Talk:Persian Gulf/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 8

Persian Gulf

(Editors note: this section of comments has been heavily vandalized by a user who is deleting and editing the comments of others. I have tried to restore it to its pre-vandalized state. -- Gnetwerker 19:25, 4 April 2006 (UTC))

You guys want a date?

Oh sweet god, please just cool your heads. Persia as an entity has survived many attacks from the region and beyond causing a loss of grandure and historical herritage for the Persians. You may also note that Racism as a concept is very foreign in Iran as a deep-rooted culture. To call a Persian a racist is a very extreme allegation, as you imply that he does not support the core ideal the Persia has stood on for thousands of years. There is no persian race, its an ideal not genes.

IF SOMEONE DISAGREES WITH YOU, THAT DOESN'T MAKE THEM A RACIST!!! THAT LOGIC BELONGS TO EXTREMIST!

Persians, you remember that there is no monopoly over the history of the region, Babylonians (racially arab, one of the first civilizations on Earth) attempted to destroy the Semites, and in doing so spurred Cyrus the great to invade and conquer Babylon, freeing the Jewery, and Arabs although free to move and live within the Persian Empire, have been fighting ever since this war of words and swords has been going on longer than Persia was alive as an entity. To argue wether one side is racist is futile

BOTH SIDES HAVE ILLUSTRATED HATE THAT SHOULD NOT BE THERE.

The instant that the US decides to cut off the arab world it will collapse. 29 years since it cut off the Iranians, and they're still standing. You should all be working together to try and improve the living conditions of the region and build a free trading economy from which the entire region and grow and advance as one, not two juggernaughts fighting hard till one falls down. Its pointless! Why do you illustrate hate on such a public arena, just try and get along, argue facts not opinions!

I think this is a suiting place to put this Sa'di poem.

The children of Adam are limbs of each other

Having been created of one essence.

When the calamity of time afflicts one limb

The other limbs cannot remain at rest.

If thou hast no sympathy for the troubles of others

Thou art unworthy to be called by the name of a man.

If Persian poetry can't fix this rift, then I'm afraid nothing can! Stop this shre maddness please!

---

Entezar

Well this is indeed an interesting discussion. A pan-Arabic extremist versus a anti-Islamic Persian. Just on the note of the the anti-islamism... It is not very Iranian of someone to make digs at religions. Sure enough anti-semetism and other forces have suddenly been widely found within Iran and on the flip-side anti-Arab sentiments are running high within the nation, but this is all explainable.

(Before you read below, I suggest you clance through this.)

Reza Shah Pahlavi was a Nazi. He was an Aryan who renamed Persia to, 'The Land of Aryans.' He backed the wrong horse and thus he lost favour to the British. At the same time, an Arab called Gamal Abdel-Nasser got into bed with the British and Pan-Arabianism was cultivated fully. The Ottomans that had so far held control of this force were driven out and the Persians had their King removed. It was at this time, the 1920s that the term Arabian Gulf was first popularised. The Sammanids and the Saffavids retook the Persian Empire from the Arabs after 300 years of Occupation. During the occupation, men like Razi created ideas, which later developed into Modern medicine and so on as said above, some, though by no means all of the Arab scientific advancements were actually made by Persians and Turks. After the Arabs left, men like Ferdosi rebuilt the Persian language and the sense of identity.. However, one must remember that the Saffavid kings of Iran married the historic Persian ideas of liberty, freedom, luxury and fairness with Islamic teachings about morality and social order. Islam and Persia have not clashed with each other fundamentally. Persia has always been the land of cultural mixing. However, due to this un-ceasing Arab hostility towards her history, there has been an Iranian nationalistic backlash.

Historically, Persia lost her Empire after the Arab occupation to Britain which took most of Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, Turkmenistan, Khasakstan and the Caucus, from Persia, (It must be noted that Imperial Russia took some of the Persian Empire as well.) After Pahlavi took the country back in the 1920s, it was fought over yet again, and finally in the 1950s when Iran tried to take her own Democracy and claim her Oil back, their persident was killed BY the west. Pahlavi’s son was dethroned BECAUSE he tried to irradiate Islamic identity within Iran and because he supported the west in a country that did not want to more so quickly to a western style of living. It must also be noted that many of the ways of life that the west now stands for, were cultivated within ancient Persia. NEVER FORGET that every Arab State pumped endless dollars into Iraq. Never forget that the West supported Iraq. Iran lost half a million young lives and endless amounts of her military might (which was designed to keep the Soviets at bay) and her sence of prestige defeating not only Iraq, but also the entire, American-backed Arabian world. If Iran fell the Arabs could finally have that illusive prize of pride. Historically, Persia and the Ottomans have ruled them. The Entire area is historically Persian, it mostly holds Persian names such as Islam-ABAD and Hormuz as well as various Ottoman names. Persian Ideas of liberty and equality were taken by the Arabs, and found to be in agreement with the Islamic laws which the Arabs were given. A destroyed Iran is every Arab's wish. Iran has decided to hold her own against western encroachment and it holds within its capabilities the means to bankrupt the Emirates. Arabs sold themselves to be included in the Western consortium, Arabian princes shamelessly flaunt to the west, never thinking of the poor populace left on the streets. No matter how normal the life of the Persian prince is, and no matter how rich the life of the Arab prince is, their images are not even thought to be on the same scoreboard. Arabs will never be as well thought of or as well recognised as Iranians. Their sense of shame is was makes them want to conquer, and their sense of helplessness is what made them try to rename Persian claims and history as Arab.

HOWEVER… you must remember that anti-Arabianism is the reserve of only a small number of Iranians. What happened in the Iran/Iraq war did incite negative emotions, but the conflict is said to be Saddam and America’s. It was a tragic war where a Muslim country attacked her neighbour. And now we see the beginnings of the continuations of this. Arabs simply won’t accept peace at all.

86.132.160.219 23:52, 2 April 2006 (UTC) Entezar

Uggghhhh, if you're a normal, moderate Iranian, then God forbid I ever meet an Iranian extremist. And please spare us from any more racists rants, as I have very weak stomach. But I'm sorry that Arabs rename Persian claims as Arab, Arabs must know that the gulf was a Persian accomplishment and thus Persians own naming rights. Silly Arabs. --Inahet 06:50, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Fantastic! your opinion is noted. nothing in my text is wrong or incorrect, your preception of it being racist is your own and in no way begins to describe any aspect of tihs page or add any factual input. Congradulations... if you want an argument go elsewhere... -Entezar

what is this? This body of water has been called PERSIAN GULF for thousands of years. Even notable arabic scholars have called this gulf the PERSIAN GULF (al-khalij al-farsi). this arguement needs to stop. I've really had enough of arabs trying to make Iran arabic.

Patriot

I agree, even Arab scholars up to the 1960's called the Persian Gulf, the Persian Gulf. One reason I have heard for their decision for the name change was because of the shah's (the shah of Iran) support for Israel. Some of you may claim that us Iranians are racist, but its obvious the real racists are teh arabs. They have arabised Egypt and the rest of North Africa, as well as large parts of the Middle east. Maybe they hold a grudge because they could not Arabise us, and are simply trying undermine us now by trying to create a fuzzy line between what is Iranian and what is Arab. Infact, if Arabs truly believe in the arabian gulf (no capitals necessary) then why do countries such as the UAE find it necessary to have laws forbidding people from using the correct term? What are they afraid of?

-Another Patriot

Your hatred is so reeking and filthing up the thread. We didn't 'arabise' anybody all of these people are originally Arabs, your sick and twisted logis hold no water(hold nothing really) We have no wish to make you Arabs, go and be happy, racist persians(no capitals needed)! I think you're angry because, Arabs destroyed the sassanid empire(again, no capitals needed) and we followed your last cowardly emperor for sixteen years of his life. He was eventually caught by a peasant, who thought the emperor was a poor beggar(that was what he looked like!) You're angry because, the people at that time accepted Islam as their religion, and accepted the Arabs as their rulers...it makes you angry because, you see yourself as superior, which you're anything but that. The gulf was always Arabian, and no amount of persian racism or biased articles will make it otherwise.

-An Arabian patriot.

You are the racist my friends. You Arabs, like the Mongols, conquered and killed. You arabised Egypt, you arabised North Africa, you arabised Israel, you arabised Mesopotamia, you arabised Lebanon, you arabised Syria, etc.... None of these people were originally Arab! Arabs originated in the southern part of the Arabian peninsula. You dont know anything about your history! Your people massacred thousands, you forced your language and culture onto others! Only two nations were able to fight of your arabisation: Spain and Iran. Neither are Arab today, no matter how hard your ancestors tried, no matter how many innocent Spanish and Iranians your ancestors killed, no matter how many of our monuments you destroyed, we defeated you, and then came back to conquer you again! the Persian Gulf has never been Arabic! Infact, your own scholars used the term Persian Gulf up to the 1960's. You are living in a dream world, you are learning propaganda! You are ignorant, and racist. You are a supremicist. Islam is Turkish and Persian, it is no longer Arabic. The Arabs did nothing for Islam except to spread it by force, it was Turkish and Persian scholars, poets, and scientists that made the Islamic Empire so great! The Persian Gulf will remain Persian as long as there is an Iran, and as long as you Arabs just sit back and make no contribution to human civilisation.

-An Iranian Patriot (same as the above)

Really? Everybody that conquered and killed is like the Mongols? Then you persians, then called Aryans, are more befitting for your twisted analogy. You drove down from the Central Asian steppes and comitted heinous acts of racism and marginalization of the natives, and you started an empire which subjugated, terrorized, and murdered many peoples of the Middle-East. Also, prior to Sykes-Peako agreements of 1900s, there was no Syria or Lebanon. It was called Bilad al-Sham or the Levant. Also, prior to 1948 there was no Israel, it was always Palestine, which was, is, and alwayse will be Arab. Do your homework before you attack, will you? Also, all these countries have Arab origins in the Arabian penisuala, your hatred is apparently blinding you. You are very deluded you know that? All these people will defend their Arab identity with their blood, if you're saying the truth, then it would've reached them long before now, right? Racists and supermacists usually contradict themselves, I see that now! Throwing insults around seldom helps your topic Arash(or whatever). I already gave a list of Arab scholars who contrinuted to Islam. Arabs contributed majorly to civilization: We invented the zero, we created the numerals used in modern-day maths( 1, 2, 3...) Medina, Damascus, and Baghdad were centers of learning at an age were Persians were too busy drinking alcohol and reciting dirty poetry to realise what's going on around them, do you know that?! Allah tells us not to force people into Islam: "Let there be no compulsion in religion" (2:47 Holy Qura'an) I find it weird that I have to protect Islam from an alleged Muslim, but Allah foresaw that there will be people who claim to be Muslim, but hate Islam in their hearts. Also, by your own words, your so-called "contributions"(give me a few will you) to Islam would never have happened if Arabs didn't "force"(obviously something that was never done) you to convert! Another contradiction, amazing how you confuse yourself so quickly!

Arabs have contributed immensely to human civilization, no sour attempts like yours will obscure that. Please don't flatter yourself by saying we want to arabise you...we want nothing from a fire-worshipping, superiority-complexed, racists who want nothing other than returning to a violent past where they were called "The Empire"(even though they failed to protect it the only two times it got threatened)

The body of water is obviously the "Arabian Gulf" A greek scholar naming it doesn't mean it's the word of God! I am shocked at the amount of anti-Arab sentiments the political and geographical articles have in this website, seriously, somebody needs to do something about it. How can you call an obviously severly biased article like that "NPOV"? No arabian source is listed, the other side doesn't get a chance to state their opinion, it's immediately deleted by Arash clones, how can we find a voice in this if we don't get a chance? MB 21:00, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

LOL is this the crap they teach you in your schools? No wonder a degree from Arab countries aint worth horse shit. Klymen

You racist Arab, always trying to turn it the other way...

