Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:11, 3 December 2007

This is not a forum for general discussion of the Persian Gulf This is a talk page for discussing improvements to the Persian Gulf article. Comments that do not pertain specifically to the improvement of the article do not serve the purpose of the page and are subject to removal per Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

Persian Gulf received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Template:V0.5

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Iran High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iran, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Iran on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please join the project where you can contribute to the discussions and help with our open tasks.IranWikipedia:WikiProject IranTemplate:WikiProject IranIran High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Just Persian Gulf

I'd like to ask the question, why is the middle east filled with morons?

I'd like to ask to some body, could you change the name of Gulf of Mexico? could you change the name of Guantanamo Gulf or ....so you could't change Persian Gulf's name by spending money or political games!!! Please be calm and think about what are you doing! this is just wasting your time and money.

I don't know why some users here are enjoying the ignoring and suppressing of information! Why some users here like to play a game against history and real life just for politcial sake of eliminating other's POV and culture?! Is it really good to keep supressing and offending other's rights in practicing their own culture in their own language? If any other nationas, organizations and bodies are already using the terms like something you don't "like", it will not be bad as naming sahred territories is not private right of one nation! If you brought a non-logical example for the Gulf of Mexico, I would like you to have more reasonable comparison like the English Channel/La Manche, or Sea of Japan name that will be better example for shared territories among nations of different cultures. I don't know when this big dispute will settle down and some users will respect other's POV and their cultural rights, besides History to reach a neutral point of view. I don't want to see the day when I'll believe that there is a racial/cultural enmity behind this argument Ralhazzaa 08:51, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

To ip user, judging from your recent edit history, I'd say you should calm down and think about what you are doing here! It's just a waste of your time... (to vandalize pages about ethnic groups you happen to be biased against) Asabbagh 09:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with Ralhazzaa - The Gulf of Mexico isn't a good example. A good example however is the English Channel/La Manche. The French call it La Mache, but the English speaking world (and a majority of other languages) call it The English Channel. Fair enough! But my question to Ralhazza and others is why is there an attempt to change the name of the Gulf to the Arabian Gulf in English/French/German/Japanese/Chinese (amongst others) when those countries already call it the Persian Gulf in their own language? The Arabian Gulf in Arabic is fine, but why attempt to change it in other languages when there already is an equivalent? The French don't attempt to have English/German/Japanese/Chinese speakers switch to "The Manche". Why are Arabs trying to do this for the Arabian Gulf? Why not just use the "Persian" Gulf when referring to the Gulf in other languages other than Arabic when the other languages already call it the Persian Gulf?

User:Ralhazzaa, what is your motivation for editing Misplaced Pages? Please stop shouting slogans and calling others who resist a U.N. certified name against a name that Gamal Abdoll Naser invented 40 years ago for his Pan-Arabism agendas) racist!

if you want to change this article, you have only one way: "reading the comments and resources of the users who oppose your POV (e.g. Alidoostzadeh) and trying to refute them or even give better sources." In this case you must bring arabic sources that says "Arabic Gulf" in their context before Gamal. Brother!, If you think there of course exist some sources, why not bringing it here? (Please read the talk page archive, and do not try to forge any sources, because we can verify them)

I think, you have not even read the comments of the users who has a different POV than you! This attitude bring you no where. Believe me, there is no racist or any hidden schemes is from this part (I don't know the motive of both the IP user or even you for this kind of debates!, but I am sure of myself and Ali). unless you bring a verifiable sources regarding your claims, you just get reverted and non of the admins of WP can do anything for you. من الله توفيق-Pejman47 16:10, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

User Ralhazza made a statement about Pliny and then it was cleared up and Pliny uses Persian Gulf for Persian Gulf and Arabian Gulf for the Red Sea. I am glad that argument is not being repeated. The fact is this is the English wikipedia and fortunately the overwhelming majority of English sources use the historical name. .

As recognized by the United States Board on Geographic names, the name of the body of water that lies between Iran and the Arab states of the Gulf Cooperation Council is the Persian Gulf. For political reasons, Arabs often refer to it as the Arab or Arabian Gulf (The Persian Gulf at the Millennium: Essays in Politics, Economy, Security, and Religion edited by Gary G. Sick, Lawrence G. Potter, pg 8).

"The Arab-Iranian nomenclatural controversy over the Gulf, which was so bitter in the late 50s and early 60s, was a by-product of the late President Nasser of Egypt's brand of Arab nationalism ... 'Arabian Gulf' is in fact a recent Arab appellation for that body of water..." ( Eilts, Hermann F. "Security Considerations in the Persian Gulf." International Security :Vol. 5, No. 2. (Autumn, 1980), pp. 79-113. ). والله سمیع العلیم--alidoostzadeh 16:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

User Pejman, do you think a question like "what is your motivation for editing Misplaced Pages" is something necessary within your concerns to know personal things about me through this talk page? I don't think it is important for you to ask such funny question in this talk page. You are highly recommended to read Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines and stop personalizing the discussion. Anyway, I'll be civil enough and inform everyone here that I want to improve this article by showing all available facts and other's POV to reach a neutral point of view, while many other users keep supressing such improvement and turning this talk page to a "forum"! If other's POV was not "beautiful" enough for others, then it is not a problem as we are in WP but not in a politically-oriented school for immature students. If you criticize Misplaced Pages:Etiquette and Misplaced Pages:Wiki spirit of showing and asking for good & peaceful behavior -as I did- and call it "slogans" and "shouting", then it is not really beneficial to talk with you here before you change you langage, be cool and re-read Misplaced Pages:Policies and guidelines, for special Misplaced Pages:Assume good faith, Misplaced Pages:No angry mastodons and realize what does a neutral point of view means. Stop directing this talk to be politcla and personal attacks is not good at all. As you and user alidoostzadeh sure of yourselves, then u shouldn't attack others who are not of your side and try to be cool and neutral. A final word regarding someone's "analysis" for Pliny's discription for Abadan as locating in Greece by considering Karun's River as a Greek island! This is apparentely called: misinterpreting, and obviously not for the sake of improving this discussion by keep falsifying historical ancient references, as it has been already done by you for other ancient maps. If some users here can't stop their one-sided manipulation of sources then it is wasting of time for this discussion and maybe the main article(s) we are discussing will be always tagged by WP admins as "disputed" and its info disclaimed by WP as it is now due to info politicalization and manipulation. I'm not going to remention our POV as it has been described already but you, the other side, still turning your head and ignore comprehensive history of this area. Ralhazzaa 12:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I think Pliny was clear enough when he describes Persian Gulf and Arabian Gulf and he says Arabia Felix (basically Saudia Arabia) lies between Persian Gulf and Arabian Gulf. Again why are you ignoring clear references to Persian Gulf in Pliny and misinterpreting him. There is no dispute but only your mis-reading of Pliny. It is becoming very clear that you are not interested in unbiased view. I think for all readers is clear. Pliny did not have sattelite map back then. Elaues is a Greek city in Aegean. Thus between Tigris and Elaues he means red sea and not Persian Gulf as both of these are to the left of the Persian Gulf. Note Tigris is to the Left of Persian Gulf and not to its Right. Please read it again until you understand this point. ]. Note it says: The one which lies to east is called PERSIAN GULF, and is two thousand five hundred miles in circumference, according to Erasthenes. Opposite to it lies Arabia, the length of which is fifteen hundred miles. On the other side again, Arabia is bounded by Arabian Gulf'. I believe that is very clear. Now again from the link you brought: By descending the Indus, and going up the Persian Gulf. . Excerpt from Natural History, Book VI – Chapter: The Persian and the Arabian Gulfs (Refer to Book VI. 109 - 111 in Loeb edition..). Again another except: We learn from Ephorus, as well as Eudoxus and Timosthenes, tht there are great numbers of islands scattered all over this sea; Clitarchus says that king Alexander was informed of an island so rich that the inhabitants gave a talent of gold for a horse, and of another* upon which there was found a sacred mountain, shaded with a grove, the trees of which emitted odours of wondrous sweetness; this last was situate over against the Persian Gulf. Note Pliny did not have a sattelite map and the world might have looked different to him. But he is following the correct Greek tradition (Strabo too) of calling Persian Gulf by Persian Gulf and Arabian Gulf as red sea. He is saying Arabia is bounded by Arabian Gulf on one side and Persian Gulf on the other.--alidoostzadeh 01:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

to bring sources for your claims, just complaining about it, don't serve you. And during a debate about a different article, an adim told me this: "We do not balance articles based the personal opinions of pro and con factions amongst editors. A balanced article is one that presents what reliable published sources have said about a subject. We do not go around finding tidbits of information here and there and synthesize these to make a point that has not been published.", I hope you will get the point. Good luck--Pejman47 23:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

To user Alidoostzadeh, it looks that you are using dual standards in reading and/or referring to referrences! What if Pliny said that Arabian Gulf is in between "Egyptian" Sea and Caspian Sea as in here ? Do u think they need satellites to say so??!! So, calm down and leave Pliny as he is apparently was tending to mention the Arabian (Persian) Gulf as Arabian. Moreover, Elaues is not a Greek city (or island as u said before, but now become a city!). It is Karoun River that was mentioned by Pliny the Younger. Charax is nothing in Greece as you "may" read here. I am giving you a free gift to read Excerpts from 'Natural History' by Pliny . This is to stop falsifying human heritage! It is over that you falsified dozens of historical maps describing Arbian/Elqateef/Basrah Gulf and supressing all other resourses citing Arabian/Elqateef/Basrah Gulf besides Persian.. Did we supressed any saying of it is also called "Persian Gulf"? now u want to mislead us by intentional misinterpreting of Pliny's historical book that saying apparently Arabian Gulf (u even refuse the idea that it "could be" a synonym for Persian Gulf!). Please stop your intentional misinterpreting and continous falsifying ancinet works as it is not good for solving this dispute here. One more thing, double standards is not working in WP. If u refuse a Roman book by claiming "Author has no satellite map at that time" then it is not good for you to cite it again just partially when it says your POV.. even not to keep citing artless works like "Dr. Cyrus X" or propagandise website set by Iranians bigots want to oscillate the dispute but not to solve it! Classic books and maps are classic becuase they don't have satellites then if u don't like it coz it is not showing ur POV, don't falsify it as u always do with ancient works!!.. and let's throw away all the maps & Geography books before "Satellite Era"..File:Smiley-Dancing.gif Best Regards.. Ralhazzaa

