), otherwise it could be construed by some as vandalism. Also, I notice you've blanked your own talk page a few times. It's generally considered much better practice (ie won't look like you're trying to hide something) if you simply archive your page instead. Happy editing. NJGW (talk) 22:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I changed the phrasing to be more consistent with what the source states, and made the section a subsection of quotas (the topic the statement addresses). What do you think?  NJGW (talk) 03:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)