For your information, Persians have not ruled Iran for 800 years, so all of the statements you made are clearly wrong! Also, for your information, the first human rights charter was Persian. Persians never committed genocide, never forced their culture or their language onto others, and when Persians have conquered, never did they massacre the inhabitants. The Arab genocide against everything non-Islamic, non-Christian, and non-Judaism is fact! There are records of it, there are stories of it, and even historians acknowledge it!

And again, Arabs have not done anywhere near the amount of work for human civilisatoin that Persians, and later Turks have. Infact, how many Arabs migrated to Persia when their nations were so poor that they could not even feed their people...

the Persian Gulf has always been the Persian Gulf! You racist Arabs will never stop Arabising others will you? When will you learn? The only place where Arabs ethnically originated in was the Arabian Peninsula, not Israel, not Syria, not Egypt, not Mesopotamia, etc...

What do Arabs have left in this world? Nothing but the image of terrorism, so they start trying to claim other peoples history. You cannot claim Persian scientists, scholars, poets, inventions, bodies of water, land, and anything else that is Iranian. What does Iran have to do until you people put a hault on your racist atitudes? Oh wait, Arabs think that they are God's people and that everyone else has to become Arab and speak Arabic no matter what (LOL) so I guess you people will never stop.

And next time you try and debate with me, please work on your history skills, because all your facts are wrong and I can prove them wrong.

Oh well, I suggest the Arabian Sea page on Wikipedia has the term Iranian Sea in it as well, since some Iranians (such as I) refer to it as that. So if the editors dont mind, could you put a "mistakenly called Iranian Sea by some" in that section. Thank you.

-Iranian Patriot who hates racism.

You big cowardly liar...Persians never comitted genocide(s)? What about your persecution of the Kurds? Your persecution of the Sunni minority in your country? You keep telling me you offered something to human civilization, but you still failed to give me some contributions, showing what a f***ed up liar you are. What do Persians have left in this world? A supermacist, secret fire-worshipper making his little puppets called "presidents" in Iran do his evil bidding by suppressing women. Our contributions to civilization are affirmed by the whole world, you obviously don't have any(other than your excess drinking and wrong man-loving). Also, who are your scientists, scholars, poets? We have almost a 100 times the number of your scientists, scholars, and poets. We don't need your man-loving prose, Allah forbade that for us. I gave our contributions many times...you on the other hand gave none, you keep saying it's the persian gulf, your reasoning is that a greek man came by and called it that. Is that it? 300 million Arabs call it the Arabian Gulf, it stands to be an alternative name, 300 million isn't a negligble number, I'm talking to those who're reading this, not to arash and his clones. Cowards who don't sign their names, obviously are afraid of something. You offered no proof that you contributed more to the world than the Arabs( actually you offered no proof that you contributed at all) obviously you don't have any, Because you have no contributions to tell about. MB 16:02, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

ooo, some one seems to be getting angry... LOL why dont you read a history book? i dont have to explain anything to you. it is you who has to prove "arab civilisation and culture" which doesnt exist. its the truth, deal with it, Persians and turks have always been the dominating forces on islam, islamic science, and islamic culture. i dont sign my name because i am not a wikipedia member, so this isnt "arash" or whoever you are talking about. the truth is that you arabs even called it the Persian Gulf till your pan arabism started so dont give me any of your racist crap.

the persians have never committed any genocides against anyone, prove it. sunni's live un persecuted in iran, kurds live un persecuted in iran. why has there been armed resistance in pakistan, turkey, iraq, etc... but never in iran? its because iran has always been a tolerant nation.

and guess what? it is your arabic islam that has messed up our country, so dont blame anything that these mullahs do on us, because they are doing it in islam's name, and most arabs support them, because they are practicing what arabs see as correct islam, and they are messing up iran at the same time.

i dont have to prove anything to you. when westerners here arab, they think terrorist, islamic radicals, suicide bombers. when hear iranian, they think mullahs and nukes, iranian youth, democracy, fight for freedom. which one do you think they hate more? for example, look at the reaction to the dubai company controlling US ports.... thats self explanitory about what they think of you and your people.

and i have not used proper grammer this time due to the fact that i have other things to do and dont have the time to spend on this.

-An Iranian Patriot, who hates racism, and people who talk about things they dont understand. (why so angry if you are right? it seems as though you yourself know you are wrong, LOL)

---

A FACT - Persia, and the name Persian gulf existed way before the emergences of Arab semites. The race "Arab" and the language came long after the Persian Empire and the Persian. Infact most Arabian countries today were Persians, attacked by semites originating from the Western region of what we know today as Saudi Arabia. Farsi, which is spoken by all Persians in Iran and is the national language is a much older language than Arabic, Farsi is one of the oldest languages alongside Hebrew and Hindi and other european languages, these are all FACTS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sinamohajer (talk • contribs)

Comments by Sinamohajer

There is no case for any name dispute - The Persian Gulf has always been the name for the concerned body of water ever since its naming, the Persian Gulf. "arabian" gulf was a fabrication of later 1960's. Its like trying to change the Atlantic Ocean to the American Ocean. How can you even open a dispute? Its very simple to understand

First of all the term "anti-arabanism" doesnt even exist. Stop making up terms. This situation is nothing to do with race, colour, or creed.

Persian Gulf is a name that has always been. Ever since the naming of waters came about, the Persian Gulf has existed and will do so forever. Its simple, just like any other ocean or gulfs in the world, the name will remain the same. The fabricated term "arabian" gulf came about due to ignorant and illiterate civilians who are arogant in nature to accept that the Persian Gulf will always remain as the Persian Gulf.

We dont need all that nonsense. This situation is so simple to settle. You can't change a name that has always been. You cant fabricate new false names. Its like calling the Atlantic Ocean the American Ocean. Nonsense. 3000 years the water has been called and even today its refered to as the Persian Gulf. What allows a fabricated term which emerged only recently, to even make it on a encyclopedia. I suggest people stop arguing. There are no valid reasons to push for, or argue the point of a fabricated false term. The Persian Gulf will always remain the name for the body of water in the middle east.

As for the information below, most of the sayings are circumstantial, especially in regards to calling Reza Shah a "nazi". If thats the case the Stalin, Mussolini and many others who assisted the Germans in the 2nd world are also Nazi's.

Thank You and good night.

(A Nazi is someone who actively participated in the holocaust, not someone who was involved in the 2nd world war. Reza Shah never killed, nor discriminated against a jew, infact far from it. I request the word "nazi" to be removed from the text below. Also note most of the information below is circumstantial and biased.)

This fabrication of the term "arabian" gulf has offended 71 million Persians living in Iran. The population of the Arabian peninsula is 39 million, of many, who are foreign in nature often labourers from India, Africa and Western civilians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sinamohajer (talk • contribs)

Expansion of the page

--- Im sorry, but there is no need for a dispute. The Persian Gulf has always been known as the Persian Gulf. From the time in history when naming of waters ever existed, the Persian Gulf has always been. Why fabricate new terms such as "arabian gulf" or "the gulf". This is silly, its like calling the Caspian Sea, the Russian Sea.

There is no need for a dispute, nor calling this a Controversial Topic. The Persian Gulf will always remain the name for the Persian Gulf. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sinamohajer (talk • contribs)

Salam, I think we're in need to expand this page and give a more detailed view of the Persian gulf's history. I recollect reading an article also specified in the Reference section about the black slaves that currently reside in Qeshm Island, they were slaves brought in by the portugese slavetraders and then reverted to Shi'ism, later on a Qajar king gave them asylum because of the persecution they endured because of being Shiite under Sunnite controlled territory.

In addition, i think we need to be more detailed on when exactly the naming of Arabian Gulf started being heavily promoted* (Presumably AbdulNasser's era and beyond) as well as the Naming of Persian Gulf, its history, some other unmentioned cool facts like what battles have taken place there, what kind of people have been living there (a more detailed of Greater, Lesser Tonb and Abu Musa islands would be appropriate), etc. Much of wich can be find in the refrence links below but wont hurt to be mentioned on the page as well; I'll try and look for some articles regarding these.--Paradoxic 16:15, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

This fabrication of the term "arabian" gulf has offended 71 million Persians living in Iran. The population of the Arabian peninsula is 39 million, of many, who are foreign in nature often labourers from India, Africa and Western civilians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sinamohajer (talk • contribs)

== Persian Gulf == - "arabian gulf", or the "gulf" are wrong both geographically, historically and globbaly.

I do feel sorry for the individuals who are trying to justify the false term "arabian" gulf. How much common sense do you need, to understand historical, geographical and global facts cant be changed. Its like denying the 2nd World War.

Live with the fact that the Persian Gulf will remain the Persian Gulf forever.

Or maybe we should push to call the Atlantic ocean, the American ocean lol.

Persian Gulf

This article is about the Persian Gulf and should not include any fabricated names for the body of water to the south of Iran. The article should state that the ONLY name for this area is the, "Persian Gulf". If a few arab/ISLAMIC fundamentalists want to imagine that the name for the region is "the arab gulf" then that does not mean that Wikipedia should include those peoples opinions as fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dariush4444 (talk • contribs)

Spreading hatred

i'm an iranian and of course i believe the only correct name for this gulf, is the "persian gulf" and i have reasons for it. but right now, this is not what i want to write about. i think racist comments have been snowballing on this page and we should all help and put an end to it. i truely believe that hurting and insulting other people will not help anyone achieve anything. whatever opinion you want to express, it can be done in a polite and civilized manner. persians and arabs need to respect each other and stop trying to humiliate the other side because of actions of people that lived 1500 years before!! this is ridiculous. EVERY nation in the world has both good and bad indiviuals. you can find a rasict person, or a criminal, or a cruel person in any society, as you can also find scholars and fairminded people. how can you hate another human being that you have never even met. how can some of you people (i'm referring to both persians and arabs) speak so hatefully, insulting a whole nation or a whole race. for example one of my fellow iranians (to my shame a PhD, i think), had wrote it seems that the arabs and their young, inexperienced, petulant and history starved nations must be taught some history. ok, now i ask you this: put yourself in shoes of a decent arab national with no previous hard feelings abour persians, coming accross this comment. how would it make you feel to read this? wouldn't you feel insulted, wouldn't you get angry and reply in kind? i'm just amazed how unthoughtful some of us are. what could you expect to come out of such a comment? could you think the arabs that read this will now become convinced that they should back off from their claim on the name of the persian gulf and send you an apology?? this way you would turn even a fair-minded person into a racist because you patronize him. i have a friend that whenever someone says something insulting about arabs, says to him:just imagine you are talking in presence of nancy ajram and see if you would still say that!!. of course he says this as a humourous comment, but it's meaningful and serious at the core. something worth thinking about. spreading hatred can be so easy. please don't be ignorant about it. March 10, 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Barnetj (talk • contribs)

Borj Al Farsi/Bahre-Fars

Yeah, I agree with the Iranian Compatriot guy, lets change the "Borj Al Arab" wiki page into "Borj Al Fars" or include that its also called that. Or like the guy suggested from Arabian Sea to Persian Sea. That way we would have a mutual understanding. However right now this is just Stupid.--Paradoxic 22:01, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I was never suggesting that we actually do that. I was just telling the Arab Wikipedians why their thinking is flawed. And I think i got my point across just fine!Iranian Patriot 00:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

"Arabian Gulf"

This is an alternative name for Persian Gulf and should be bold-faced according to WP:Style. It is used by enough people. In the worst case it should be bold-faced for the same reasons "Dubya" is bold-faced here. Is "Dubya" officially recognized??? Aucaman^Talk 02:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

dear aucaman, i think your reference to dubya is irrevelant here because: - 1. there was never a discussion over boldfacing dubya in that article and therefore that decision was never challenged, maybe if it was discussed, they would have changed it too - 2. more importantly, i think if one wants to be fair, the english term "arabian gulf", must be described as a "commonly rejected alternative name" rather than "commonly accepted alternative name". i think the evidence and previous discussions on this issue already explain that the majority of official and unbiased sources confirm that "arabian gulf" is not a commonly accepted alternative name in english. Barnetj 17:30, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

It's an alternative name in another language, therefore it should be Italic not bold-face. The one and correct name in English, as recognized by United Nations and all the major encyclopedias, is Persian Gulf. --ManiF 02:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not "another language". It's English and receives more than 1 million Google hits.