I think you need to stop labeling and read Pliny instead of putting words in his mouth. He is very very clear. The one which lies to east is called PERSIAN GULF, and is two thousand five hundred miles in circumference, according to Erasthenes. Opposite to it lies Arabia, the length of which is fifteen hundred miles. On the other side again, Arabia is bounded by Arabian Gulf'. . I do not think it can be cleaer than that. Read it again until you digest. And no they are not the same to Pliny since he clearly distinguishes them even from your own link and that is why he has a Chapter on Persian Gulf and Arabian Gulf clearly meaning they are different. I do not think Pliny can get clearer than this. Note it is not synonmous when he is using it if you look at it clearly. As per Charax, there is Charax island in Greece . Note again he has a chapter in the same link you gave:The Persian and the Arabian Gulfs and by the quote I brought it is clear Arabian Gulf is not the Persian Gulf. Your quote is unclear but Pliny is clear:The one which lies to east is called PERSIAN GULF, and is two thousand five hundred miles in circumference, according to Erasthenes. Opposite to it lies Arabia, the length of which is fifteen hundred miles. On the other side again, Arabia is bounded by Arabian Gulf. It doesn't get clearer than this. --alidoostzadeh 00:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

it looks a monologue, not dialogue! Why should I talk to myself too much?!... Anyway, dozens of ancient maps, references, documents and encyclopedias are indicating other naming for this sea. One of the UN's official languages, 300 million Arabic speaking people, a huge number of organizations & institutions & companies using a term other than the one mentioned "solely" for this sea. These names are: Arabian Gulf, Elqateef Gulf, Basrah Gulf besides "Persian Gulf" in many languages (Arabic, English, French, Latine, Turkish,...) has been used since cenutries. These are enough to solve this dispute and get rid off all political POVs making all this mess in the article. Useless discussions intend to rediscover America now is wasting of time. Facts can't be supressed by radical bigot mind of any side. WP admins monitoring this talk should close this mess of talk as it is going more to be like trolling sometimes lack sufficient level of Talk Standards. I am not going to continue this monologue all over my life here.. this dispute should be finished by indicating all POVs and available references. Politicizing info here is not acceptable at all, from both sides. WP cites all significant info... so what about names used by ~half a billion people now and used over centuries? I need an answer from WP admins, with regrads. Ralhazzaa 08:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks like someone else responded to you. We are discussing English language here. The name Persian Gulf is the oldest name. Arabian Gulf is a product of the last 60 years. And such facts as you noticed can be suppressed by radical bigot minds (namely Nasser and Saddam). You can't find a single Arabic source that uses Arabian Gulf and the fact is classical Arabic sources have never mentioned Arabian Gulf. The only thing I can propose is that for the intro we can have the classical Arabic name, mentioning (classical Arabic: خلیج فارس and then modern Arabic in parts of the Arab World: خلیج عربی). We can not deny the historic facts of Araic sources. As per Pliny I think he was clear. All available references are there..I have brought 300+ classic references. And also a 30+ Arabic references. The name Arabian Gulf had no currency in Arabic countries until 50-60 years ago and the common name in the English speaking world is Persian. --alidoostzadeh 01:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Ralhazza - It's funny that when shown that your "facts" to be wrong, people speak in monologues. Anyway, yes: The Persian Gulf has been called the Elqateef Gulf and the Basrah Gulf but usually always with Persian Gulf in parenthesizes under it. The only time the name Arabian Gulf was used in historic maps instead of the Persian Gulf has been in maps with errors (as in from the website www.arabiangulfmaps.com). Maps these days have errors as did maps in the past! Clinging to errors on maps as truths when textual proof says otherwise isn't an argument. This is not some fantasy, as the texts which the maps are derived from actually point to his fact. Furthermore, the sources are not from some anti-Arab Iranian (as you'd like to think they are), but neutral non-Iranian scholars. Please refer to here: http://www.azargoshnasp.net/PersianGulf/PersianGulfresponsetositeA.htm for more information. Also, please read the page in full, along with the documented pdf files from secondary sources on the above mentioned website before you comment again.

Finally, let's not forget that it wasn't Iranians who started this debate, but the Arabic people in the 1960s. Why can't a Gulf be called the Persian Gulf and be shared amongst Arabic and Iranian peoples? Why is there a stealth attempt by Arabic people to change the name to the Arabian Gulf today, rather than going through official channels like the United Nations? Persians and Arabs have so much shared history and this kind of debate would lead to anti-Persian and anti-Arab sentiments in their respective countries. Iranians respect the names Gulf of Oman and Arabian Sea, so why can't Arabic people do the same for the Persian Gulf?

Neutrality tag

This is for WP admins regarding the Neutrality tag:

Neutrality tag has been used due to the fact that other POV of Arabs side has been always suppressed, that is: Arabic name for this sea in Arabic is Al Khaleej Al Arabi الخليج العربي but not Al Faresi. Other old names has been used in Arabic for this water body like: Khaleej Al Basra, Khaleej Elqateef, besides to Khaleej el Ajam (Persians). The recent and dominate name for it in Arabic language is the Arabian Gulf as it could be found in the UN records (in Arabic) besides to all Arabic records of organizations (working out of Iran) and governments of all Arab states, and used by ~300 million Arabic speakers. Naming dispute has been ascribed to Nasser (20th century) while dozens of ancient maps and references using other name for it (Arabian Gulf, Elqateef, Basra) has been clearly suppressed by some Iranian users here, which is clear bias for this page in info within. Thus, neutrality tag has been used. Hope discussion can reach a middle point sooner to show up all POVs and reach a NPOV using all refs from all sides. For WP admins, you can read POV of other side (that has been always suppressed here) in the previous talks and comments within this talk page. Ralhazzaa 10:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Arabian Gulf is a new nomeclature as has been shown by Western reference. We can say Old Arabic name (this is the oldest Arabic name): بحر فارس and new Arabic name: خلیج عربی. I have already brought a list of 300+ authors who have used Persian Gulf. There is no textual evidence for Arabian Gulf and few maps in the same book have Persian Gulf and use Persian Gulf in their text and their newer editions use Persian Gulf only. No ancientg Greek maps or reference uses Arabian Gulf as you were shown by Pliny who uses Persian Gulf for Persian Gulf and Arabian Gulf for the read. Couple (just three four authors) of european maps that have Arabian Gulf have Persian Gulf in the same book and use Persian Gulf in the text and their newer editions use Persian Gulf and there is no textual evidence for Arabian Gulf and you can't make OR.The Persian Gulf is the main name in the English language > It has been used by Pliny while Arabian Gulf in ancient European maps refers to the red sea and not Persian Gulf. Also 300 million Arab speakers do not use the name you claim. I know for a fact that many Iraqis do not use it. And no your POV has not been suppressed anywhere specially in the talk page. As recognized by the United States Board on Geographic names, the name of the body of water that lies between Iran and the Arab states of the Gulf Cooperation Council is the Persian Gulf. For political reasons, Arabs often refer to it as the Arab or Arabian Gulf (The Persian Gulf at the Millennium: Essays in Politics, Economy, Security, and Religion edited by Gary G. Sick, Lawrence G. Potter, pg 8). The Arab-Iranian nomenclatural controversy over the Gulf, which was so bitter in the late 50s and early 60s, was a by-product of the late President Nasser of Egypt's brand of Arab nationalism ... 'Arabian Gulf' is in fact a recent Arab appellation for that body of water...( Eilts, Hermann F. "Security Considerations in the Persian Gulf." International Security :Vol. 5, No. 2. (Autumn, 1980), pp. 79-113. ) --alidoostzadeh 11:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

cool down, alidoostzadeh! this comment was'nt part of the discussion about the info and refs in this page, neither was a talk with you! It was an answer for WP admins asked why the neutrality tag has been used here. I'm not going to repeat all the long talk with you and your mates as it looks useless and you always go back to the first square. Discussion in the talk page with some users here is like a waste of our time and focus to enhance this page. It is clear that most info in this page have been politicized toward Iranian POV and suppressing Arabian POV -as the history of edits and addings by Arab editors has been suppressed always by you and your colleagues. We, all Arab editors here, know other facts than yours and provided tons of refs (always falsified by you.. this is normal as u r on the other side)! So, as these fatcs have been always reverted by you and your mates (of Iranian POV), info in this page is highly biased toward one extreme geopolitical direction and far away from neutrality. Salam Ralhazzaa 12:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

و علیکم السلامThere is no room for Arab or Iranian POV. We just bring materials from reliable scholars and not OR. Simple as that. In the English world it is Persian Gulf. And stop accusing others of falsification when you can not answer. Anyways the issue was with the Arabic name. Before Nasser, you will not find خلیج عربی in the Arab world. Currently many Shi'ite Muslims who are not affected by the bathist or pan-arabist nationalism do not use خلیج عربی either. But my proposal was to split the Arabic name into two. One classical name and one the more modern name. You did not respond. --alidoostzadeh 18:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

New proposal

What do you all think of this proposed lead:

The Persian Gulf (Template:Pers - Khalīj-e Fārs; in Classical Arabic: بحر الفارس Bahr al-Fārs, in Modern Arabic: Template:Rtl-lang al-Khalīj al-Arabi or al-Khalīj al-Fārisī)

--Mardavich 19:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Let's Call it Camel Gulf to satisfy arabs, by the way, recently arabs paid petro dollars to some scientists in the states to rename water formula to H2ArabicO. Hans.

• Support: I think it is definitely better than what is currently present. Obviously it has been argued how in "modern Arabic" it is generally only called "الخليج الپارسی\", but I support your proposal as it is a step in the right direction. Asabbagh 07:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support, with the proviso that there is an English translation, eg Arabian Gulf or Persian Gulf, since الخليج الپارسی is not an Arabic translation of خليج فارس or "Persian Gulf" but an alternative Arabic name for the waterbody.--Hamid | Ahwaz 16:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support, with the proviso that the term "Arabian Gulf" be mentioned as a "translation" of the Arabic name. Leave the "alternative" name bit to the later part of the article.
• Glad to see good proposal like this one by Mardavich! I would support the Arabic name الخليج الپارسی (translit. Al Khaleej Al Arabi) as a true translation for the name of this water body. Hence I would suggest putting all old names: دریای پارسیان as a set of old names used in Arabic language, and old names used by other languages; Lower Sea in ancient Assyrian, Sinus Persicus, Sinus Arabicus, Sinus Elqateef... in Latin, etc. in te section of Etymology and the section of Name Dispute, but not in the heading of the article as if we want to mention what it was called only in Arabic lang since it has started, then it is not going to be logical heading! Then we should also say what it has been called in Aramic, Babylonian, Latin, French, English, Turkish, Persian since it has been started as languages... which is not so important in the heading. We can enhance the article in the right section; Etymology and Naming Dispute. I start to feel that we are about to solve this big pain.. we are about to solve it systematically and in more informative way if we kept common names in the heading and moved all old names to its proper sections. I am not denying here that this sea has been called many names in Arabic and/or other languages that is not only like الخليج الپارسی.. no.. at all.. and I definitly believe that Arabic-speaking media settled in (or related to) Iran is using the term الخليج الفارسي (which is not prob for me as it is their own believings).. 'm just trying to adapt the proposal in better organized and methodological way. Later we discuss -in same cool head- other sections one by one. Salam.. Ralhazzaa 18:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

In response to some comments came later, I'm not opposing this proposal enither cricizing the English name as Persian Gulf now, only point to move classical names in all languages to its proper section. Used name in Arabic is know as الخليج العربي as you can find in any recent document, but no one can find Arabic-written document issued by UN, Arab state, even school book saying (in Arabic) it is الخليج الفارسي unless it is describing historical event or naming dispute issue. If any historical info needed to be mentioned for names in classical languages (Arabic, Latin, Aramic, Assyrian... etc.), it is better to be in the historical section of this page.Ralhazzaa 06:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• comment the common name in English is Persian Gulf as it has been in Western literature 2000 years ago. I will have to think about Mardavich's proposal. --alidoostzadeh 22:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support as suggested: intresting idea which covers both parts of debate and I hope to make it more NPOV. I am open to hear potential reject supporters' comment too. For now I support it.Farmanesh 03:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support sounds very sensible to me. By the way, I've made some slight modifications to your proposed lead, in the Modern Arabic specifically. Hopefully, this will end this aching dispute. —Anas 09:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
• support, but maybe the footnotes's wording can be imporved --Pejman47 19:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Well it's been a while, and I think consensus has been reached for this new lead. Time to add it in? Asabbagh 09:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I haven't heard any response regarding my suggestions above. Should we enlist all valid & invalid names in all languages in the heading of this article or move the historical names to the section of Etymology and Naming Dispute, separately. Moreover, the point of naming it الخليج الفارسي -in modern Arabic- is inavailable in any Arab modern state(s). Kind regards for all Ralhazzaa 16:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I was curious about this too. I think the lead by Mardavich is best, and that's what this vote was about Ralhazzaa. Your suggestion is interesting, but wasn't debated. And الخليج الفارسي, I'm sure is available in some modern Arab states. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.2.198.2 (talk) 12:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC).