I'm sorry but this doesn't seem to prove a point (in terms of widespread acceptance and usage of the name). the phrase "arabian gulf" has been the center of much controversy. one might claim that 99% of those hits are actually articles rejecting the use of the name. Barnetj 19:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

From Arabic sources and translations of Arabic texts. Th English term has no alternative as officially recognized by the United Nations. The English name has always been Persian Gulf. --ManiF 04:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. The fact that it's officially recognized as Persian Gulf justifies the naming of the article as Persian Gulf. I'm not asking for the name to be changed. It is already mentioned that Arabian Gulf is an alternative name and this has to be bold-faced according to WP:Style. Aucaman^Talk 04:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

That's the ponit, Persian Gulf has no alternative name in English language. --ManiF 04:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Aucaman is absolutely correct. This is an often-used alternative name that must be bold-faced, per WP:Style. — TheKMan^talk 05:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I removed the italics. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (italics). — TheKMan^talk 05:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not an "often-used alternative name". --ManiF 05:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Let me clarify: It's an "often-used alternative name" by Arab gulf states. — TheKMan^talk 05:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

ManiF: Regarding your reverts, PLEASE do not confuse MoS with POV. — TheKMan^talk 05:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't qualify as an often-used alternative name in English. --ManiF 05:35, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

It's an alternative name that apparently seems to cause a lot of stress in any language (and apparently English) for whatever reason. It is clearly something that should be noted, and as an alternative name, should be bolded. Please note that bolding per MoS is not an endorsement of one POV over another. — TheKMan^talk 05:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

And I disagree with you for reasons already stated. --ManiF 05:46, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I know you feel strongly about this, but please don't let your personal views interfere with how an article should be written. I hope you understand. — TheKMan^talk 05:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

This tribalism is disgraceful. It seems to me pretty clear that "arabian gulf" is an alternative, otherwise people wouldn't go to the trouble of doing junk like this: [1] [2] etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by William M. Connolley (talk • contribs)

United Nations has issued several directives asking different organizations not to use that name as an alternative or anything else. There is no history of that term being used in any language, including Arabic, prior to 1960's. I suggest that you study the history of that bogus name before calling other people's academically-supported opinion "disgraceful tribalism" and "junk". --ManiF 09:47, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

the name for the body of water is “Persian Gulf” and it has always been “Persian Gulf” in the history. You can't just introduce new alternatives whenever you feel like it, sure you can give places nicknames and call it by the nickname in your own house or among your friends but you can never expect your new found alternative to become official and internationally used. Pan-Arab movement is really becoming desperate these days, this is another one of their miserable antics.--Kraf001 09:51, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

You may consider this bogus. You may disagree with the "Pan Arab" movement. However it does not change the fact that a significant part of the world still considers it the "Arabian Gulf". Now, if you think that this wording exists does not exist in English, perhaps I should remind you of the National Geographic incident. — TheKMan^talk 13:25, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

::: Well, that's just your opinion. The National Geographic incident is actually a very good example, as their alternative listing was removed from the atlas and placed in Italics in a footnote with the history of the bogus term, after they realized their mistake. United Nations has called Persian Gulf "the only historically and legally valid term for the waterway separating Iranian plateaus from the Arabian Peninsula" on two occasions. On both occasions 191 Member States of the United Nations, including all 22 Arab nations represented at the United Nations signed the documents. That pretty much sums it up. --ManiF 13:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the latest version of the National Geographic atlas still has a note that states: "Historically and commonly known as the Persian Gulf, this body of water is also referred by some as the Arabian Gulf." It's usage is verifiable. — TheKMan^talk 13:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Read what I said again, the listing was removed from the atlas and placed in a footnote with an explanation. --ManiF 13:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed you changed your above comment after I pointed this out. Anyway, from WP:V: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. I think everyone agrees that this has to be mentioned, but when it is mentioned it does have to be in bold per the MoS. — TheKMan^talk 13:43, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The term is already mentioned but it does not have to be in bold because it's not an "often-used alternative name". Even your own quote says "..commonly known as the Persian Gulf...". --ManiF 13:47, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

ManiF, if you have a problem with this (among many other problems you seem to have), please take it up with the following organisations (including academia, sport, business and government):

• Arabian Gulf University in Bahrain: http://www.agu.edu.bh/ (Nice music)
• Traditional Music from the Arabian Gulf: http://isanet.org/mesassoc/Bulletin/campbell.htm
• Arabian Gulf Rugby Football Union: http://www.agrfu.com/
• Sheikh Mohammed's website: "The Arabian Gulf, or al-Khaleej al-Arabi in Arabic, lies between the Arabian Peninsula and Southwest Asia." - http://www.sheikhmohammed.co.ae/english/history/history_gulf.asp (he is the ruler of Dubai)
• Arabian Gulf Yellow Pages: http://members.tripod.com/alkhaliji/
• Arabian Gulf Chapter of the Special Libraries Association: http://www.sla.org/chapter/cag/
• Arabian Gulf Enterprises: http://www.arabiangulf.lk/
• Arabian Gulf Hotel Reservation: http://arabiaknights.com/

Better get going, you have a lot of work to do.--Ahwaz 13:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Its perfectly clear that "arabian gulf" is used in any number of scholarly publications: [3] William M. Connolley 13:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Ahwaz, we already know what the Persian Gulf Arabs call the Persian Gulf, tell me something I don't know. The Islamic regime in Iran also calls the United States "the Great Satan" but that doesn't mean it should be regarded as an alternative name for the United States. --ManiF 13:51, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

"The Great Satan" is obviously intended as an insult, whereas the Arabian Gulf is not. I don't think an American university would name itself "University of the Great Satan". The Arab states call it the Arabian Gulf, so it is an alternative name, regardless of what the UN says.--Ahwaz 13:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

It is amusing that, in ManiF's mind, the entire future of the Persian people rests on whether to bold or not to bold two words on Wikipedia! I don't really care. Give him his little kick and let him have his way. Keep it unboldened so ManiF feels happy.--Ahwaz 14:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

"Arabian Gulf" was originally intended to insult and provoke too. Go read the history of term and where it comes from. By the way, the google hits are either Arab sources/citing Arab sources or simply uninformed. Many of them are actually referring to the red sea in historical context, which was called Arabian Gulf. --ManiF 14:02, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Sheikh Mohammed, the ruler of one of the Gulf's most successful economies, along with the Arabian Gulf University must be ill-informed. They have not had the pleasure of hearing your wisdom, ManiF.--Ahwaz 14:06, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Ahwaz, for the last time, read WP:Civil and WP:NPA. I really don't appreciate your tone. --ManiF 14:09, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Ahhhh, are you getting tearful, ManiF? Take a few deep breaths, blow your nose and try to get things into perspective. Oh yes, you'll probably run off and tell someone to ban me for being uncivilised. Go ahead!--Ahwaz 14:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Crikey! Persian_Gulf_naming_dispute is linked to, the argument is well put there. The fact that there is all this debate here confirms that the two names exist. whether you like/dislike either one is irrelevant - they both are, although in the english language 'Persian Gulf' seems to be the officially preferred (note I didn't say 'exclusive') term. My personal problem is that historically Arabian Gulf has refered to the Red Sea, not the (dare I say it) Persian Gulf, and that causes confusion. But that is also alluded to in the first para as it sits 'right now'. Bold/Italic/Pink, the point is, the first para makes it obvious that some dispute exists, readers are directed to the appropriate page to explore that dispute, I don't think there's a lot of sense in inflaming the debate by arguing minutiea of format as well. Can we leave it as it is & agree to disagree? (sorry, forgot to sign this first time 'round) Bridesmill 02:19, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

---

I agree with the comment above - its fine as it is, it states the fact that it's called Persian gulf as recognised by everyone, and sometimes its referred to as Arabian gulf by a very few, and it links to the dispute article. --Kash 23:09, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. I wonder how arabs would react if iran suddenly started publicising and calling the arabian sea the iranian sea?

who cares if the arabs create universities and roads and name them arabian gulf. if iran creates universities and roads, and airports and calls them iranian sea does it change the fact that it is the arabian sea, no it doesnt, and it works the same for the Persian Gulf.

the hypocrisy and contradictions here are amazing! LOL. Iranian Patriot 04:46, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Bolding "Arabian Gulf" is clearly pushing a POV since it is not a commonly accepted term and is strongly associated with Arab nationalism. SouthernComfort 06:51, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, I see, if it is associated with Persian nationalism, it is correct but Arab nationalism is always wrong. I am learning more about Wikipedia rules. Persians right, Arabs wrong. OK, I understand.--Ahwaz 06:59, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

So, adhering to the proper and correct name is Persian nationalism? SouthernComfort 07:08, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

No-one suggested changing the name of the article, just to acknowledge that all the Arab governments in the Gulf region call it the Arabian Gulf and therefore it is an alternative name, not an official name. There is also no consensus. You are again imposing a decision, not arriving at a consensus - which is typical.--Ahwaz 07:19, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

It's not internationally recognized and it is a politically charged subject, as has been already explained numerous times. If "Arabian Gulf" were a legitimate alternative name, it would be internationally recognized and widely used. But it is not, due to (obvious) Arab nationalism. Bolding it would be saying the term is legitimate - other encyclopedias do not do this. SouthernComfort 07:22, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, please avoid making accusations against me - a number of other editors also disagree with bolding the term. SouthernComfort 07:24, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

But you said there was a consensus, but there is no consensus. See the discussion above. You are imposing your POV with the support of your gang. It is the same in every article. Bridesmill, William M. Connolley and TheKMan^talk have all argued their cases, but your gang has chosen to ignore them and impose something by weight of organised numbers. This behaviour is dictatorial.--Ahwaz 07:37, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't refer to me or anyone else as a "gang" or as being "dictatorial." SouthernComfort 07:39, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

What other name would you prefer? Falange?--Ahwaz 07:43, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

When are your friends Khoikhoi and Zereshk going to show up? I think they should be involved, don't you?--Ahwaz 07:48, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Make one more comment like that and I'll report you. See WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. SouthernComfort 08:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Please, report me. And while you're at it, report the user who wrote this nonsense: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Arabs_of_Khuzestan&diff=prev&oldid=46154909 which accuses users of racism and makes claims against Arabs. Let's see how fair you can be in the application of "civility" codes.--Ahwaz 08:09, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I just did - noticed as well that you called me an "ultra-nationalist" on the Hurriya talk. As for the comment you mention, why should anyone report it? If you want to report something, then report it yourself. SouthernComfort 08:16, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