Then let's work together to find refs for name of this place in Arabic, adapted officially in a modern Arab state, or by an Arab geographical society or even one Arabic languege regulator academy. References of good weight will make it better accepted by all. Ralhazzaa 16:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The main name in classical arabic has been Persian Gulf and Arabian Gulf was never used by any Arabic source until 1960. I think we should mention this as a footnote for the intro proposed by Mardavich: (Arabian Gulf was never used by Arabs until 1960). This way I would agree with the consensus above.. but since it is a consensus for now I think Mardavich's version is good without this footnote. But if it becomes necessary, it should be there. --alidoostzadeh 21:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Seems there is consensus on Mardavich's proposal which makes article NPOV. Why we are waiting? Lets make the change and take Nutrality tag out.Farmanesh 23:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Done and done. --Mardavich 01:24, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems that my suggestions have been ignored somehow! Is "classical" names should be in the intro or in the Etymology or Naming Dispute sections, logically? Also, "modern" name in Arabic for this sea has nothing to do with الخليج الفارسي! As said repeatedily by others, for special alidoostzadeh, modern name is الخليج الپارسی in "modern" Arabic (tazi)... the UN, which is modern organization after WWII, is using one term for it.. "modern" Arabic geographical societies is using one name for it.. "modern" Arab states is adapting one official name for it... the article itself in its sub-sections says this; how "modern" Arab states deal with the naming issue and what they are adapting for official use. Should we consider all of this or ignor it? Who can represent Arabic language? Arabs or others? In the recent format of the article, I still reserve my rights to say it is not approaching too much neutrality. Ralhazzaa 09:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

As long as Iraqi MP's are using it.. (and I know some shi'ite Iraqi MP's have used it in al-alam interviews) , that is good enough. I do not like the current version either since I want a direct footnote next to the arabic name explaining that there is not a single source in Arabic that calls it Arabian Gulf in 1960. Actually I want it in paranthesis in the introduction with bolded text next to the name, but I will respect the consensus of users. So if you do not like the consensus neither do I, but if you attempt to change it, I will also and since what I just said is sourced, it can easily be put in paranthesis in bold in the introduction. Note a consensus means that no one gets 100% what they want.. but when a consensus is reached, people should respect it. Also it is not about how modern Arabic states deal with the issue. Arabian Gulf has only been used for 40 years in Arab states (It's been like 6 months and you guys did not bring a single proof from any Arabic text for such a name simply because it does not exist), Persian Gulf for much longer, at least 1400 years and it is the oldest name for the water in Arabic. Also Persians have contributed grealy to Arabic language and literature (Hallaj, Abu Nuwas, Ibn Sabaywah...and it would fill up the whole space if I mention them). و السلام .--alidoostzadeh 13:31, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Well! we shouldn't remind that Al-Alam TV is Iranian! can anyone tell me who is this MP or give's any clear source for what he/they are saying? I think we can't relay on Al-Alalm TV to say it is one resource of "modern" Arabic terminology! For "modern" terms in Arabic, we should check with native Arabic academies or geographical societies , , or at least one of the deluge Arabic "original" media but not with the Iranian Al-Alalm TV! No one is denying that this sea is has been called in "classical" Arabic as الخليج الفارسي or خليج العجم (among many other varying names over the history), but it is really not true that it is still called like this now! I'm native Arab and know better what is going in the Arab World and how we use our language! Let's not kill this proposal and stay cool & unbiased when talk. All the best Ralhazzaa 03:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Salam I am cool and unbiased and I agree everyone should be. We have Arab officials in Iran. They are native Arab speakers just like there are native Persians in Bahrain, UAE and Iraq. Unlike many of the Arabs in the Arab world who are Mu'arrabs (like lebanon or egypt), the Arab speakers in Iran have kept their tribal designations and come from Arab tribes like Banu Tamim... Like Admiral Shamkhani for example (use google arabic to search for his name) who is one of the highest officials and a native Arab of Iran. He uses Persian Gulf in interviews with Arab television like Al-Jazeera. So no one has a a monopoly on the Arab speaking people of the world or even media and he is as good as native Arab as any other native Arab speaker. Probably more so given the tribal designations used by Arabs in Iran. Ali. سلام درود

Everyone know very clearly that it banned in Iran to use another term for Persian Gulf like Arabian Gulf or الخليج الپارسی, so how can Ali Shamkhani or whoever of Arab origin to say so? I heard once that people in Al-Ahwaz are abused for talking in Arabic, their mother tounge! Anyway, here are some resources for Iranians of Arab origin living out of Iran, and away from any force of law or pressure, using the term of الخليج العربي in their mother language, Arabic! , , , . For this point, let's avoid an Iraqi MP lived 80% of his life in Iran and get his Iraqi passport last year, and neglect Ahwazi over-reactions for Iran policy.. etc and take in consideration what is real and used, not the irregular and manipulated. Till then, I'm still not accepting the naming of الخليج الفارسي in "modern" Arabic as it is not true. Ralhazzaa 12:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually Arabic is thought as mandatory throughout Iran so your sites publish bogus report. The abuse of Iranians in Arab countries is much worst and everyone knows how Saddam deported Iranians, killed shi'ites or how the Arab countries treat their shi'ite minorities (sometimes majorities like in the case of Bahrain). Or the abuse of Shi'ite Muslims in Saudi Arabia. You can not say lets avoid Iraqi MP or Shamkhani. You wanted native Arab officials and you got some. I am sorry they are not good enough for you, but you have no execuse to dismiss them by your original research and constant execuses. You have to understand in a compromise no one gets what they want 100%. Those sites of yours are a few separatist non-official sites (mainly backed previously by Saddam's regime) and they do not represent Iran's arab minority. I can indeed bring some Iranian Arabs if necessary and they will tell you Khalij-e-Fars. You wanted an Arab official and I gave you two. Persian Gulf is banned in the UAE , so by your argument we do not know what Arab officials there would have called it. Mr. Shamkhani is not forced to use Khalij-e-Fars and he fought in the Iran-Iraq war and is very proud to be both Iranian and of Arab heritage. I am removing your disputed tag, but if you put it back, it will go the way before Mardavich. This time though from (1960's) or (recently forged from 1960's) will go in the paranthesis of the begining and will mention that Khalij-e-Fars was the oldest name in Arabic texts and the most common in Arabic until 1960. All this should go in the intro. You can't dismiss more than 1400 years of Arabic texts for 40 years of Arabic text made by nationalists whose end results where failures like Saddam. The ratio is in our favor (4 to 140) (approximately 97% in terms of years). I will put historically mainly Khail-j-e-Fars but due to Arab nationalism, the term Arabian Gulf was forged in the 1960s) in the paranthesis and has no historical basis. Because it looks like you do not respect the consensus of users and have no respect for the general consensus worked out by Arab and Iranian users. I reluclantly did not accept or support it, I do respect it due to consensus of users. Compormise was meant to end the edit-war and make a solution for both sides, if you are not accepting it, then the compormise is off. You made an execuse that there is not a single Arab official and I gave you two. It is not my fault if you do not like these native Arab officials. They are ultimately native officials. If you do not like a compromise that users agreed upon, then we have to restore the original wording before that compromise until a new compromise is reached. Mardavich's compromise was very generous considering the fact that historical manipulation and revisionism due to nationalism was not mentioned in the intro. You can't have your cake and eat it too. No one leaves 100% happy in a compromise, that is the way compromises work.--alidoostzadeh 14:42, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Ahwazi Arabs call their land Al-Ahwaz and Arabistan not "Khuzestan" and they say Arabian Gulf. It is a fact. Shamkhani won't say anything to offend the regime because he is a part of the regime and so is Al-Alam TV. It is true that Arabic is not allowed as a method of educational instruction in Al-Ahwaz. Ahwazi Arabs are not allowed to be educated in Arabic, they are educated in Farsi. This is a fact that is accepted by the UN human rights observers, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 16:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

First of all you are not spokeman for Arabs of Khuzestan since you are not Iranian nor did they elect you. Neither are any of those fringe one man one website groups. It was shown in the pourpirar page that you can't speak a word of Farsi, so you are a Sunni Iraqi. Arabs of Khuzestan (who are minority actually relative to Lurs/Persians in Khuzestan), fought for Iran during the Iran-Iraq and if they were thinking what you are claiming, this would not have been so and Saddam would have had an easier time in Khuzestan when the political situation if Iran was a mess. You are not even Iranian yourself and you are an Iraqi, so please do not be a spokeman (who elected you?). And why is this discussion relavent to human rights which you and ralhazza bring up? You want to discuss human rights? Maybe I'll say a word or two. Unlike Sunni Arabs political groups and governments who are going around and making genocides (fortunately the pan-arabist dream ended with the beheading os Saddam but he comitted genocides against shi'ites,turkomens,kurds), making genocides in Sudan (slavery at this age is deplorable) or in Iraq (blowing up mosques) or beheading innocent people (Afghanistan, Daniel Pearl), causing civil wars, ramming planes into buildings, blowing up shrines because of their sect, killing innocent civilians....and finally distorting historical names that are even in Hadeeth's of the Prophet Muhammad (SAW).

As the holy Quran says: :So you and Ralhazza want to talk about human rights or Persian Gulf? Arabic is thought throughout Iran as a mandatory subject from the earliest age till 12th grade. This should not be the case for all Iranians (instead Kurdish for Kurds, Azeri for Azeris should be thought instead of Arabic..), but it is. I even have the Arabic texbooks. As per UN human rights and amnesty, they get reports from the so called one man websites and they publish it, and they do not confirm anything. Those reports are fed by one man websites backed by foreign regimes and then they base their reports on it. It is not verifiable since they have not visited Iran and those reports mention they get their information from such fringe groups. So it has no reliability. Where-as the genocides comitted by Saddam or what is happening in Sudan or Saudi Arabia's treatment of its shi'ite minorities is verifiable. So everyone in Iran has mandatory Arabic language lessons. And yes Persian is the official language, since that how it was in 1906 and is the medium of education. But Arabic language is a mandatory subject, thought for almost 12 years, which everyone learns, it is not banned and there are Arabic tevelisions like Al-Alam, Arabic newspapers like Al-Wafagh and etc. It doesn't matter if Shamkhani is part of the regime. He is an Arab official. It doesn't matter if the Iraqi Arab leader is part of the Iraqi regime and Shi'ite. He is a native Arab speaker. He is elected by the Iraqi people. Also how many Persian schools are there for the Iranian minority in Bahrain supported by the government? in UAE? or in Kuwait? or in Iraq? Do they even have a Persian television? Newspaper? The Iranian percentage relative to the population there is much higher than Arab speakers in Iran. So do not bring subjects that are not relavant or else we know which group destroyed civilizations of Egypt, Syria, Lebanon and etc. So don't give me Arabs are moraly superior to Iranians, given the horrendous record in the world and destruction of the name of Islam with ideologies like wahabism or pan-arabism. I think the world is smart enough to see what is going. If there is a good name for Islam, it is because of Iranians like Rumi, Attar, Hallaj and etc not because of Fat Sauds (and I wonder why they do not help the poor Arabs?) or Ben Laden. Now back to the discussion. The discussion was if native Arab officials have used the term. And yes they have. Iraqi and Iranian native Arab speakers have used it. It doesn't matter if you guys don't like the political ideologies of these native Arab speakers. As long as you can not prove someone had a gun in their throat forcing them, then it is sufficient. Infact in Saudi, UAE,.. everyone is forced not to use Persian Gulf. So the same argument can be made. I can bring an Iranian Arab that uses it. That was the discussion. The Iraqi official was not forced. Shamkhani is not forced. What was forced by the will of Iraqi people is when Saddam was beheaded by Iraqis and ended the pan-arabist dream. Couple of websites run by one or two people (websites are very cheap) do not represent the Arab speaking minority of Khuzestan nor does an Iraqi like Ahwaz. Shamkhani is elected official from Khuzestan, by people vote's and so is the Iraqi mp's , who are elected from Iraqi people in a democratic election. So they are true representatives. So let us stick to the subject which is the name Persian Gulf. There should be no other discussions here, but since you guys keep bringing up outside points which have no relevance to the discussion, I can do the same. There was an agreement between Iranian users and Arab users. I did not fully agree, but it was consensus and consensus should be adhered to and respected. --alidoostzadeh 17:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

stick to the subject which is the name Persian Gulf - It would be good if you could also stick to the point, instead of making assumptions about me and using Misplaced Pages as a platform to claim that Arabs "are going around and making genocides". I was simply making the point that Ahwazi Arabs refer to the Arabian Gulf and you respond with nearly 800 words of accusations, emotional claims and a defence of the Iranian system of government. Let's stick to the point shall we? As I was saying, Ahwazi Arabs also use Arabian Gulf because that is the term commonly used among Arabs in the Gulf.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 17:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Again you are being spokesman. Who elected you as a spokeman for Khuzestani Arabs when you are not even one. In fact read any unbiased book and Khuzestani Arabs did not fall into saddam's racist propoganda. So you are not a spokeman. Now you are saying some Khuzestan Arabs do not use Persian Gulf. That is more reasonable and some do. And if we are mentinoing Arab countries, Iranians in Arab countries like Bahran, UAE, Kuwait, Iraq.. use Persian Gulf. But the discussion was also about elected officials. We mentioned Shamkhani from Iran and Iraqi MP's in Iraq. Both elected officials by people's vote. They are actually more representative for people than the fat and immoral Shaykhs of UAE, Qatar, Oman, Kuwait, Bahrain, Saudi, and etc where the name Persian Gulf is suppressed anyway. So the argument can work both ways. So read the discussion. There was a consensus between Iranian and Arab users (for once), and even though I wanted some other wordings, I reluctantly accepted it. Now someone mentioned that Arab officials never have used the term, but I proved it wrong. So I think people should adhere to the consensus, but if not, then previous version can be restored. And if you guys attack Iranians and play innocent infront of wiki community, I can go off topic as well and I believe the record of the other side is much more bleak with regards to outside issues. So we should concentrate on the issue instead of being spokesmans. --alidoostzadeh 17:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you believe that Iranian elections are free and fair? Perhaps you do. But I don't think Shamkhani was elected through free and fair elections and therefore is no spokesman for anyone but the Iranian regime. SCIRI is also an Iranian organisation, so its representatives will repeat the Iranian line. I have no problem with Iranians or their opinions. I just think that an NPOV article should give equal weight to Arabs and their opinions, including persecuted Ahwazi Arabs.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 17:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Again off topic. Playing innocennt, where-as documents for genocides are very much abundant from ba'athist supporters and governments and I can go off topic and talk about genocides comitted in Sudan , Iraq, etc. No election is 100% perfect (even in the US), but at least unlike the other Persian Gulf countries, there was elections in Iraq and Iran. And the discussion was not about how these officials get elected, but if they were political officials or not. In Iraq, the election was the best there was in the Arab speaking world. SCIRI was elected in a totally fair election by millions of Arab Shi'ites of Iraq who suffered under Saddam and it actually shows that you are out of touch with Arabs, the majority of whom are not racist just like the majority of Iranians are not. SCIRI is not an Iranian organization, it is an Iraqi organization and all of its members are Iraqi Shi'ite Arabs and some Shi'ite turkomens/Kurds. The majority of the population of Iraq, as you know (65%) and 20% are Sunni Kurds (who were gased by Iraqi pan-arab nationalists). So SCIRI is the most or one of the most important political organization in Iraq and it has been elected by millions of people and they do not need a phony website to become spokeman. They are the spokeman because they are elected. So unlike random one man websites (which can be even created by Iraqi ba'athist), SCIRI was elected by millions of Iraqi. In fact, if we look at the Arab speaking world, SCIRI, is the only organization that has been elected in the millions along with some other groups. The rest of the elections like Mubarak's or Saddam's were shams (100% or death). Perhaps the opinions of persecuted Arab Shi'ites of Iraq and their elected representativees does not matter for you, as it did not for Saddam, and other pan-arab sunninationalist. Nor does the opinion of Arabs of Khuzestan who the overwhemling majority fought Saddam matter for pan-arab sunni arabs. But these groups are native Arab speakers. Arab Shi'ites elected MP's in Iraq democratically and are the majority and for the most part do not share racist feelings towards Iranians. That is why Sunni Iraqi Arabs like yourself call them :Majoos, Ajam and etc.. but they are technically Arabs and native Arab speakers. As per the article, you should have participated in the consensus if you think there was a problem with it. The persecuted Iranians who were forced off their land by Saddam, and other emotional words can be brought up and then I can add a word about NPOV. Stick to the issue. Iraqi MP's and Iranian Arab officials have used Persian Gulf and that was the discussion. The rest of the political commentary from users about these guys is not relevant. Given that Iraq is the largest Arab speaking country in the Persian Gulf and Iranian Arabs are larger than the population of all the other Persian Gulf Arab countries with the exception of Saudia Arabia, I think this is an important point. Or else I can make political commentary on every other official and it is not too hard to do on non-elected officials. --alidoostzadeh 18:07, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I have never called any persecuted Ahwazi Arab "ajam". You claim I am a Sunni, an Iraqi, a Ba'athist, a pan-Arab nationalist and anti-Shi'ite. Why are you claiming this and what is your point? The fact is that all Arabs in the Gulf - those who are not employed by an Iranian political party or the Iranian state - refer to the Gulf as the Arabian Gulf.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 18:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah you might be right, basically you call the persecuted people by genocidal ba'athist as Ajams, not just khuzestani Arabs. And heck you are anti-Shi'ite, since you do not respect the votes of the majority of shi'ites in Iraq. The fact is that SCIRI was elected by millions of Iraqis. You were not. So you are a spokeman for your self and not "all Arabs" as you claim. SCIRI to you might be an Iranian political party, but millions of Iraqis elected it and their official are native Arab speakers. So their nature is not relavent. They are native Arab speakers and they were elected. And given the fact that the majority of Iranian Arabs who are shi'ites also fought against Saddam, we can not have spokemans who believe in pan-arabist visions to attempt to represent them. End of the story. You = zero votes. Ibn Saud=zero votes. As-Sabbah=zero votes. SCIRI=millions of people elected it, millions of votes. It's spokeman thus can speak for millions of people. Unless you have spoken to "All Arabs in the Gulf", the credibility of SCIRI elected by millions of Iraqi Arabs is solid. -alidoostzadeh 18:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The fact that I am not an Iraqi politician is beside the point. This is Misplaced Pages and we are trying to resolve an editorial issue. I do not need to be elected to say that Arabs - including Iraqi Shi'ites and Ahwazi Arabs - use Arabian Gulf. The term has nothing to do with being Sunni or Shi'a. Why are you claiming I am Ba'athist and a Saddam supporter?--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 18:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes you do need to be elected to say "All Arabs", "All Khuzestani arabs" and etc. You can not be a spokeman of a group, which you are not even part!and have not elected you. Neither can couple of fringe websites. That is just simply POV. You are not respecting the millions of votes of Shi'ite Iraqis and it appears you did not want the article of Pourpirar, specially since his connection with Ba'athist are well known. Actually I note that Shi'ite Arabs overall do have good mutural feelings for Iran and so they are not into the pan-arabist racist business. That is why Saddam tried to exterminate them, other Arabs kept quite, but they failed. We know that term Arabian Gulf has no precedence in the Arab speaking world until the rise of recent pan-arabist nationalism. SCIRI has much more weight, because they are elected by millions. The editorial dispute was about native Arab , officials (and we did not care about their political affiliation) use the term Persian Gulf. I did not even bring up the dispute or point. Someone mentioned it, and I affirmed it. So there is nothing emotional about the dispute until you guys brought claims Iranians are this or that, which as we can see other groups have much worst record if we want to go down that road. I rather stick to the discussion. It is simple. Some Arab officials have and are using the term Persian Gulf. I do not care if SCIRI, whose members are native Arab speakers and elected by millions,is an an alleged Iranian group for you. They are native Arabs, Iraqis and elected in Iraq and part of the current Iraqi political systems. I do not care about the nature of regimes and etc. The point is simple. Some Arab officials have and are using the term Persian Gulf unlike what some users claimed. We do not care for the reason why, since that has lead to emotional speculations. Why they are using it and etc. is not relevant since I can bring up the same questions about unelected shaykhs in the Persian Gulf and make up conspiracy theories and what not. I believe that issue is now settled and we have affirmed that native Arabs and native Arab officials have used the term. If you have a statement from Admiral Shamkhani or SCIRI MP's that they are forced, then fine. If you do not, we can not speculate. Overall there is an consensus in the article. One user can not go against the consensus by making reasons which have been responded to in the talk page. --alidoostzadeh 19:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

In response to your comment which you deleted. You made the racist attacks first. Trying to bring up irrelavent topics here knowing exactly that you want to start an Iran-Arab fight. You said SCIRI was an Iranian party, so they don't count. That is clearly an attack on Iraqi shi'ites. And yes they could be Iranian-backed , so what? So are Iraqi Sunni parties backed by Saudi and Wahabites. And it doesn't matter what millions of Iraqi shi'ites voted for, what matters is that they are elected official of a democtratic government and they are native Arabs and use the term. Same with Iranian Arab officials. The issue was not about how many people they represent. The aritifical issue created by users was if there are native Arab politicans who have used the term. And we affirmed there was. All the rest about Arabic being thought in Iran and Persian not being thought in UAE, Bahrain, Kuwait, has nothing to do with the issues which people brought up in order to make attacks and claim moral superiority through innocence. I can do the same too. The discussion is focused. Have native Arab officials used the term Persian Gulf? yes they have.. It is less common, but it is still there. At most I am willing to put less common in Arabic since 1960 in paranthesis. But since there is a consensus, I believe the article is fine.--alidoostzadeh 19:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

If you believe I have made racist attacks, then report me to an admin. But your long excursions into politics and the wrongdoings of Arab Sunnis are doing nothing to enhance the debate or resolve issues on this talk page and I suggest they stop now.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 19:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I did not start the politics. You did. I did not start with the wrong-doing stuff, you guys did. I mentioned Shamkhani and SCIRI as Arab officials and you guys went into how evil Iran is and how good and innocent Arab regimes/Sunni groups are and etc and I thought perhaps we should be realistic if we are discussing that path and mention some of the genocides in Iraq and Sudan which do not need fringe websites. I agree, end the politics. And I will end it right now as long as other folks do not bring non-relavent issues. We have confirmed that some native Arab officials (and no one cares about the political reason unless there is a statement by them) have used Persian Gulf. If you keep claiming "all" and "every" and try to be spokeman and say SCIRI is Iranian and does not represent, then you are playing politics and actually I find it offensive to the memory of all those Iranians and Khuzestani Arabs who fought for Iran. I don't like politics. I am here to ensure consensus is respected by users. So I am ending the political discussion with the exception of that the current name in Arab countries had political origins (stated by verifiable sources). --alidoostzadeh 19:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