It's an eye for an eye. If I am constantly told by you and your friends that I am "anti-Iranian", "anti-Persian", terrorist, separatist, racist, "lizard-eater", imposter, etc, for the way I spell "Ahwaz" or because I have a case regarding the demography of Khuzestan, then I think I have a right to call your little clique ultra-nationalist. It is what you are. No-one takes action against anti-Arab racism because most of the administrators here share your clique's sentiments about Arabs. It is to be expected. I use an Arabic word "hurriyya", and I am called a jihadist. No doubt you approve of this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Arabs_of_Khuzestan&diff=prev&oldid=46154909 because none of your clique are kicking up fuss over it as you are the demography of Khuzestan.--Ahwaz 09:33, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Go on, report me. You'll get some medals and awards for bravery to pin on your user page.--Ahwaz 09:38, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I am not your minder - if someone makes a personal attack against you, and you are aware of it, it is your own responsibility to report that person. Furthermore, I have never called you those names so you have just made another personal attack. As for the demographics of Khuzestan, I strongly disagree with your attempts to inflate the population numbers using POV sources, while also rejecting outright neutral sources such as the CIA factbook and Ethnologue. I tried my best to present fair and accurate estimates, but that was not good enough and the grossly inflated numbers attracted editors who were never interested in that article to begin with. Cause and effect. You would also do well to see WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA - you are not doing yourself any favors. SouthernComfort 09:47, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

My source was the US State Department's latest human rights report on Iran. Is that more POV than the CIA? You've reported me now, so I guess that's another block. You'll get a "barnstar for fighting the Arabs".--Ahwaz 09:55, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

That source was quoting "Ahwazi Arab" political groups. It wasn't stating the estimate as fact, precisely for that reason. SouthernComfort 10:05, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

The Arabs of Khuzestan article attracted editors because there was a big great notice on the Iranian Wikipedians notice board stating that my use of sources - including the US State Department and the only Iranian academic to do a study on the issue - was an "attack" and "anti-Iranian". I was singled out by your gang and you piled in and creating so much fuss (with your mysterious anons reverting anything I wrote) that it had to be protected. I never advertised for any editor to come along and disrupt the process of article writing. This whole Iranian Wikipedians notice board thing became a gang that organised against individual users, accusing them of "attacks" when no rules were actually broken. And you'll continue to do this, making accusations and running campaigns until no-one who disagrees with your agenda is left on Wikipedia.--Ahwaz 10:09, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

My gang, huh? You had best stop using that word, which is a blatant personal attack. That noticeboard had nothing to do with me, I was not aware of its entire contents until others brought up the problems, and I only made one quick edit about vandalism of the Khomeini article. Other than that single edit, I was not involved there, nor did I keep an eye on that article. So spare me the rhetoric and accusations. SouthernComfort 10:22, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, you were listed as a member and you were editing that article. This [4] still goes on, but in users' talk pages. The whole case against Aucaman was contrived, with vote-stuffing and canvassing for votes against him. You are a minor participant in this, but nevertheless the whole Persian thing that affects almost every article, from Arab scientists to demography and geography, is being conducted as an organised campaign. And I am no longer prepared to shut up about it on the basis of the "civility" codes you keep quoting. There has been plenty of incivility against me and other users from that Iranian notice board that has gone unaddressed that it makes Wikipedia rules and enforcement laughable.--Ahwaz 10:49, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

The noticeboard has no "members" list, and I only made one edit to that article. As for the case against Aucaman, that has been addressed in much further detail elsewhere. SouthernComfort 11:36, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Ahwaz, a talk page is not a chatbox. Please read WP:FAITH, stop making accusations and stay on topic of the discussions; Persian Gulf. --ManiF 11:46, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Assume good faith? Nobody assumed good faith when I was editing. I was derided as "anti-Iranian", "anti-Persian", separatist, terrorist, "leading a holy war", etc. When have you shown me good faith?--Ahwaz 12:14, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

There is no list on the notice board, but there is here -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Iran#Participants - same group of people every time (although I am amused to see Zora's name there) - which organised the notice board. Oh look, your name is second. Sasanjan who made the racist anti-Arab comments on the Arabs of Khuzestan talk page is also there, along with Dariush4444 who called me anti-Persian for debating the ethnic demography of Khuzestan. And Zmmz, who is leading the campaign against the "anti-Iranian" Iranian Aucaman.--Ahwaz 12:08, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

So because I am part of the Iran WikiProject I am automatically connected to the noticeboard? Give me a break. Anyone can join who is interested in the subject that the WikiProject deals with, and most of the editors listed there haven't been involved with the noticeboard either. Accuse me all you want, it won't get you very far. SouthernComfort 12:39, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

"arabian" gulf is fabricated and extremely political in nature, only few decades old. It is illegitimate, only recognized by 1.2% of the global population. It is very foolish to force a unpopular, illicit, incorrect and illiterate term up on people.

3000 years the water has and is known as the Persian Gulf, even before the emergences of arab semites. The Persian Gulf is the correct, globally accepted name for the body of water situated south of Iran, and north of UAE.

"arabian gulf" cannot even be considered as a nickname for the Bold textPersian GulfPersian Gulf, let alone be mentioned in a encyclopaedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sinamohajer (talk • contribs)

NPOV tag

I have added the {{NPOV}} tag to this article as requested by user:SouthernComfort at WP:AN (not WP:AN/I as I mistakenly put in my edit summary). I have not read the article and have just skimmed this talk page. I am not going to get involved in this issue (I haven't time). Thryduulf 12:13, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you kindly. SouthernComfort 12:36, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Iranica has an article on this subject: [5]. --Zereshk 07:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Arabian Gulf bold-facing?

The World Recognizes the Persian Gulf as the Persian Gulf. If the citizens of some arab countries choose to use the false term: "arabian" gulf, then fine, but keep it to your selves. We want WIKIPEDIA to remain factual and represent the world, not the tiny minority of some Arabs who are pushing to change illicitly manufacture historical facts.

I created a new thread because the "Arabian Gulf" thread seems to have lost it's focus on the subject after the first few posts. Anyway ... I believe that Arabian Gulf is not a "commonly accepted" alternative name, in fact I believe it can be more accurately described as a "commonly rejected" alternative name according to many prestigous and unbiased sources including the U.N. which has made it clear in it's editorial directives that the only accepted name of the gulf, is the Persian Gulf. Therefore i think, as User:SouthernComfort had pointed out earlier too, the term is pushing a POV and cleary associated with Arab nationalism. The National Geographic incident is a very good precedent that can be followed here for settling the dispute over bold-facing Arabian Gulf. For those that do not know what i'm talking about, National Geographic Atlas, in one of it's recent editions, had printed the term Arabian Gulf in paranthesis and smaller fonts next to the name Persian Gulf. Shortly after they were requested to review the matter, they removed the term Arabian Gulf even in paranthesis and smaller fonts and placed it only in a footnote that explains about this term being used locally in some Arab countries. I think National Geographic atlas is an excellent verifiable source that backs the decision for not bold-facing Arabian Gulf. Barnetj 16:52, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

A name doesn't have to be widely accepted to be considered an alternative. However, I think people are beginning to make too big a deal out of the number of single-quotes surrounding these words, so I will have to recommend italisizing "Arabian Gulf" as a compromise. Its usage is widespread enough to deserve formatting in a way to point it out from the rest of the text, but since it is also widely rejected by a number of neutral academic sources, should not take the next formatting step up, boldfacing. I think this would be a fair compromise. — TheKMan^talk 17:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I support this compromise. Barnetj 18:25, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I support User:TheKMan's compromise. --ManiF 18:38, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

• Sorry, agree that Nat Geo is excellent source & verifiable, but this business is a matter of opinion, not fact. Because both 'facts' are true - there *are* people who refer to the Persian Gulf as the Arabian Gulf. Right, Wrong, or Otherwise...refusing to acknowledge the existense of the 'Arabian Gulf' POV is in itself POV, politiacl agenda, and appeal to authority. You can't wish away an unpalatable (to you) reality by ignoring it. Lets just all agree to disagree & leave the intro as it was - made it quite clear what the isssue of contention is. And having an argument over whether to make it Bold or Italic or whatever threatens to become peurile rather than conciliatory. And just to clarify my personal bias, I think refering to the Persian Gulf as the Arabian Gulf is confusing, given that an Arabian Gulf already exists Bridesmill 18:00, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it must be mentioned in wikipedia as a fact, that some Arabian states refer to this gulf by the alternative name Arabian Gulf, I don't think we should ignore that. But what i do not agree with, is emphasizing it as a commonly accepted alternative name. Barnetj 18:25, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Bolding the Arabian Gulf makes it appear that it is, in fact, a legitimate alternative name. It is not. The same holds true for "Persia" - "Persia" is not a legitimate alternative name recognized by the international community for Iran. It is not bolded in the Iran article and should remain unbolded. The same holds true here - only some Arab states accept "Arabian Gulf" and that is due to nationalist and prejudicial anti-Iranian (or more specifically, anti-Persian) sentiment. WP should not endorse such positions. SouthernComfort 19:20, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

What major encyclopedia's say

Britannica

Persian Gulf also called Arabian Gulf, Arabic Bahr Faris, Persian Khalij-e Fars, shallow marginal sea of the Indian Ocean that lies between the Arabian Peninsula and southwestern Iran.

[6]

Encyclopedia of the Orient

Persian Gulf

Persian: khalij-e fars (persian gulf)

Arabic: 'al-khaliju l-arabiyy (arabian gulf)

Gulf bordering Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, United Arab Emirates and Oman, with an area of 240,000 km², a maximum depth of 90 metres, and an average depth is 50 metres.

[7]

Google

Google, the compass of the Internet shows 2 million hits for "Arabian Gulf" [8] and 90 million hits for "The Gulf" [9], while Perisian Gulf is only 19 million hits !![10]

Conculisions

• Arabian gulf and The gulf combined is used much more than persian gulf.
• In Britanica both Persian gulf and Arabian gulf is written in bold.
• In all encyclopedia's, Arabian gulf is mentioned at the introduction exactly beside "persian gulf" and not 4 lines away like in wikipedia.

Its also worth noting that in Iran you can go to jail for using the term Arabian Gulf!!! Its the equivalent of burning the american flag in the USA!! This explains the emotional behavour of some Iranian wikipedians. Jidan 20:08, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

"Arabian Gulf" is NOT mentioned in all encyclopedias. "In Iran you can go to jail for using the term Arabian Gulf" is a totally false statement. What is your source for this information? --ManiF 20:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

dear Jidan,

• as i had pointed out before: the fact that there are [x] million google hits for the "arabian gulf" does not prove anything in terms of the widespread acceptance or usage of the name. the term "arabian gulf" has been the center of much controversy and therefore a lot has been written about it. one might claim that 99% of those hits are actually articles rejecting the use of that term in english.
• the number of results for a google search on "the gulf" is totally irrelavant. "the gulf" is a generic term and could refer to any gulf in the context of the page that was searched.
• your statement about people going to jail for using the name arabian gulf in iran is false (please name one instance) but more importantly it is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
• it has been explained many times in previous discussions on this talk page that the majority of independent and unbiased sources including the United Nations (i hope that's credible enough for you) recognize "persian gulf" as the only correct name for this body of water. Barnetj 20:40, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Dear Barnetj, are you saying that all major encyclopedias and Brittanica are wrong? Jidan 20:53, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Dear Jidan, I'm very interested to know where you go this statement from "In Iran you can go to jail for using the term Arabian Gulf". I'm still waiting for your answer. --ManiF 20:56, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

dear jidan, like i said, the majority (but not all) of independent and unbiased sources recognize persian gulf as the only correct name of this gulf in the english language. for example encyclopedia of the orient (which you had referred to) only mentions arabian gulf as the name used in arabic language (not english). another example would be the national geographic world atlas (see above, under section "arabian gulf bold-facing?") Barnetj 21:18, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Jidan, are you on drugs? first of all, google searches for anything that has the words arabian gulf in them. therefore, out of those 2 million, 1.5 million of them could be about the Persian Gulf dispute, or just have arabian gulf in parenthesis or something. Second of all, have you ever heard of the arabian gulf bomb? here is an example: http://arabian-gulf.info/

Also, i typed in The Gulf and just simply Gulf, not only did articles about the Persian Gulf come up, but also about any article that had the word Gulf in it, such as the gulf of mexico, the gulf of florida, etc...