As well as stopping the political speeches, could you also end the personal attacks and misrepresenting what I said, as you have done above? An apology for some of your personal accusations would also be good. Best regards,--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 19:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay I believe both sides should stop the political speeches. I did not make a personal attack, since you have been supporting pan-arabism in Iranian articles for a while and I called you by your political name, ..you also said maybe the "Iranian regime" for is democratic.. I do not like such attacks and I will stop if other users do. I am not here to hurt anyone's feeling, I like the Arabic language and etc. Obviously distortion of a historical name for political purposes that has it's root in modern Arab-Iranian animosity(and note I blame both Iranian and Arab extremists for this) has hurted the feelings of many. Anyways best regards to you too and I hope users can maintain the consensus and if they have a problem with it, do not make artificial or political arguments. --alidoostzadeh 20:00, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I am not a Ba'athist or a pan-Arabist, I do not hate Shi'ism (see this for my views) and I have never ever referred to anyone as ajam. And I also do not support the views of Pourpirar and have said he is irrelevant. My views on the Iranian regime are shared by many Iranians of all ethnic groups. Please do not portray me as a Sunni extremist or Ba'athist when there is no basis for this accusation and is highly offensive. An apology would be helpful. Peace,--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 20:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

If you're not pan-Arab, then why did you have a this user belives in Arab word reunification box. That is the definition of pan-arabism/ba'thism and that is why we see documented genocides of non-Arabs in Sudan or Iraq , because a racial political ideology ultimately leads to fascism. The action of Iranian government pales to such actions, and I am not sure why a non-Iranian and non-shi'ite would call himself "Ahwazi" Arab and support fringe groups, support sites that have maps which put Arabs in non-Arab areas (mainly lur/Persians). It all seems politically motivated, just to start anti-Iran edits. I am not going to discuss politics as long as it is not brought up by other users. People wanted native Arab officials and I gave them examples. end of story.--alidoostzadeh 20:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, you misrepresent me, make accusations and assumptions without any evidence in order to win an argument over this article. If you want to continue to make such allegations, do so on my user talk page or make an official complaint. Don't drag in your prejudices about me into debates here because they are irrelevant, offensive and certainly in breach of Misplaced Pages's rules.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 21:51, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe the evidence was just brought and looks like it was sufficient. And I am not going to buy into victim roles here from someone not from Iran playing victim roles on how evil Iranians are. If you guys want to score cheap points, then I will mention the genocide comitted by Sunni Arabs, pan-arabists, ba'athists against Shi'ite Arabs, Kurds, Turkomens, and the different genocides done by Arab nationalists, pan-arabists (those that believe in unification so they wipe out all of their minorities) in Sudan and other countries , as well the victimization of Iranians , their deporation and the victimization of Shi'ites in Bahrain, Saudi..and deporation of Iranians in Iraq. After all it was these ba'athist/pan-arabist nationalists that distorted a historical name. So why not even mention some of their other actions in the article? If they can distort a historical name, wipe out Kurds, Shi'ite Arabs and etc., then they should be mentioned. If you want to respect the consensus of users (Iranians and Arabs) and adhere into making the article better, then I have no problem with it. But if you guys want to talk about politics, then it works like two way street. So let us recall who brought the political arguments, it was not me. But if they are brought again, I will also re-mention all that was said in the discussion page and it can even be extended in the main page.--alidoostzadeh 22:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

alidoostzadeh! You should try to cool down and not be so aggresive and turn it political discussion here. Read a tag in the top of this page saying: this is not a forum! You are viiolating the rules of discussion and show show racial and aggressive response against other users. I didn't start a "human rights" talk but you did buddy! You are using very offensive language against me and other users here! This is going to be reported to WP admins.. and unfortunately, sorry from Mardavich and others, you returned the problem to its first square. You can't say Arabic is moderated by Iran.. it is simple logic.. but why you are going so hot and politicalizing the talk when someone raise a fact not of your ideology? sorry but it is so bad for me to read your last comments & response. Ralhazzaa 03:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually you did. And you are showing reacial and aggressive responses to other users. why you are going so hot and politicalizing the talk when someone raise a fact not of your ideology? The fact is pan-arabist racist ideology made up the name Arabian Gulf and pan-arabists were responsible for other crimes. I believe an article on pan-arabist crimes should be created and linked to this article, since distorting a historical name is one of their least crimes. And I do not care if users will find an article on the racism and genocidal actions of pan-arabism offensive. --alidoostzadeh 11:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

There should be a map with the borders at sea. Many people don't know where the borders at sea goes... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.108.225.216 (talk) 00:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC).

new proposal

I didn't vote for that compromise and wasn't content about it, but despite some users I decided to honor it. The current version doesn't show the truth. The truth that after 2-3 years of discussions for this article, one side of the argument couldn't find any source prior to Gamal calling it الخلیج العربی.

I propose this version which shows the truth:

The Persian Gulf (Template:PerB - Khalīj-e Fārs; in Arabic Language prior to 1960s and rise of Pan-Arabism: بحر الفارس Bahr al-Fārs, after that Template:Rtl-lang al-Khalīj or al-Khalīj al-Fārisī), in the Southwest Asian region, is an extension of the Gulf of Oman located between Iran (Persia) and the Arabian Peninsula.--Pejman47 03:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• Needs change as the lonely common name in Arabic is الخليج العربي al-Khalīj Al-Arabi is the only name used and adopted officially by the Arab countries, UN documentations in Arabic, Arabian geographical societies. No official name is used like الخليج الفارسي in the Arab world officially or academically, at least since the establishment of modern Arab states. Other extinguished names like خليج العجم، خليج الفرس، خليج العراق، خليج البصرة، خليج القطيف، خليج البحرين are old names used (and died) in classical Arabic. Thus, I request changes on your proposal to be like this:

Persian Gulf (Template:PerB - Khalīj-e Fārs;) (Template:ArB al-Khalīj al-arbiī), in the Southwest Asian region, is an extension of the Gulf of Oman located between Iran (Persia) and the Arabian Peninsula.

- in the Etymology section, we may add the insert you like as in this sentence

Assyrians, Babylonians and Akkadians called it The Lower Sea, compared with the Upper Sea; the Mediterranean. Greeks called it In Arabic, this sea has been called many varied names like: بحر العجم Bahr al-ajam, خليج الفرس khalij al-furs, خليج العراق Khalij al-iraq, خليج البصرة Khalij al-basrah, خليج القطيف khalij el-qateef and خليج البحرين Khalij al-bahreen. However, after WWII and the independent of most Arab states, sequencly, and the re-use of Arabic language as official one after long period of using Turkish, English and French forcely by occupying countries, the newly independent Arab countries reused the vernacular name الخليج العربي Al-khalij al-arabi means Arabian Gulf, for this sea. In Latin, it has been called many names. Sinus Periscus was the major one which extended to modern European languages, besides Sinus Arabicus, Sinus El-qateef. In Ottoman language (classical Turkish),it has been named as Basra Körfezi that still in use in modern Turkish. Ralhazzaa 10:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no sources for any of your statements. Sinus Arabicus has never been used in any european text and lacked textual evidence. The same sources you brought have used Persian Gulf in their text and the same maps in their books and later editions had solely used Persian Gulf. Also your reasoning is not sourced , so it is POV. Here are the actual reasons that needs to go into the article. As recognized by the United States Board on Geographic names, the name of the body of water that lies between Iran and the Arab states of the Gulf Cooperation Council is the Persian Gulf. For political reasons, Arabs often refer to it as the Arab or Arabian Gulf (The Persian Gulf at the Millennium: Essays in Politics, Economy, Security, and Religion edited by Gary G. Sick, Lawrence G. Potter, pg 8). (Note this source says Arabs often (not always)). That is good enough , since it is verifiable source and we can not take your POV over it. It uses often and so there is no need to argue with regards to the consensus, since in the end it is verifable source. Also "The Arab-Iranian nomenclatural controversy over the Gulf, which was so bitter in the late 50s and early 60s, was a by-product of the late President Nasser of Egypt's brand of Arab nationalism ... 'Arabian Gulf' is in fact a recent Arab appellation for that body of water..." ( Eilts, Hermann F. "Security Considerations in the Persian Gulf." International Security :Vol. 5, No. 2. (Autumn, 1980), pp. 79-113. ). Also I have a list of 300 european map-makes that have used Persian Gulf and I can insert it , if encessary. Persian Gulf has been the main name in Arabic before the era of pan-arabism. I suggest we mention this and also link it to pan-arabism. And in pan-arabism we should list other distortions (some of them mentioned above when other users started political discussions) as well as Persian Gulf. --alidoostzadeh 11:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

it looks that some users have multiple focuses enabling them to mix the point of talk and mess the talk in our point: calling this sea "only" as الخليج العربي Alkhaleej Al-Arabi officially and academically by Arabic-speaking institutions (except that propagandic media residing in Iran). Some also have short memory to forget what dozens of classical maps and geographical sources saying: Sinus Arabicus, Sinus Elqateef,.... besides sinus persicus. Words like "Sinus Arabicus has never been used in any european text and lacked textual evidence" are pity and humor.. but here are some thing to enjoy with , , (I'm expecting an immediate falsifying of these "medieval" maps by someone!). All these resources have been used in the old versions of this page before reversing and falsified by others "didn't like it as it is not reflecting their POV".. but anyway, it is all mentioned in the archive of this discussion.. and can't be falsified by one-boy-managed website as a resource (as websites are so cheap)!

Now, for the point of the proposal by Pejman Azadi, I would like to thank him for it and will appreciate considering my amendments as we know ourselves and our language better than others... it is not that much pan-Arabism led by Gamal as it was a Persian imperial dream led by expelled Pahlavis ;).. so let's stick to the point of discussion and someone should bring an offical naming in Arab country (among Arab League) saying: Al-khaleej al-Faresi. Till then, I'm requesting changes as mentioned above. Ralhazzaa 13:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