Nice research man, you proved yourself quite the idiot.

Also, iran doesnt send people to jail for using the term arabian gulf, unlike the UAE. And im not saying encyclopedia brittannic is wrong, but when it comes to the middle east it is very biased. remember that it was the british that first used the term arabian gulf heavily, and to this day, because of the tension between iran and britain, this bias is still around.

and lastly, should i edit the Arabian Sea page, because some people also call that the Iranian Sea... LOL, i'll wait for the response before i take any action.Iranian Patriot 21:05, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Iranian Patriot, i'm sure we can all serve our cause better if we remain calm. there's no need for insulting others with statements such as "are you on drugs?". specially as an Iranian with a culture that has "built-in manners", i'm sure you would agree. Barnetj 21:29, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Let's cool down a bit guys. Comment on the content and information provided, not the contributor. There is no need to be in-civil towards another user. — TheKMan^talk 21:08, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Its OK. I forgive Iranian Patriot. He is actually a nice guy. This issue is very sensitive to the Iranians...Why? I dont think the arabs will be so emotionally if the iranians named the arabian see, iranian see. Jidan 00:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, using the term "Arabian Gulf" in Iran is not allowed. Why do you think did Iran ban National Geographic?

Try walking in tehran with a t-shirt written on it "Arabian Gulf" and see what will happen. You will be lucky if the police catches you before the citizens start beating you. Jidan 23:11, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Please backup your statements with quotations and references. You are simply making false allegations. --ManiF 01:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

OK. From Times:

IT TAKES a lot to unite the Iranians, but National Geographic magazine has pulled it off. Everyone from the most devout mullah to the most fervent moderniser is unanimous in a furious response to what was perceived as a perfidious attack on the country’s proud civilisation and long history.

The crime? The magazine added the words “Arabian Gulf” in brackets beneath “Persian Gulf” on a map to label the body of water that divides Iran from its Arab neighbours. [11]

Jidan 02:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

That article doesn't claim what you are claiming which is, and I quote again: "In Iran you can go to jail for using the term Arabian Gulf". I'm waiting for you to backup that allegation with a reference. --ManiF 02:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

For crimes you go to jail. And using the the label "Arabian Gulf" in Iran is a crime. Thats why National geographic was banned and I gave a reference from a newspaper. Jidan 02:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

"Crime" in that sentsence is a figure of speech, not literal. I asked you to provide a source that says or suggests what you claimed which is "In Iran you can go to jail for using the term Arabian Gulf". --ManiF 02:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Why do some people always try to turn these talk pages into a forum for discussing Iran's internal politics or people? Aucaman^Talk 02:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Good question. No one was discussing "Iran's internal politics or people" until Ahwaz and Jidan came along. --ManiF 02:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

No one was ever sent to jail in Iran for saying Arabian Gulf, ever! Maybe in UAE it is a crime for which you can go to jail but not in Iran. The worst Iran did was banning National Geography and Iran also threatened to pull out of Asian Olympic as the result of Qatar using the term. Please don’t make up stories. Thank you. Gol 06:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Persian Gulf in Arabic Wikipedia

- Persian Gulf is the correct name for the body of water - Well considering the CORRECT and FACTUAL name for the Body of Water surrounding the Arabian and Persian peninsula is the PERSIAN GULF, it is of no suprise that WIKIPEDIA decided to use the correct name in the Arabic edition. Or do you want them to change historical, global and geographical facts just for you? I dont think that is possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sinamohajer (talk • contribs)

Regarding the naming dispute, I thought it would be interesting to note that in the Arabic language wikipedia, the main page about this body of water is titled "Persian Gulf" (الخلیج الفارسی in Arabic) [12] and the article on "Arabian Gulf" (الخلیج العربی in Arabic) is a redirect to the Persian Gulf page [13]. The caption of the first picture in this arabic article roughly translates as: "A map from the year 1565 that shows the name of the gulf as the Persian Gulf, and shows the name Arabian Gulf where the Red Sea is". Barnetj 21:55, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

It looks like that page was just moved. The decision looks very controversial since there's been a lot of edit warring over what to call the article. [14]

[15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] So it's not as clear-cut as you're trying to make it sound. Were you just trying to change the subject? The point was that many major sources present Arabian Gulf as an alternative to Persian Gulf and point out that the name is used by the local population. As I've said many times, bold-facing "Arabian Gulf" is not an endorsement of its usage; it's a recognition of its usage. Aucaman^Talk 22:39, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

If you look at the history of the page, you will see that the page has not been "just moved". However it is definitely a controversial subject over there too (as you have pointed out) but what i think is interesting is that eventually the dominant view seems to be in favor of keeping Persian Gulf as the primary name. About whether bold-facing arabian gulf is an endorsement of it or not, please read the posting under section "arabian gulf bold-faced?". Barnetj 05:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Looks to me like the page was just moved back to "Arabian Gulf" and is likely to just stay there. Aucaman^Talk 16:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

It is as if the arabs and the arab nations want confrontation with Iran. Its like their goal is war or tension. No wonder the Israeli Palestinian issue isnt solved yet. LOL. When historica the name of the Red Sea is the Arabian Gulf, why do the Arabs insist on changing the name of the Persian Gulf? I dont see their reasoning, all i can conclude is that they are racist or they just want tension.

Jidan, i know that you would be offended if Iran started changing things around. What if Iran started calling Gulf of Oman something else, or the Arabian Sea, or Shatt al Arab water way? i know you would be offended, dont try to act like you wont.

the arabian gulf is an invention, and it was created for the sole purpose of creating tension between arabs and iranians, and unfortunatly, the arabs still want that tension.Iranian Patriot 17:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

United Nations - Standardization of Geographical Names (UNCSGN), Resolution III/20

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

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

This is also consistent with all major encyclopdia's(Britanica, Colomubia, etc), englsih and non-english. Therefore the entry in the main article should be like this:

Persian Gulf also called Arabian Gulf, is a ......

I hope this settles the issue. Jidan 19:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Are you forgetting that the United Nations has already clarified it's position in this specific case through at least two editorial directives, stating that the ONLY standard geographical name of this gulf is the Persian Gulf? I always try to assume good faith, but now i have no choice but to conclude that you are deliberately trying to game the system with this kind of posts. Barnetj 19:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Just want to make this clear: If we were to accept the United Nation's view on this matter, then there should be no mention of the term "Arabian Gulf" at all! It is clearly stated in U.N. directives (in 1994 and again in 1999) that the one and only recognized name of this gulf is the Persian Gulf. I fully support this solution to settle the dispute. All editors in favor of basing the article on U.N. directives and removing all mentions of the term "arabian gulf" please announce your support. Barnetj 20:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

There are many naming disputes in this World. For example: english chanal or La manch? East sea or Japan sea? etc. The resolution from UN that I posted above states that: it should be a general rule of cartography that the name used by each of the countries concerned will be accepted.

Wouldn't it be fine if we agree to disagree and mention this also in the article? Jidan 20:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

UN does not recognize the name Arabian Gulf. It has made it clearly on two occasions. The only time that in a text published by UN the term is mentioned is when it is a transcript of a speech from an Arab guest or ambassador who has chosen to refer to Persian Gulf with another name. No map published or used by UN ever uses the term Arabian Gulf not even as an alternative. Going according to UN is not going to help those who favor Arabian Gulf since UN has made it very clear what is the ONLY legitimate name of that body of water. The official name is Persian Gulf and I appreciate if people do not try to twist things around. The argument was never about what is the official name, some users are now trying to argue that Arabian Gulf is as valid as Persian Gulf while the argument was never about that. It was about whether the alternative should be bold-face or not. Please don’t try to manipulate the conversation for your own agenda. Even Aucaman who start this whole thing agrees that Persian Gulf is the legitimate name and that Arabian Gulf is not an internationally recognized name so please don’t try to change the subject. Italicizing the term would be the best compromise.

Gol 03:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Outside Perspective

I looked into this page because of a note on WP:RFC. I have noticed a few things, one of them very concerning: Sinamohajer has removed and edited comments apparently made by others, deleted references to the archives, and otherwise vandalized this Talk page, while adding WP:NPA-prohibited attacks, often unsigned. This must stop. If it does not, a civil discourse here cannot take place.

Second, there was recently a similarly vitriolic naming dispute at Falkland Islands -- I suggest that people take a look at that. In the end, the editors of that page determined to use the ISO standard designation in the intro, discussing the controversy regarding the name in a closely-following paragraph. This is what I would suggest here. It is neither appropriate to use a name that is not internationally accepted as the page name or (usually) prominently in the introduction, nor is it appropriate to omit entirely a name in common use by a substantial minority, in this case many bordering countries. But as I said, first the vandalism of this Talk page must stop. I will try to revert some of it myself. -- Gnetwerker 18:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

With a link to 'Persian Gulf naming dispute' at the start, this really oughtn't to be an issue. In such a case it is the responsibility of the article to be under the title, and to use the closest offical name possible - again, the ISO seems a good choice here. Then, a brief link to the name controversy page, with an explanation as to alternative names used later in the article. Robdurbar 18:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and I endorse the quote that: 'bold-facing "Arabian Gulf" is not an endorsement of its usage; it's a recognition of its usage' Robdurbar 18:39, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

This sentence is not acceptable

The following sentence should be modified: Since 1960s, Persian Gulf Arabs and their states have usually referred to the water body as the Arabian Gulf.

Up to now, United nations has past three resolutions saying that the name of this Gulf is Persian Gulf. The usage of the word Arabian Gulf has been repeatedly condemed by UN.

I suggest the following sentence:

Despite three UN resolutions in condeming such act, some Persian Gulf Arabs and their states keep on refering to the water body as the Arabian Gulf. Some Arab states appologized for that.

We can't have the word arabian gulf in this article without mentioning who (Saddam Hossein and President of Egypt) were behind it. The word arabian gulf is not simply a name. There is a hateful politics behind it. The United Nations with its 22 Arab members countries has on several occasions officially declared the unalterable name of the sea between Iran and the Arabian Peninsula as the Persian Gulf. --Fooladin11:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

It is not Wikipedia's place to take sides in international conflicts. The NPOV way to state the point above is much more like you first wrote it: "Since the 1960s, some states bordering the Persian Gulf have referred to the body of water as the Arabian Gulf, despite three United Nations resolutions‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.›  formalizing the name as Persian Gulf. This states the facts without passing judgements on them. Partisans on both sides, please take note. -- Gnetwerker 05:37, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

---

I found the following link to a recent 8 page UN Paper: Historical, Geographical and Legal Validity of the Name: PERSIAN GULF (4 April 2006) http://unstats.un.org/unsd/geoinfo/gegn23wp61.pdf

I think we can take it that a group of the UN experts on the subject are not biased too much! I leave it for someone who has the time to incorporate the UN report into the rest of the page. By the way, the main culprit is BBC and I am after them thru an MP’s office. I think the above mentioned report is great. Cheers, Kiumars. 82.70.40.190 18:03, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Poll?

We're not talking about which name is more "correct". Bold-facing "Arabian Gulf" is not an endorsement of its usage; it's a recognition of its usage. Bold-facing has nothing to do with correctness. You're telling me that "Dubya" is the correct way of addressing the President of United States and that's why it's bold-faced here? Bold-facing has nothing to do with correctness.

The article's title has to do with correctness. If the article's title was "Arabian Gulf" I would certainly agree with moving it to "Persian Gulf". But that's not the case, and no one is challenging the currect title.