First I would like the admins to note the language of this user. One boy managed websites, Persian imperial dream led by expelled Pahlavis ;)..None of these are relevant to the discussion and are just meant to provoke people. Anyways I believe the user below responded well enough to arguments Ralhazza repeated, but I had more to add. Let me first add that you did not understand what the concept of textual evidence is. Textual evidence means that in a paragraph of the text within Atlas, the name should be mentioned in its correct geographical designation. Since an atlas has paragraphs about each region. There are 300+ european map makes here, only 8 of them used Arabian Gulf along with Persian Gulf (makes 2%), but they used Persian Gulf in their text and newer editions and never used Arabian Gulf in the text, which shows the maps had cartographic mistake. So the textual evidence are very important. Arabian Gulf has no historical precedence in any ancient text. So few maps from the same book that also have Persian do not support your argument relative to 300+ maps I have mentioned and the same maps of these authors are backed by the textual evidence of Persian Gulf only from the same atlases. You can not make original research and then accuse users of falsifying. "Sinus Arabicus" for Persian Gulf has never been used in any european text. You can not make original research. Textual evidence is a key statement that goes with any atlas, you lack it. Few maps (and boy that one man managed website worked hard to find some, but of course did not mention that the texts use Persian Gulf and there are maps of Persian Gulf in the same Atlas and the newer editions use Persian) you brought all had Persian Gulf in the same Atlases and used Persian Gulf in their text and their newer version had Persian Gulf. You can't ignore the same maps, and atlases and 300+ sources as well as modern verifiable sourcs and make original research. For example Media is not in Mazandaran but in your map, it is. Or Armenia is not below Media, but in your map it is. So without textual evidence, which goes with the map, you can not push your POV. Specially since I just brought a source that said "often" and so your argument about language and etc. is not valid anymore, since it is not absolute and I already brought Arab officials as well. Indeed I brought verifiable and published sources that the name Khalij-e- Arabi is new for the Persian Gulf as well and so you can' t make OR in Misplaced Pages. You can't find a single example of Khalij-e-Arabi in Arabic before Gamal, because it was forged due to anti-Persian racism and that is why it is offensive. As per Pahlavis which you brought (and note it had nothing to do with the discussion), I will make a comment on my talk page, which you are more than welcome to look at.. So lets stick to the discussion as you said. Also I will add that you do not own the page, if users make a consensus, then people should stick to it. For my part, if the consensus is one day disregarded, I would also like to make modification. As I brought sources already that pan-arabism forged the name Khalij-e-Arabi which never existed in Arab history, , I would like to link it to the wiki article where other actions of believers in pan-arabistm like Gamal, Saddam are mentioned. But now, there is a consensus and I won't do that. But if people do not respect the consensus and only want their own version, then I am perfectly allowed to do this, since pan-arabist forged this name due to their racism as I brought verifiable western sources with this regard. So the edit of Pejman is perfectly sourced and verifiable. Indeed this example of forging a name and removing a historical name is a blatant example of racism and denial of historical names of other cultures. It would be like changing the name of Saudia Arabia to Saudi Israel. I have brought sources that pan-arabist forged the name. I brought native Arab government officials that use Persian Gulf as well a source that said "often" instead of "always. You can not be spokeman for every Arab. If a source says often instead of always and if I brought native Arab officials that use the name, then it is sufficient. Besides the classical sources and the most ancient name in Arabic language. If you do not like the consensus and attempt to push your POV, then I can easily put information on pan-arabism in the first line (I have verified western sources) and then link it to an article which discusses the actions(including forging a non-historical name because of racism which is a drop in the bucket) and other actions of pan-arabist political groups. So your POV is not the only POV. So the current consensus is balanced and you can't make original research and go against published books and maps published in verifable academic sources and push POV's that have intrepretation without textual evidence. As per your Pahlavi comment, it had nothing with the discussion, if you keep it up, and I have just gave you a warning. Next time I will mention this to the admin. But you are free to write about them in your talkpage just like I might perhaps write about Gamal in my talk page. But do not bring non-relavent opinions to the actual article or it's discussion page. Only source items relavent to the article should be brought about Pahlavids or any other political group/people that have relevance to Persian Gulf as a name. My source perfectly said Gamal forged it and it is western source, not an Iranian source. --alidoostzadeh 03:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

You are the one interpreting a consensus that never existed. Arabian Gulf is the official name all Arabian Gulf countries apart from Iran. I don't care whether you think that Nasser invented the name. Arabs in the Arabian Gulf call it the Arabian Gulf, including persecuted Ahwazi Arabs.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 10:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes a consensus did exist. Several Arabs and Iranian users agreed. But interesting, another political jab, considering that you are not from Khuzestan. Also Iranians were at least 1/4 in Baghdad and persecuted and racists like Saddam and other pan-arabists who supported the fake name of Arabian Gulf deported them. It was Iranian , Shi'ites, Kurds, and black sudanese that have been persecuted and have faced genocide. They were chemical bombed by racist pan-arabists who also coined the term Arabian Gulf. I brought a source that says Arabs often call it Arabian Gulf. That is sufficient, no matter how much original research is brought forth. All that was required is this source. Also again, you are not spokeman for Arabs or Khuzestani Arabs. Specially since you are not from Iran, and no one elected you. Fringe groups that supported Saddam did not have support and majority of Khuzestani Arabs fought with Iran. Also it is clear right now that Shi'ite Arabs are being persecuted in Iraq but their elected representives by the millions including SCIRI members have used the term Persian Gulf. So as long as some Arabs have and still use Persian Gulf and as long as I brought a source that says often, it is sufficient. --alidoostzadeh 12:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

No, you interpreted a consensus that did not exist. What users like me voted for was different from the "consensus" you claim. Please stop your inflammatory political rants, they have no place in Misplaced Pages. And also stop divisively referring to other users by their ethnicity and nationality as this is irrelevant. Arabian Gulf is used by all Arabs in the region, including the persecuted Ahwazi Arabs. You have not provided a singly source to back up your claim that Arabian Gulf is commonly used in Iraq, either by the people or members of the SCIRI.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 12:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Consensus means majority. As you can see majority agreed. But again the user is contradicting himself. He says: Arabian Gulf is used by all Arabs. He does not have a source that says it and then when I brought Arabs from Iran, the user dismissed them by political execues. I brought sources from Iraqi and Iranian government officials of Arab origin that use Persian Gulf. SCIRI uses it and even ralhazza mentions it. The user then says SCIRI is this or that. All I needed was the source that says Arabs often instead of always. I brought a western source. I did not refer to anyone's ethnicity. I said persecuted (since you constantly use the term) Shi'ites Arabs and many Kurds in Iraq use Persian Gulf. Stop inserting political terms here like persecuted or etc and discuss your position with neutral sources. I brought a clear source: As recognized by the United States Board on Geographic names, the name of the body of water that lies between Iran and the Arab states of the Gulf Cooperation Council is the Persian Gulf. For political reasons, Arabs often refer to it as the Arab or Arabian Gulf (The Persian Gulf at the Millennium: Essays in Politics, Economy, Security, and Religion edited by Gary G. Sick, Lawrence G. Potter, pg 8). So it is not always, but often. --alidoostzadeh 12:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Consensus means majority - no it doesn't. Consensus means everyone agreeing, it does not mean a majority. You have yet to supply a source that says SCIRI or the Iraqi government use the term Persian Gulf.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 12:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Majority of users made their mind and both Arab and Iranians users now have r.v.'ed people who did not accept the consensus. I did not present a source about SCIRI, Ralhazza mentioned it and that was sufficient. And I do not need to bring more sources, since the western source I brought is sufficient. It is verifiable and you can't dismiss it because of original source.. That is all that was required and it has been brought forth. So I do not need to continue, since it is western source, verifiable and published in a verifiable book. You can speak about persecuted and all arabs.. but I brought a reputable source. So I am done by wikipedia standard.--alidoostzadeh 12:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Please read Consensus. Also, please provide a source that backs up your claim that Iraqi politicians use the term "Persian Gulf". I have yet to see this source.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 12:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Ask Ralhazza, he mentioned it. But I do not need to bring such a source, since I brought a western source that says often instead of always. As per this page, majority agreed and I am putting my name down to the agreement. As did Pejman. So 7 Arab and Iranians users agreed. And I just brought a source for the claim which some users disputed. It is a verifiable source, so there is nothing to discuss. It is published, verifiable neutral source. It does not support your claim that all and we can't go with OR and we need to accept published sources. --alidoostzadeh 12:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Let me remind you. You said "As long as Iraqi MP's are using it.. (and I know some shi'ite Iraqi MP's have used it in al-alam interviews) , that is good enough". You also say "300 million Arab speakers" do not use Arabian Gulf. Please show me a source which backs up your claims.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 12:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Again Ralhazza mentioned this first (an MP who has lived in Iran 80% of his time as he said). I brought a source: As recognized by the United States Board on Geographic names, the name of the body of water that lies between Iran and the Arab states of the Gulf Cooperation Council is the Persian Gulf. For political reasons, Arabs often refer to it as the Arab or Arabian Gulf (The Persian Gulf at the Millennium: Essays in Politics, Economy, Security, and Religion edited by Gary G. Sick, Lawrence G. Potter, pg 8).. It does not say All Arabs like you claim. It says often. It is a neutral and verifiable source. And I do recall a source in Juan Cole's website about SCIRI, but the source I brought makes me it more than sufficient. I believe I should repeat it as well As recognized by the United States Board on Geographic names, the name of the body of water that lies between Iran and the Arab states of the Gulf Cooperation Council is the Persian Gulf. For political reasons, Arabs often refer to it as the Arab or Arabian Gulf (The Persian Gulf at the Millennium: Essays in Politics, Economy, Security, and Religion edited by Gary G. Sick, Lawrence G. Potter, pg 8). The author does not say All Arabs. And if we want to mention Arabian Gulf solely for the Arabic name, this should be mentioned: "The Arab-Iranian nomenclatural controversy over the Gulf, which was so bitter in the late 50s and early 60s, was a by-product of the late President Nasser of Egypt's brand of Arab nationalism ... 'Arabian Gulf' is in fact a recent Arab appellation for that body of water..." ( Eilts, Hermann F. "Security Considerations in the Persian Gulf." International Security :Vol. 5, No. 2. (Autumn, 1980), pp. 79-113. ). So as you can see although I can spend my time and find Ralhazza's claim, I do not need to. Because: As recognized by the United States Board on Geographic names, the name of the body of water that lies between Iran and the Arab states of the Gulf Cooperation Council is the Persian Gulf. For political reasons, Arabs often refer to it as the Arab or Arabian Gulf (The Persian Gulf at the Millennium: Essays in Politics, Economy, Security, and Religion edited by Gary G. Sick, Lawrence G. Potter, pg 8).. It does say more often or always. So we can not add OR to this article and go against verifiable sources. Yes not all 300 million Arabs use Arabian Gulf. Shamkhani, Khorshid and I have several other articles from Arab intellectuals that support the name Persian Gulf. So one can not here say All Arabs, All 300 million Arabs.. unless there is verifiable sources. Again I brought a verifiable source:As recognized by the United States Board on Geographic names, the name of the body of water that lies between Iran and the Arab states of the Gulf Cooperation Council is the Persian Gulf. For political reasons, Arabs often refer to it as the Arab or Arabian Gulf (The Persian Gulf at the Millennium: Essays in Politics, Economy, Security, and Religion edited by Gary G. Sick, Lawrence G. Potter, pg 8).. So if you have a disagreement with this book, I can not do anything, since it is verifiable source relavent to the discussion at hand. --alidoostzadeh 13:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Ralhazza asked: "can anyone tell me who is this MP or give's any clear source for what he/they are saying?". You have misrepresented what he said - you are the one that raised the issue of these mysterious Iraqi MPs and I am asking for a source. It shouldn't be hard if you are convinced that 300 million Arabic speakers use the term Persian Gulf.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 13:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I never said 300 million Arabs use Persian Gulf. So no need to puts in my mouth. I said Persian Gulf is used also. As recognized by the United States Board on Geographic names, the name of the body of water that lies between Iran and the Arab states of the Gulf Cooperation Council is the Persian Gulf. For political reasons, Arabs often refer to it as the Arab or Arabian Gulf (The Persian Gulf at the Millennium: Essays in Politics, Economy, Security, and Religion edited by Gary G. Sick, Lawrence G. Potter, pg 8). Also I do not have recordings of SCIRI MP's on Iranian t.v.. But I do not need to bring it, since my source here is sufficient. Unlike your claim that 300 million or all arabs do not use Persian Gulf (bring proof for this claim that every single Arab users Arabian Gulf instead of Persian Gulf), I brought a direct neutral source which rejects your claim. As recognized by the United States Board on Geographic names, the name of the body of water that lies between Iran and the Arab states of the Gulf Cooperation Council is the Persian Gulf. For political reasons, Arabs often refer to it as the Arab or Arabian Gulf (The Persian Gulf at the Millennium: Essays in Politics, Economy, Security, and Religion edited by Gary G. Sick, Lawrence G. Potter, pg 8). That is all that is required, but I will try to get hold a of Iraqi MP's interviews , although not needed in this case. Meanwhile you need to bring a source that every single Arab in the planet does not use Persian Gulf as per your claim. And this was the words of users Ralhazza: let's avoid an Iraqi MP lived 80% of his life in Iran and get his Iraqi passport last year,. So he knows who he is talking about as I did not bring such details and did not know about. Now you need to bring proof that contradicts my source that every single individual Arab users Arabian Gulf. I can not take your hearsay, so I need proof. My source which is a western source contradicts your claim. --alidoostzadeh 13:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Please tell me what you meant by "300 million Arab speakers do not use the name you claim", after Ralhazza mentioned that native Arabic speakers in the Gulf use Arabian Gulf. Perhaps I misunderstood you, but I took it to mean that 300 million Arabic speakers do not use the term Arabian Gulf. As for Ralhazza's comment, I don't think he was referring to any specific MP but your reference to SCIRI, which was formed in Iran, is led by Iranians and is financed by the Iranian government.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 13:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Very simple logic. You claim all 300 million Arabs (every single of them) use the name Arabian Gulf. I proved you wrong by neutral western source. As per SCIRI, here is not pro-Iran link, but is sufficient for what I say. Abdel-Aziz himself reportedly still has Iranian citizenship, and his son Ammar, who is a spokesman for SCIRI, reportedly is wanted for conscription in the Iranian Army. Two years ago, Ammar had written to former Iranian President Khatemi to grant him special permission to be excused from Iranian military service. Unlike most Iraqis, Aziz still publicly refers to the Arabian Gulf, as the "Persian Gulf" as do the Iranians.. And here is another anti-Iranian website: Unlike most Iraqis, Aziz still publicly refers to the Arabian Gulf, as the "Persian Gulf" as do the Iranians.. Again do not insert politics into it. Hakim is an elected official and one of the three most important Iraqi politicans. He was voted by millions of Iraqi. I can also say that none of the arab leaders with the exception of Iraq are unelected and so their opinion does not count. The fact is this: 1) Hakim uses Persian Gulf. 2) Shamkhani uses Persian Gulf. 3) These are ethnic Arab officials (and I do not care about their political views just like I do not care about Ibn Saud's political views) 3) The western source I brought and I will repeat:As recognized by the United States Board on Geographic names, the name of the body of water that lies between Iran and the Arab states of the Gulf Cooperation Council is the Persian Gulf. For political reasons, Arabs often refer to it as the Arab or Arabian Gulf (The Persian Gulf at the Millennium: Essays in Politics, Economy, Security, and Religion edited by Gary G. Sick, Lawrence G. Potter, pg 8). So when you say all "Arabs" or "300 million" and do not provide any source, then I can not accept your argument. But I have brought the counter argument with facts and so the issue should not be part of the consensus. And let me add that I have problems with this consensus as well, but I accept it. For example I would like to put (from 1960 due to pan-arabism) and then link it to an article on pan-arabism and you know put all the other stuff as well. And it would be perfectly following wikipedia rule, since I have western sourced items that say exactly the same thing. So let's not make a big fuss about the issue and respect the opinions of the majority of Arab and Iranian users. --alidoostzadeh 16:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's true that the Akkadians, Assyrians and Babylonians called the Persian Gulf, the Lower Sea - that's because they predated the Persian Empire. Once the Persian Empire conquered them, the name changed to Persian Gulf. That's the 2500 years of history people are talking about. I have yet to see Khalij-al-Iraq, but as a side note, it's worth noting that the name "Gulf of Bahrain" is still used today to describe "an inlet of the Persian Gulf on the east coast of Saudi Arabia, separated from the main body of water by the peninsula of Qatar. It surrounds the islands of Bahrain." See Gulf of Bahrain Misplaced Pages article. So, that's not a point of debate in old maps since using it isn't incorrect. Khalij-al-Basrah is the Arabic version of the Turkish name (which you mentioned above). Are there actually any Arabic/English/Turkish/French etc. maps showing that? If there are maps, they most likely have olim Sinus Persicus under them since the Ottomans were the dominant power in the Gulf until the Europeans moved in and the name was switched back to the Persian Gulf. In modern Turkish it's called Gulf of Basrah, but the Turks translate to "Persian Gulf" when describing the Gulf English. See here: Turkish Daily News As for the maps you provided, they might be cartographical errors - You need textual evidence to back it up. This map has Mare Indi (Indian Sea/Ocean) right up to Persia where the Arabian Sea would be. This map has two olim sinus Arabicus which makes absolutely no sense! Finally, this map has "Sein Arabique" which is not French. Clutching at cartographic errors without written sources is not wise, and not as you said "pity and humor." Textual evidence is what makes a sound argument, without it there's no substance to your argument.

Hey, alidoostzadeh! stop trolling and zigzaging the talk scope, and be civil and don't lie in my name boy! I didn't mention anyone.. I will keep asking you: give me the name of that Iraqi MP who said that? it was just a keep-in-line with you in your saying: Iraqi MPs are saying الخليج الفارسي but you manipulted my words in wrong way. Even so, that fabulous invisible evidence u refer is negligible -if it is real- as it was through an Iranian media. Please have some logic!

Anyway, our point is What is this sea called in Arabic? the answer is easy and Arab users know it much better than non-Arabs:

• from the Global Arab Encyclopedia
• from the documents of Arabic Language Academy of Jordan
• from documents of the Saudi Geographical Society
• documents of the Arab League
• documents of the UN in Arabic
• the intro of the Arab League Education, Cultural & Scientific Organization
• documents of the Gulf Coop. Council
• from Aljazeera, a leading Arabic media network
• from Alarabiya, another leading Arabic media network
• in Bahrain, a University!
• soccer league, in Arabic as well

so it is better for anyone, if want to say recent name for this in Arabic is الخليج الفارسي, to bring somthing in Arabic has a significance impact in the Arab world like this. Otherwise, I'm going to delete the unresourced name in the intro. countdown... Ralhazzaa 18:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Watch your tone and be civil. And it is very simple. It was al-Hakim the leader of SCIRI. Unlike all the Arab leaders in every Arab country, he is elected leader. You claim all 300 million Arabs (every single of them) use the name Arabian Gulf. Unlike most Iraqis, Aziz still publicly refers to the Arabian Gulf, as the "Persian Gulf" as do the Iranians.. And here is another anti-Iranian website: Unlike most Iraqis, Aziz still publicly refers to the Arabian Gulf, as the "Persian Gulf" as do the Iranians.. Again do not insert politics into it. I proved you wrong by neutral western source. As per SCIRI, here is not pro-Iran link, but is sufficient for what I say. Abdel-Aziz himself reportedly still has Iranian citizenship, and his son Ammar, who is a spokesman for SCIRI, reportedly is wanted for conscription in the Iranian Army. Two years ago, Ammar had written to former Iranian President Khatemi to grant him special permission to be excused from Iranian military service. Unlike most Iraqis, Aziz still publicly refers to the Arabian Gulf, as the "Persian Gulf" as do the Iranians.. And here is another anti-Iranian website: Unlike most Iraqis, Aziz still publicly refers to the Arabian Gulf, as the "Persian Gulf" as do the Iranians.. Again do not insert politics into it. Hakim is an elected official and one of the three most important Iraqi politicans. He was voted by millions of Iraqi. I can also say that none of the arab leaders with the exception of Iraq are unelected and so their opinion does not count. The fact is this: 1) Hakim uses Persian Gulf. 2) Shamkhani uses Persian Gulf. 3) These are ethnic Arab officials (and I do not care about their political views just like I do not care about Ibn Saud's political views) 3) The western source I brought and I will repeat:As recognized by the United States Board on Geographic names, the name of the body of water that lies between Iran and the Arab states of the Gulf Cooperation Council is the Persian Gulf. For political reasons, Arabs often refer to it as the Arab or Arabian Gulf (The Persian Gulf at the Millennium: Essays in Politics, Economy, Security, and Religion edited by Gary G. Sick, Lawrence G. Potter, pg 8). So when you say all "Arabs" or "300 million" and do not provide any source, then I can not accept your argument. But I have brought the counter argument with facts and so the issue should not be part of the consensus. And let me add that I have problems with this consensus as well, but I accept it. For example I would like to put (from 1960 due to pan-arabism) and then link it to an article on pan-arabism and you know put all the other stuff as well. And it would be perfectly following wikipedia rule, since I have western sourced items that say exactly the same thing. So let's not make a big fuss about the issue and respect the opinions of the majority of Arab and Iranian users. Frankly I do not care how many Arab sites you give us, you wanted arab politicans that use the term and you got it. --alidoostzadeh 00:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Al-Hakim is not an Arab, he is of Iranian descent originating from Allameh Tabatabaei's family. Many senior SCIRI members are Iranian citizens (such as Abdel-Aziz) and/or are of Iranian descent, but are ruling Iraq because they studied in Qom. Understandably, as they have spent all/most of their lives in Iran, they will use language preferred by the Iranian regimes. This is not, however, representative of Arabs in Iraq or the rest of the Gulf region.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 00:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Again no proof. Tatabai means descendant of the prophet in the world of Shia Islam. Which means Arab. Al-Hakim has been voted by millions in Iraq and his party is the biggest party. He is an Arab and not an Iranian. His family is very famous and well established in Iraq. Also my western source was sufficient, because it says often. I have no problem with removing the name Al-Khalij Farsi for the Arabic name as long as it is mentioned clearly Al-Khalij-e Arabi(from 1950 due to rise of pan-arabism). And note that is not original research as I have quotes for that as well. So as you can see it was not just an MP of SCIRI, but THE MP and leader of SCIRI (so other SCIRI MP's could be using it as their party leader does). A party voted in by millions of Iraqi's and much more representative than any other Arab country or for that matter political parties in Iran and Hakim's family is famous family in Najaf and they are Arabs. And also, I provided evidence for my claim. You guys just simply claimed All 300 million Arabs. Which is just OR since there was no source for it. My source said often and it was neutral. --alidoostzadeh 00:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

It is not true that everyone in Najaf is Arab. Sistani was born in Mashhad and his family are all Iranian! Just because someone in Najaf - a SCIRI politician or whatever - says something does not mean it is accepted by all Arabs.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 00:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Sistani migrated so what? By your logic everyone in Najaf migrated? Or perhaps your not Arab because you migrated to the west? Or maybe the westerner is Arab because he migrated from Arabia? Basically your argument has no coherency. Let me teach you two things about logic. When you said : All 300 million Arabs.. in order to prove you wrong, I only needed one counter-example. It is the same case here. Now I can mention say the Al-Sadr family or another najaf family which you agree is a native. Say family X is a native of Najaf. Then because family X is a native of Najaf, using your logic, Sistani must be a native of Najaf. You see, such weak argumentatin does not work. Hakim family is very famous in Iraq and has lot more than 70 members to Saddam's regime. They have deep roots there. But to clear things up, Mohammad Baqer al-Hakim was born in Iraq in 1930 to an Arab family of Lebanese descent (Shi'i Arabs). The surname Tabatabai is popular in the Howza (Shi'i religious centers) and it means a family of the Prophet (SAW). I hope that clears things up. So Hakim is a valid Arab politican and more importantly, he and his parties were elected by millions. --alidoostzadeh 00:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

No way is al-Hakim 87 years old! See his picture . He might have been born in Iraq, but he is not Lebanese. I think he is related to Allameh Tabatabaei, who was from Iran. Lots of Shia scholars of Persian descent are born in Iraq because of the Howza in Najaf.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 00:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I said Mohammad Baqer Al-Hakim! Please read carefuly or do a google search or read his wikipedia entry (Mohammad Baqer al-Hakim) and then find the relation to that person (and yes they are directly related). I am really suprised you do not know who is Al-Hakim is and does not know Tabatabai means Seyyed in Hawza. Yes Allameh Tababatai is also a Seyyed and he has a book "Tabatabai's in Azerbaijan" (Descendant of Prophets in Azerbaijan). Tabatabai is a title just like Seyyed used in Iraq, Iran and Shi'i world and means Seyyed (descendant of the Prophet). --alidoostzadeh 00:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I said Mohammad Baqer Al-Hakim! Yes, you did in that paragraph, although you had been talking about the leader of SCIRI Abdul-Aziz Al-Hakim. You change the debate so often, that it is sometimes difficult to keep up with you. Don't insult my intelligence, I know precisely what Seyyed means and I know who Al-Hakim is and his family - we've been discussing him here. You continually misrepresent me in order to ridicule me.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 01:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Ali, let it go - This doesn't relate to the Persian Gulf. In certain people's eyes, if an Arab calls the Gulf, the The Persian Gulf rather than the Arabian Gulf, they obviously must be either Persian, or coerced by Persians in doing so. I just don't understand why Arabs hate the term Persian Gulf so much! It makes no sense to me!