The fact is that "Arabian Gulf" is used by some people and this deserves mentioning. If you think it's incorrect, then you can explain why it's incorrect. See WP:NPOV: "The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these are fairly presented, but not asserted. All significant points of view are presented, not just the most popular one."

I think it's about time we take a poll on this. Aucaman^Talk 20:24, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

It is already mentioned and it does already mention why its incorrect. -- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 22:41, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm; c'mon folks - the link in the 'Since 1960' line points to 'persian gulf', with searches for 'arabian gulf' redirected - That's not *really* playing nice...If I could suggest using wording such as "although several UN resolutions continue to refer to the Persian gulf....," rather than despite which has fairly forceful connotations (as in 'despite a 24 hour block for 3rr user nitwit continues to push this POV). I'm not sure a poll is going to help too much as it will hang on who calls most of their friends.Bridesmill 20:46, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Unprotected

This article has been protected a rather long time for the level of dialogue that's happening on this talk page. Please try to edit constructively and then it won't be necessary to protect the page. I'm leaving it unprotected, but if edit warring breaks out again you can always make a new request that it be protected. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 00:06, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. -- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 00:50, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

To bold or not to bold

See Falkland Islands - the "other" name ("Islas Malvinas") there is not bolded. It shouldn't be bolded here for the same reason. Italics is fine, and this was the original format here before a certain someone decided to bold it for no good reason. Up to then, no one had a problem with italics. SouthernComfort 04:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, "Malvinas" in Falkland Islands is bold-faced now. Secondly, it's usually not a good practice to suggest rewriting a disputed section of an article based on another disputed article. The example of Dubya I gave seems to be better. Aucaman^Talk 04:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Not anymore it's not, and you cannot take this problem to other articles to suit your POV. "Dubya" is a nickname, not a geographical body. The manual of style doesn't say anything about using "alternative" names which are controversial and offensive to a certain group. Bolding is inappropriate. SouthernComfort 04:47, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing offensive about "Arabian Gulf". Also note that Wikipedia is not censored: "Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive." This is not the first time I've seen you call things you don't like "offensive". Aucaman^Talk 04:58, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

That's your POV. Iranians consider it offensive [27] [28]. Yes, and you are offended by plenty of other things as well, so what's your point exactly? Bolding is unnecessary and there are no WP policies or guidelines which stress that it must be bolded. SouthernComfort 05:01, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm an Iranian and I don't think there's anything offensive about the term. That's the point. The notion that term "Arabian Gulf" is "offensive" because it contains the word "Arab" is pretty racist in an of itself. Aucaman^Talk 05:26, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I've provided sources regarding the issue of offensiveness and why it is considered offensive. Again, no WP policy or guideline exists to stress that it must be bolded. SouthernComfort 05:29, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Those sources do not claim that the word is "offensive". Why should it be offensive? Aucaman^Talk 05:33, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Read the sources - they're fairly clear. And again, no WP policy or guideline exists to stress that it must be bolded. Italics is fine, as with Falkland Islands and other such articles where controversy exists. SouthernComfort 05:34, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Tthe term "Arabian Gulf" is offensive to many, not just Iranians, because of its political nature and the fact that it's a politically constructed name meant to promote Arab superiority and Pan-Arabist ideas. Persian Gulf contains none of those connotations. Kirbytime 05:52, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

In my view, the decision to bold rests on how "official" the nomenclature is. In this case, "Arabian Gulf" seems to have little broad political support, but is rather used as a cudgel by various nations. I would include it in the WP:LEAD, but as part of the description involing the nationas who say "Arabian Gulf". The difference from the Falklands is that in that case the ISO designation is in fact "Falklands (Malvinas)". -- Gnetwerker 05:57, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

The way I think of it bold-facing has nothing to do with officiality. It has to do with popularity and usage. See Dubya, for example. Aucaman^Talk 06:06, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

So would i be correct in understanding that, embolidng aside, everyone would be happy with the 'also called the Arabian Gulf by some' with this explained elsewhere in the page, and naming dispute linked to? Robdurbar 07:27, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

The wording is currently fine. There is a section on it, how much more do we need to emphasize on the matter? - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 10:59, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Stub

I've categorised this article as a stub to highlight that, beyond the naming content and a list that gives way too much prominance - considering the article's length - to British rule in the Gulf, there is baisically no content here. Let's get the article extended before worrying about whether a term is bolded or italicized. Robdurbar 07:22, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup

I have moved the long section on the "British Residency" into another article, and cleaned up the Naming Dispute section language. However, the article still needs cleaning, in particular, the WP:LEAD which is too long and does not summarize the content (of which there is little). -- Gnetwerker 21:27, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Arabian Gulf, again

If we're going to move a mention of the Arabian Gulf to the bottom of the page, the least we can do is put it in bold so people can see it, as there have already been several instances of users trying to add the mention back to the top. Someone please point me to discussion that led to moving it to the bottom and leaving it in italics only. — TheKMan^talk 19:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Please look 3 paragraphs above this comment -- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 20:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for my belated discussion on this topic, but I believe the formatting change should be made for my reasons stated above. — TheKMan^talk 20:07, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Persian( Arabian ) Gulf

All encyclopedia's(e.g. Britanica) mention both names, Persian and Arabian Gulf, right in the beginning. Why should wikipedia be different?

Omitting Arabian Gulf from the beginning of the article is like omitting it from the whole article, why?

There are many other similiar naming disputes like Sea of Japan (East Sea) or English Channel(La Manche), where both names are mentioned at the beginning of the article, and both are bolded, why should the Persian(Arabian) Gulf article be different?

Unfortunatly, there is a political agenda behind this. Wikipedia should not bow to this. I think its really silly enough that the Iranian's went that far to make website's such as this [29]. I really mean no offense to my Iranian friends, but this is simply childish. jidan 21:33, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

the arabian gulf can be mentioned in the dispute section. that is the only place where it should be mentioned. that is like telling the turks that they have to have constantinople in bold letters in the istanbul article just because greeks insist on calling it that. it makes no sense.Iranian Patriot 23:41, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Arabian Gulf Resolved

I came across this article in Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/History_and_geography. I believe that the situation has been resolved. The current arrangement of titling the article by its most common name but also devoting a section to its most common alternative name is the most responsible solution.--M@rēino 15:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

People Calm down and be rational

Wikipedia is not a nationalists site, it should be Neutral,

i really dont see why would some Iranian think that Putting the term Arabian Gulf in the main Article is Naltionalistic thing?, its an alternative term USED by more than one states members of the UN,

the UN has official papers in it has the Term Arabian Gulf ( yes it does, go to www.un.org and search for the term Arabian gulf you will get around 470 pages, and the term persian gulf you will get 920 pages) so its mentioned in the UN papers !

I as an Arab know History and know that the Term Persian Gulf is the most commonly used term and its been used for at least the last 2500 years

BUT

this does NOT mean that this Gulf been Called Persian Gulf Always, this is misleading and not true, this body of water had OLDER names, such as the Bitter Sea called by the Babylonians, and an older name is also the Lower Sea called by the older civilization of Sumer.

Sumerians were not Iranians and Were there 2000 years before persians has their first great Empire.

my point is that this Gulf had different names through History, Latest one in the 60s Arab decided to change the name ( iam not talking about right or wrong, iam talking about Facts that i know" and changed it to Arabian Gulf due to some relation problems with Persia under the Shah who supported Israel and the rest of the bla bla bla....etc.

so saying that this Gulf has only one name is Wrong.

even Encyclopedia Britannica has the Term Arabian Gulf mentioned in Bold under the main Topic name which Persian Gulf,

its a FACT that this Term is used , not by one nation But by more than 10 ( i wanted to say 21 as the members of the Arab league but to be sure its more than 10).

since its USED officially then its A fact that its been used,, Igonoring this FACT is Pure Denial,

i hope Wikipedia stay Neutral and present FACTS,

ultra Senstive people should accept facts, and try to controle their Nationalisim , specially in sties like these, you dont know maybe with this paranoia and unltra sensitivity you will send the wrong msg.

take care

Ioj 06:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Those UN documents you are talking are written by Arab states within the UN. The UN uses the term Persian Gulf and Persian Gulf only in its own documents. And by your logic, if a group of countries started calling the Arabian Sea the Iranian Sea that makes it ok? The fact is, the term arabian gulf was invented to create tension between Iran and the Arab world by the british, and now the Arabs, who obviously still want that tension, are insisting on keeping this term. It makes no sense to me at all, i dont get the logic.Iranian Patriot 00:10, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Not All written by Arab States, some of them are UN Reports and they do mention the Arabian Gulf.

its a FACT that the Arabian Gulf Term does Exist and used not by small groups or anything, but used by Countries (not one country but Countries) and yea if Countries started calling the Arabian Sea Iranian sea then its a FACT that a new term is used officially and must be put here , THATS WHY THIS IS CALLED ENCYCLOPEDIA and it should has all the informations., and some of you Guys are Denying it, it seems like your pride and nationalisim has huge effect in your thinking.

as i mentioned earlier this extra or ultra sensitivity is so sending the wrong msg, each time i type Arabs gulf it sends me here! wtf! FYI there is a gulf called ARABS GULF and its different from the "persian" gulf. Arabs gulf is in the Mediterranean Sea west of Alexandria, in Arabic there is difference between Arabian Gulf and Arab Gulf, they are not the same, some people ignornat about terms and Arabiclanguge started linking the two gulfs , we call the persian gulf arabian gulf not Arab Gulf, Arabs gulf is a gulf in egypt.

i admire your and other Iranians' courage defending the "name" of the persian gulf, but at the same time propaganda sites such as persiangulfonline.org are spreading all sort of hatred and racisim against Arabs and Islam, they deleted my msg and kept all the hatred and stupid statements they aready has there, i tried to explain to them that talking about history and maps is irrelevant and ignorance, History is known and our government know it, they decided to change the name . so if Iran and iranians want to defend that and bring Arab states in calling that gulf Persian gulf they should discuss the reasons of the change NOT ancient History, we are not that ignornat we know history, something called by a certian name in history will not prevent future communitites from changing its name. examples? Istanbul/Constantinople, Shat Al Arab/Arvamdarod and the current example Lower Sea/Bitter Sea/ Persian Gulf/ Basra Gulf/ Arabian Gulf, all these are names used by BIG significant communities through history denying any of them is Denial, sure you can make a whole paragraph stateing your own opinion about right and wrong, but facts are facts and should not be effected by nationalisistic ideas.

also i dont see Iranains making such Crisis about Shat Al Arab? and what about the ignorant statments in the Ajam topic? if Ajam means dumb then why would it be mentioned in the Shahnameh??

it seems like many Iranians in Wikipedia are Anti-Arabs and too nationalisitc, too bad for wikipedia Ioj 05:10, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

this is not a matter of being anti-arab. i personally, as an iranian, respect arabs and their culture very much. however it's not acceptable to use an encyclopedia as an instrument for promoting the campaign of a small group of people/countries that are trying to change the historical name of a region of the world. i'm amazed why some people label the actions of iranians in defending the historical and legal name of the persian gulf as "nationalist emotions"! ! the name was already there(!), and then a nationalist arab leader started the new term "arabian" gulf just 40 years ago and since then arab states have gone as far as passing different legislation to promote the new name. ok, now let's be fair and take a second to review the history of the issue in your mind. who do you think is acting on "nationalist emotions"? Barnetj 18:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The alternative name IS mentioned so please stop saying that we are denying its existence. To completely erase the name is wrong as you mentioned but this article IS NOT doing that as the name is very clearly mentioned and its existence is acknowledged. However, the attempt to make this "alternative" name look as legitimate as the original name is completely wrong. This alternative is ONLY used in a few countries (all of them Arab) and it is not internationally accepted; UN does not recognize it either (has mentioned on more than one occasion that the only acceptable name is Persian Gulf) The other name however is used in the whole world and not just among Persian people and not just historically but even today. The difference is very clear. I don’t appreciate you implying that Iranians are racist since it is very offensive. It is easy to accuse a group of people but it is not wise to do so. Please avoid personal attacks. Gol 04:43, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Iranians dont make a fuss about the Shat al Arab waterway and the Arabian Sea because we respect you people enough to not change things on you! obviously we arent getting the same respect back! i find it extremely funny how arabs accuse us iranians of being racists and chauvinists when they are the only racists and chauvanists apparently. it amazes me how you only see the arab issue of this. Iran recognises everything with arab names in them so dont call us racists! but arabs refuse to tolerate anything iranian. like you said, you guys already have an arab gulf, why create tensions with iran? THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS THAT ARABS HAVE ALWAYS BEEN HOSTILE TOWARDS IRAN AND HAVE ALWAYS HAD HATRED TOWARDS IRAN! you know this, and i know this.Iranian Patriot 16:32, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Gol well i see its mentioned after a pathatic war from the iranian members here which they partially lost, its not mentioned in the first paragraph as the unrecognised name "Arvandrod" in Shatt Al Arab title, and that "Arvandrod" is the only title in the Persian section !! how you will explain that, its clear that Nationalisim from the iranian side is working hard in manipulating facts to their advantage. if its accpeted as a FACT and IS used by COUNTRIES then it should be mentioned in the first paragraph.

Iranian Patriot iranian dont make a fuss?!!! you sure? go check shatt al Arab and see whats written there from the title "Arvandrud/shatt alrab" and in the persian section it only arvandrud and shat al arab between brakets!!, how biased and pathtic is that?, you want facts to be presented here or just propaganda which is obviouse?.Ioj 12:31, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Ioj, don't you agree that the whole naming dispute about the persian gulf, was started and flamed by "arab nationalism" (i.e. Gamal Abdel Nasser in 1960s)? how could one not agree with that? this whole dispute has nothing to do with iranian nationalism, it's all about arab nationalistic propaganda. don't get me wrong, i'm not saying this as an offense to arabs or anything; i respect arabs very much and have many good arab friends. i'm just trying to state facts without feelings. Barnetj 18:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Merge of Persian Gulf States

I would suggest that Persian Gulf States be made a redirect to this article, as everything under that title can and should be discussed here. Of course I am not saying this of the Persian Gulf Arab States article, as that smaller region has a cultural distinctiveness which merits its own article.--Pharos 04:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. That article is only a stub and has the potential to be expanded (trade, navigation, etc.). Kaveh 17:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

But my point is that trade, navigation etc. should properly be discussed at the main Persian Gulf article. We don't have a Southeast Asian States article; all of that information is satisfactorally at the Southeast Asia article.--Pharos 22:46, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Persian Gulf will be remained Persian Gulf forever

Persian Gulf will be remained Persian Gulf forever

The historical name of the Persian Gulf is a familiar name for all the countries in the world, particularly the countries of Middle East. Commenting on the issue, Egyptian Dr. Mostafa Alfaqi said, "In the decade of the 1950s, the cabinet of Iran's then prime minister Dr. Mohammad Mosaddeq was overthrown and his foreign minister Dr Hossein Fatemi was killed. The Shah, with his tense relations with Iraq on the Arvand-Roud (Shatt-ul-Arab) assumed the role of the region's gendarme in opposition to the government of Jamal Abdel Nasser. Therefore, the Arabs asked for the change of the name of the Persian Gulf to the Arabian Gulf when they saw that the Shah of Iran was supporting Israel and was against Arab nationalism."

It seems natural that some low-minded and prejudiced persons would want to change the authentic and historical name of the Persian Gulf, but it is not expected from intellectuals who should be clarifying public opinion with historical truths. Considering this fact, the prejudiced reaction of a person such as Jamal Abdel Nasser to a historical truth thousands of years old is regrettable.

According to another narration, the forged name for Persian Gulf was fabricated and presented by a Jewish Syrian, Eli Cohen, who was one of the members of the Iraqi Baath Party in Damascus. As Iran and Egypt did not have friendly relations then, and as the Shahanshah of Iran was supporting Israel, the suggestion was welcomed by Cairo. Cohen was later accused of espionage, arrested for spying for Israel and executed in Damascus.

Considering all this, it seems improper that some news and official circles of Arab countries prefer prejudice to wisdom and use a false name for the Persian Gulf. The Persian Gulf was called by this name even before the advent of Islam. If there was any need to change the real and historical name of the Persian Gulf, the Prophet Mohammad would definitely have changed it. So, what is the reason that some Arab countries chauvinistically call for the change of this real and historical name, merely because it bears a Persian name?

How is that some Arab countries, neglecting all the historical truths, insist on using the false name, but expect Iranians not to inform those centres that use this false name? Iranians call those interested parties to use the real name of the Persian Gulf is not the result of racial prejudice, but it is a logical measure that is accepted by any wise and fair person, as it is accepted in international circles, including the United Nations, and all are suggested to observe it.

http://pejman.azadi.googlepages.com/thepersiangulf&itsname

http://azadi.pejman.googlepages.com/home

http://pejman.azadi.googlepages.com/iran

PERSIAN GULF FOREVER

the Gulf is %100 Arabian

I have discussed the issue of Greater and Lesser Tunbs in the talk page and was the only one providing evidences and i was so tolerant but some admins prefert blocking my nick and reverting my edits, so no need to talk if the article will not be changed , User:MARVEL

Persian Gulf is Pure 100% Persian Gulf

Arab people should learn more and should study more about geography and they should learn that Persian Gulf is Persian gulf as the UN and American and also european believe that.

The Greater and Lesser Tunbs and The island of Abu musa are Iranian islands in the Persian Gulf

The Greater and Lesser Tunbs and The island of Abu musa are Iranian islands in the Persian Gulf

The Persian Gulf

The Persian Gulf is a crescent-shape groove which has demonstrated the encroachment of the Indian Ocean waters (Makrân Sea, also known as Gulf of Oman) in an span of 900 km long and 240 km wide in the inferior folds of southern Zagros mountains. The Persian Gulf and its neighboring countries constitute almost one ninth of the 44 million square km span of the Asian continent (1). The Persian Gulf has been a valuable waterway since the beginning of history and as the venue of the collision of great civilizations of the ancient East, it has a background of several millenniums (2). Since centuries ago, the Ilamites used the Port of Bushehr and the Khârg Island for dwelling, shipping and ruling over the coasts of the Persian Gulf as well as transaction with the West Indies and the Nile Valley (3). In the Latin American geography books the Persian Gulf has been referred to as More Persicum or the Sea of Pars (4).

The Latin term "Sinus Persicus" is equivalent to "Persicher Golf" in German, "Persico qof" in Italian, "Persidskizalir" in Russian and "Perusha Wan" that all mean "Pars" (5). and le golf perse in French

Prior to the stationing of the Aryan Iranians on Iran's 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 (6).

An inscription of Darius the Great found in the Suez Canal, used a phrase with a mention of river Pars which points to the same Persian Gulf.

The Greek historian Herodotus in his book has repeatedly referred to the Red Sea as the "Arab Gulf" (7), and Straben, the Greek historian of the second half of the first century BCE and the first half of the first century AD wrote: Arabs are living between the Arabian Gulf and the Persian Gulf (8).

Ptolemy, another renowned Greek geographer of the 2nd century has referred to the Red Sea as the "Arabicus Sinus", i.e. the Arabian Gulf. In the book `the world boundaries from the East to the West' which was written in the 4th century Hegira, the Red Sea was dubbed as the Arabian Gulf.

Today, the most common Arabic works refer to the sea in south Iran as the "Persian Gulf", including the world famous Arabic encyclopedia `Al-Monjad' which is the most reliable source in this respect (9).

There are undeniable legal evidences and documents in confirmation of the genuineness of the term Persian Gulf. From 1507 to 1560 in all the agreements that Portuguese, Spanish, British, Dutch, French and Germans concluded with the Iranian government or in any other political event everywhere there is a mention of the name Persian Gulf (10).

Even in agreements with the participation of Arabs there is a mention of "Al-Khalij al-Farsi" in the Arabic texts and "Persian Gulf" in English texts, such as the document for the independence of Kuwait which was signed between the emir of Kuwait and representatives of the British government in the Persian Gulf.

The document, which was signed on June 19, 1961 by Abdullah As-Salem As-Sabah, has been registered in the Secretariat of the United Nations according to article 102 of the U.N. Charter and can be invoked at any U.N. office (11).

Since the beginning of the 20th century, the name "Persian Gulf" has been used in geography and history books with less reference to the "Fars Sea". Such a change has suggested the idea that the "Fars Sea" had been an old name substituted by a new term "Persian Gulf" (12)

The beginning of 1930s was a turning point in the history of efforts for changing the name of Persian Gulf when Sir Charles Bellgrave, (?) the British diplomatic envoy in Iranian island of Mishmâhig, which today known as Bahrain opened a file for the change in the name of the Persian Gulf and proposed the issue to the British Foreign Office. Even before the response of the British Foreign Office he used the fake name (in an attempt to retake Bahrain, the Tunbs, Abu Musa, Sirri, Qeshm, Hengam and other islands belonging to Iran and to disclose and thwart the plot of disintegration of Khuzestan) (13).

Besides all the disputes that have been made over the name of the Persian Gulf, the United Nations with its 22 Arab member countries has on two occasions officially declared the unalterable name of the sea between Iran and the Arabian Peninsula as the Persian Gulf. The first announcement was made through the document UNAD, 311/Qen on March 5, 1971 and the second was UNLA 45.8.2 (C) on August 10, 1984. Moreover, the annual U.N. conference for coordination on the geographical names has emphatically repeated the name "Persian Gulf" each year (14).

Although using the "Arabian Gulf" instead of the "Persian Gulf" has no basis and will not be accepted in any culture or language, however, it will not diminish our responsibility in expressing the reality and eliminating ambiguities as the main and oldest inhabitants of the region.

HISTORICAL SITUATION OF GREATER AND LESSER TUNBS, ABU MUSA "The Greater Tunb Island is limited from north to Qeshm Island, from west to the Lesser Tunb, from south to Abu Musa and Raas al-Khaima and from east to Oman (15). The island is called the Greater Tunb, Gap Tunb, Tunb-e Mar, Greater Tunb-e Mar, etc..." (16).

In the Islamic era up to the recent centuries the Greater Tunb Island was part of the states of Fars, Kerman, Mokran and Hormuzgan.

In 1884 it was part of the Persian Gulf ports. In 1949 together with 29 other islands it was a village under the district of Lengeh. In 1951, it was part of the village Mazdouqi in Lengeh district of the city of Lar. In 1954, it was a village in Abu Musa district of Bandar Lengeh port city. In 1958, Abu Musa and Great Tunb districts jointed together and formed a large district with Kish Island as its center. In 1976, it became part of the city of Kish. In 1982, it became part of the city of Abu Musa. In 1991, the Great Tunb Island was part of the Tunb district of the city of Bu Musa (17).

The Greater Tunb Island due to its far distance from the Strait of Hormuz has no strategic importance by itself. However, given Iran's strategic situation, it is considered an important link in the defensive line of Iran in the Strait of Hormuz (18).

The Lesser Tunb Island is neighboring the city of Lengeh in the north, Abu Musa Island in the south, the Greater Tunb Island in the east and Faroo and Faroogan islands in the west. The island is rectangular in shape (19).

Footnotes:

1- Institute of Political and International Studies, selected Persian Gulf documents, volume 1, page 5 2- Ibid, page 5. 3- Mehdi Azimi, "Persian Gulf Political History", Port and Sea, Nos. 41-41, page 2 4- Institute of Political and International Studies, series of articles of seminar on Persian Gulf issues, page 135 5- Institute for Political and International Studies, selected Persian Gulf documents, volume 1, page 18, Institute of Political and International Studies, series of articles of seminar on Persian Gulf issues, page 136. 6- Seyed Hassan Mousavi, "A brief discussion on historical-political geography of the Persian Gulf...", sociology and humanities of Shiraz University, page 118. 7- Institute of Political and International Studies, selected Persian Gulf documents, pages 18-22, Institute of Political and International Studies, series of articles of seminar on Persian Gulf issues, page 137. Seyed Hassan Mousavi "A brief discussion on historical-political geography of the Persian Gulf..." sociology and humanities of Shiraz University, page 118. Mehdi Azimi, "Persia Gulf Political History", Port and Sea, page 22. 8- Institute of Political and International Studies, selected Persian Gulf documents, volume 1, page 22. 9- Ibid, page 146. 10- Institute of Political and International Studies, series of articles of seminar on Persian Gulf issues, page 148. 11- Institute of Political and International Studies, ibid, page 149. 12- Pirouz Mojtahedzadeh, "Persian Gulf in return for history", political and economic, Nos. 105-106, page 26. 13- Pirouz Mojtahedzadeh, "Persian Gulf in return for history", political and economic, Nos. 105-106, page 27. 14- Pirouz Mojtahedzadeh, "Persian Gulf in return for history", Nos. 105-106, page 28. 15- Iraj Afshar Sistani, Abu Musa Island and the Greater and Lesser Tunbs, page 105. 16- Iraj Afshar Sistani, ibid, page 11. 17- Iraj Afshar Sistani, ibid, page 119. 18- Iraj Afshar Sistani, Abu Musa Island and the Greater and Lesser Tunbs, page 121. 19- Ibid, page 123.

http://azadi.pejman.googlepages.com/home

http://pejman.azadi.googlepages.com/thepersiangulf&itsname

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Abu_Musa"

The "Arabian Gulf" debate

I am neither Persian nor Arab, speak neither Persian nor Arabic, and am firmly convinced that the most common English name of this body of water is the "Persian Gulf". Yet the usage "Arabian Gulf" is simply so widespread, as evidenced by the links given above, that it must be described as an alternate name. --Saforrest 19:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The Persian Gulf is The Persian Gulf and during the history it was Persian Gulf so it does not need to any debate

Persian Gulf in Persian Khalij-e-Fars خلیج فارس

الخلیج الفارسی من الازل الی الابد

Persian Gulf

arab gulf or arabian gulf does not exist in any part of international map. For arab people,it is better to find a way to solve their palestine problem. The Persian Gulf will not change and it will be Persian Gulf forever.

For more information please visit:

http://pejman.azadi.googlepages.com/thepersiangulf&itsname

http://azadi.pejman.googlepages.com/home

http://plasma.nationalgeographic.com/mapmachine/index.html

THE FOREVER PERSIAN GULF! I'm an arab and I can tell you that this a conspiracy to slowly but surely change this historical body of water from its correct term of Persian Gulf to arabian gulf. please, don't give in to our arab propaganda. you can't all of sudden start changing names just because you feel like it. -sarollah sorry, I meant to make a new post not edit the last one...not quite sure how one would that though. just wanted to make clear that this not related to post titled "Persian Gulf in Persian Khalije-Fars" salaam/peace brothers

Persian Gulf is Persian without any doubt

Persian Gulf is Persian without any doubtIf anyone desire to change any name, They can change Washington DC to Washington DJ with respect to all DJs. Or change LosAngles to Tehrangles because Iranian people live there. In this case you are busy with your Names' Game. It will be good for yourself if you think it is good for other people.

Persian Gulf is Persian

If anyone desire to change any name, They can change Washington DC to Washington DJ with respect to all DJs. Or change LosAngles to Tehrangles because Iranian people live there. In this case you are busy with your Names' Game. It will be good for yourself if you think it is good for other people.

zandweb 12:27, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Persian Gulf and Arabian Sea

This bitter argument about whether to call the Gulf "Persian" or "Arabian" is one of the saddest and silliest arguments I have heard for a long time. Everyone knows Arabia is on the west coast and the province of Fars (ancient Persis) on the east coast. Traditionally, however, the Gulf has been known (at least in English, Greek and Latin) as the "Persian Gulf." However, there is absolutely no need for Arabs to feel left out for, after all, the larger body of water just outside the Straits of Hormuz is commonly known as the "Arabian Sea."John Hill 07:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Sumerian Gulf

YOU'RE ALL WRONG. IT IS THE SUMERIAN GULF! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Arabistani (talk • contribs) 19:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Iran(Persia) is fine

Iran(Persia) is totally fine. I was in bookstore yesterday and I checked three Atlas of the world and 2 globes and 4 out of these five sources, used Iran(Persia). It is a good idea to remind people that Iran is the same country that was called Persia just 80 years ago, (not only in ancient times as some editors like to claim.) Also please remember that in case of Iran, The name change was not result of any change in Iranian government or territory(in fact nothing change in 1935 when the name changed, same ruler, same territory, same people, same everything) it is therefore not the same as the case of Rome/Italy or Ottoman/turkey, Baluchestan/Pakistan etc. In most cases name change is the result of a huge political or territorial or cultural change. Not the case in Persia/Iran situation.Gol 09:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Persian/Arabian Gulf

• Why is the other name of the gulf:"arabian gulf, always removed, although its a wide used name, and officially recognized by some soverign states?
• The name is disputed, why isn't this mentioned in the introduction?

Jidan 17:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Simply because this article is mostly written by Persians (take a look at the history). I have nothing against our brothers in Iran, but I live in Bahrain (the only island nation that is located in the middle of this gulf), and I never seen this gulf called "Persian", even in our English media. —MK (talk) 16:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The other name IS mentioned in naming dispute section. But some editors like to claim that it is equally legitimate and recognized as Persian Gulf and therefore should be mentioned in intro or even the title!!! This is simply a lie. The official name off this Gulf and one sanctioned by UN as the official and ONLY name is Persian Gulf and there is no alternative for it as far as UN is concerned. The other name is only used by a few countries and all of them Arab, and only for the past 60 years. Persian Gulf is used in the whole world, not just Iran, and both today and historically. The difference is clear. There is no dispute over what is the official name. This is why the title and intro only mention that official internationally recognized name and the naming dispute section mentions the other names. Gol 22:35, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi rose, for you I am even ready to call it Gol Gulf :-) The thing is, this is an encyclopedia... Jidan 20:25, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Protection

Seeing as this article is protected, I would like to ask, how can we settle this dispute peacefully?? If it's a content dispute, let me know what the dispute is and I will listen - I am impartial here, and am offering to help. Thanks, --SunStar Net 00:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi SunStar, its nice to see a non-iranian user for a change who is interested in this debate. The thing is that this gulf, just like Sea of Japan (East Sea) or English Channel(La Manche), has two alternative names, Arabian Gulf and Persian Gulf. The Iranian users don't want the arabian gulf to be mentioned as an alternative name and see it as a declartion of war by the arabs against them, which is really stupid. To give you a glimpse of what I mean, type in google "arabian gulf", the first site you are going to get is this http://arabian-gulf.info/, which interestingly also links to this exact article. Jidan 20:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

It is not accurate to say that Arabian Gulf is as legitimate and acceptable as Persian Gulf. UN has never sanctioned the term Arabian Gulf and has mentioned more than once that the Persian Gulf is the only name for this gulf. Also the term Persian Gulf is used in the whole world, not just Persian countries, The term Arabian Gulf is used only in a few Arab countries and even in those countries it is only used since 1960s. The difference is clear. This is why the official, and UN sanctioned name, is mentioned in the title and intro, the other name is mentioned in the naming dispute section. It is not right to deny the fact that some countries use "Arabian Gulf"(and the article has never done that) But it is a lie to say that it is as legitimate as "Persain Gulf" and should be mentioned in the title. It is only used in a few Arab countries and never recognized by UN. Gol 05:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

There is no alternative to the Persian Gulf, there is just the Persian Gulf. If tomorrow Iran starts using the term Persian Sea instead of Arabian Sea, that does not make Persian Sea an alternative name.Khosrow II 05:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

A comment about this; the reason Arabian Gulf should be mentioned is because this encyclopedia is a global one; it can be mentioned, provided you properly source them. Yes, only a few may mention it; but it's probably worth mentioning it. --SunStar Net 00:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

It's already mentioned under Persian_Gulf#Naming_dispute as the result of a previous compromise, but as discussed and agreed to previously, the mention shouldn't be in the lead as that would be assigning undue weight to a name which is controversial, not commonly used in English, and not internationally recognized. --ManiF 01:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Just because couple of pan-Arab goverments decided to call a gulf, that as far back as recorded history can take us, has always been referred to as the Persian Gulf, "the arabian gulf" doesnt make this name a legitimate name. Nevertheless, the name "arabian gulf" is already mentioned in the dispute section and certainly is not worthy of being mentioned in the first paragraph. - Marmoulak 06:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

@SunStar: exactly. Also "Arabian Gulf" is offcially used by 22 states and is widely used in the english media, try google! I propose the following introduction, taken from Britannica [30]: Persian Gulf, also called Arabian Gulf, Arabic Bahr Faris, Persian Khalij-e Fars, shallow marginal sea of the Indian Ocean that lies between the Arabian Peninsula and southwestern Iran. Jidan 20:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Good point, Jidan, your introduction seems like a good one so far... --SunStar Net 21:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Arabian Gulf is not a legitimate name and it was recently removed from one of the most presitigous magazines, the national geographic after they tried to publish it next to Persian Gulf . The pan-arabist created name Arabian Gulf Can be explained in another paragraph after first mentioning that it was coined by arab nationalists because of their anti-Iranian feelings. The name Persian Gulf is the historic name as well as the much more widely used name. Also I am sure somebody can call the US as Arabia and make it widespread, but it does not mean such a name should be used in the first paragraph. Arabian Gulf is an offensive name propogated by Arab nationalists, Ba'athists and the like-minded and no matter how much oil money is pumped into it, it lacks history. Also historically Arabian Gulf has been the name identified with the red sea. --alidoostzadeh 03:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm an American, and not iranian, and I can say I have never heard it called the "Arabian Gulf". All of our maps in the english-speaking world are consistent with persian. --Shamir1 06:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree that is the case and this is an English wikipedia. Although millions if not billions in oil money is pulled into it to do historical falsification and with an increasing crookedness in scholarship all over the world, they are unfortunately people doing their best to falsify historical names. I don't know I just see more academic disintegrity everyday. Either way Arabian Gulf from ancient time is just another for the red sea (Strabo). Persian Gulf is also used by Strabo to refer to Persian Gulf. This is an ancient convention and there is no way a recent nationalistic madeup name deserve first paragraph. --alidoostzadeh 06:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Again, agreed. Wikipedia is not a soap box, the term Arabian Gulf is an alternative to the Red sea and it is an incorrect reference if used for the Persian Gulf, Wikipedia should not promote incorrect alternative names to things. It is clear from the article that there is a dispute but the name stands as Persian Gulf according to UN and as recognised by most as it has always been --K a s h ^{Talk | email} 11:54, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

The fact that a few states use Arabian Gulf is clearly acknowledged. The name is mentioned in naming dispute section. However some editors claim, falsely, that the name is as legitimate and frequently used as Persian Gulf! To see that their claim is a lie just ask anyone who lives outside of Arab countries, they all use Persian gulf, or sometimes just Gulf, but not Arabian gulf. Also see which name UN has sanctioned and recognizes as the ONLY legitimate name. The intro and title should be about the UN sanctioned and globally used name. The naming dispute section should be about the other alternative names.Gol 18:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)