الخليج الفارسي generates 831,000 google hits , so the terminology is used by many Arabic-language sources. --Mardavich 19:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Mardvich! I was expecting something better from u as I noticed how open minded u r! Do u want us to consider blinded generated robot search as a resource? how u r going to insert this resource in the article? Anyway, let us detailed -roughly-the first couple of pages of your google: first page (of 10 hits) talking about how the name of Persian/Arabian Gulf as a case of dispute. Next 20 is from Iranian news agencies speaking Arabic, next 10 discussing also the case of naming dispute and some other Iranian website... etc. Sorry to tell u that this is not to your POV side as the pages is against your POV. Better we remember Misplaced Pages:Citing sources and follow the rules of the game. Bring somehting like above (official, academic, mass media... from Arab state -as it is the lonely using Arabic language). Let's all try to approach a reasonable point in this talk. But anyway, tks 4 contribution here Ralhazzaa 20:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Although the term الخليج الفارسي is relevant as it was widely used in the past century and can still be found in all pre-1960s documents, since the term بحر الفارس is unused and is historical only, IMO doesn't belong in the lead.--Gerash77 21:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

While if you have reliable reference it is good to mention these names in the article but having all of them listed in the lead in not proper. We should mention key names there which was the proposal that was agreed upon by consensus. I changed the page back to the consensus version. Feel free to add those name to the body of article (with proper reference) or wait for a new consensus. I wish we can enhance the article even more toghther.Farmanesh 22:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Article protected

Seriously... again? There are steps at dispute resolution that may assist in defusing the recurring controversy over this article; I would advise you all to use them. If things get cleared up within the next couple weeks, feel free to request unprotection. Otherwise, the protection will expire on May 29. -- tariqabjotu 23:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Another New Proposal

I'm sorry, but I find this petty talk about the heading to be counterproductive. It's obvious to me that a great majority of Arabs use the term Arabian Gulf in Arabic. How about this new proposal:

The Persian Gulf (Template:PerB - Khalīj-e Fārs, in Modern Arabic: Template:Rtl-lang al-Khalīj al-Arabi.)

And under Etymology, we add:

This Gulf has for the great majority of past two millenia been labelled as the Persian Gulf in nearly all the major languages worldwide. The name Arabian Gulf (in Arabic) is however, a controversial recent Arab appellation for this body of water. This switch while originally highly political, has become the main nomenclature for the majority of Arabs. Certain nations, especially the British have recently switch to the term The Gulf as an attempt to stay neutral on the topic. Both the terms Arabian Gulf and The Gulf are considered controversial, and lack international agreement.

(I used language that allows for further explanation in the later paragraphs, and obviously citations are needed, but what do you think?)

• الخليج العربي is not an Arabic translation of "Persian Gulf", so the intro should give the English translation of the Arabic name. Otherwise, I agree with your wording.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 00:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• We should say (from 1950 due to pan-arabism) and then have a link to pan-arabism. I have brought the sources for this and it is verifiable. Users should know why modern Arabic often calls it this name in the first line. I believe this needs to be included. --alidoostzadeh 00:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
• I would support the above proposal with one word to be added as a translation to the Arabic name. Thus I would consider it more informative, true & neutral when saying:

The Persian Gulf (Template:PerB - Khalīj-e Fārs, in Modern Arabic: Template:Rtl-lang al-Khalīj al-Arabi,The Arabian Gulf.)

as the word الخليج العربي is not the 100% true translation from Arabic to English for "Persian Gulf" word. This give it more sense and not mixing things and keep it cluody. Later, someone will say: Oh! those fools in WP translates "Persian" to "عربي"!! right?

For the addings suggested by ali doost zadeh, I would like to say that there is an article for this issue called Persian Gulf naming dispute where we can tell this political POV there. But, if his word is going to be considered here or there, I would like to make it more comprehensive and neutralize it by adding: "Arabian Gulf" name in Arabic was suppressed by "Persianization" (with interlink to it in WP) and "Pan-Iranism" (with interlink to it in WP) policies lead by the Pehlevi's (with interlink to it in WP) since 1940's and the Islamic Republisc regiem in Iran later (with some resources like in here , ,).

Shall the proposal consider my points (and addings for ali doost zadeh's point, only if considered), I'll support it for sure. Ralhazzaa 17:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Nope your proposal does not make sense and what you just said did not make sense. Also my name is Ali Doostzadeh, either spell it correctly or do not. There are sources that say the fake name Khalije-Arabi is enforced by Arab countries. I have two verifiable English sources that the name was created by pan-arbist and much more if necessary. We can of course mention that the name Persian Gulf is enforced in Iran and there is no suppression since that is the true name. It has nothing to do with pan-iranism as pan-iranism did not create the name Persian Gulf. Nor does it have to do with Persianization since the name Persian Gulf has been used by Arabs, Greeks and etc. since classical time. But if you are going to mention a name, then definitely we should say since 1960 due to pan-arabism. And don't worry the other actions of pan-arabism like making ...are well known and creating this fake name is just a drop in the bucket. So my recommendation is that we either keep this consensus (which no one gets 100% what they want) or else we mention this fact that the name was from 1960 by product of pan-arabism. And also I brought a source that Arabs often for political reason called A.G. So this source does not claim "all 300 million abs" like you claimed. And whereas what I say is 100% relevant to the name that was forged, what you say has nothing to do with pan-iranism or persianization or etc.. since the name out-dates these political concepts by thousands of years! If you need reference, check ancient Arabic texts.. Also your sources in Arabic are written by Arab authors. Here is the proposal which is verifiable and sourced: 1) the current consensus version. 2) The Persian Gulf (Template:PerB - Khalīj-e Fārs, in Modern Arabic: Template:Rtl-lang al-Khalīj al-Arabi(by-product of the late President Nasser of Egypt's brand of ].). And this and other stuff should be mentioned in the pan-arabism article. Also I brought leader of Iraq's largest group who users Persian Gulf. --alidoostzadeh 01:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I only agree with the first proposal with adding that the new Arabic name was just after the 1960s and rise of pan-Arabism, it is a fact that after 3 years of discussions on this article is still undisputed. it must be in the lead if الخليج العربي is going to remain. --Pejman47 23:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

There is the badly written etymology section and the naming dispute section, plus an entire article devoted to the naming dispute. I don't understand why it needs to be again mentioned in the lead paragraph. I agree with Ralhazza.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 23:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't the term الخليج الفارسي be included? It is relevant as it is found in all pre-1960s books. If you look at Arabic wiki, this is also the conclusion that they came to -- to include both terms.--Gerash77 02:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

It was included in the consensus version. Then some people asked for Arab politicans who use the term, and Arab politicans were brought. But still the were not satisfied.--alidoostzadeh 03:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• I'm going to consider the above proposal, and would like to ask for considering my addings to the section of Etymology if any mention for the "Pan-Arabism" is going to be considered. This is only to balance the section and bring it more neutral and showing both sides PoV. As Iranians consider the name is a production of the Pan-Arabism, Arabs also consider the reviving of the Persian name is a product of Pan-Iranism and supressed by Persinazation policies. It is just to be honest with the readers of En Wiki. Again, this is only should be considered "if" the Etymology section, or any other, is going to mention the Pan-Arabism role in this dispute as suggested by alidoostzadeh. Best regards for all Ralhazzaa 02:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't care here about Arabs or Iranian opinions. The name Persian Gulf as not created by pan-Iranism and it has been used in Arabic literature up to 1960 before the era of pan-arabism. Pan-Arabism must be mentioned in the heading. And Pan-Iranism has absolutely nothing to do with it. Pan-Iranism did not make a new name! I brought western academic sources that the name was forged because of pan-arabism. If you have any western source saying that the 2000 year old name of Persian Gulf was forged due to a 100 year old political concept of pan-Iranism, then please bring it. So your whole concept of "Reviving of the Persian name" is unhistorical and has no basis and is your own opinion. Also Hakim can constitute an Arab opinion as well and you can not be a spokesman for all Arabs. The fact is that there was no "revival" of the Persian name, it was used widely in the Arab world until 1950-1960's and there are many maps from the Arab world before this era to prove it. And it is still used today by Arab politicans. I brought western sources that the name you want was forged for political reasons. You need to bring western source (not Arabic newspapers) that say pan-Iranism (a 100 year old political concept) has forged the name Persian Gulf! Good luck finding one. Either way the name was made up recently in the Arabic world and has no historical precedence. So I reject your proposal and I believe pan-arabism should be mentioned in the heading. --alidoostzadeh 10:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

You need to bring western source (not Arabic newspapers) Why? There is nothing in Misplaced Pages policies stating that "Western" sources must be used. In other articles, you quote from Farsi language blogs, which definitely breach Misplaced Pages guidelines on verifiability.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 10:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Sure wikipedia has a NPOV policy and no OR policy, which I am sure you have heared of. The Farsi blog on that other entry was the blog of the author of the entry himself. Big big difference. If there is an an author by the name Persian Gulf that has a blog, we can insert his opinion in the article, since the article is about him. --alidoostzadeh 11:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, big, big difference - you use one-man ultra-nationalist websites such as this , which are effectively blogs. If you think this is an acceptable source, then why do you have a problem with the mainstream Arabic media?--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 12:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Since you don't understand Persian, you can not decide. The links from that site where books that were published in response to Pourpirar. There is no blog in it. There are books that simply respond to his claim. If you have a problem with those books, it is not my problem. --alidoostzadeh 23:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Be polite /Assume good faith /No personal attacks /Be welcoming...--Alborz Fallah 19:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Since when is highlighting someone's contradictions on verifiability a personal attack? Take a look through your friend Ali Dootszadeh's comments on this talk page. Ask yourself whether I have been "welcomed".--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 20:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The contradiction exists in your mind. We quoted Pourpirar's blog and then put some books that respond to pourpirar without even delving in the content of those books. We did not even quote those books. The topics are different. One is an author and response to an author. The other is a geographical name. --alidoostzadeh 23:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that you have yet to read Misplaced Pages's policy on verifiability. I suggest you read it carefully. Demanding that only "Western" sources be used and Arabic sources excluded on the issue of the Arabian Gulf is a curious one, given your propensity to use an extremist website like www.azargoshnasp.net. Is it the case that Arab sources should always be excluded because Arabs cannot be trusted? Please show me a Misplaced Pages policy to confirm your claim that only "Western" sources should be used.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 00:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that you have yet to read Misplaced Pages's policy of NOR. I suggest you read it carefully. You can not read Persian, so you can not judge about www.azargoshnasp.net. Read wikipedia policy of OR. Sources are supposed to be neutral. And furthermore, if you had knowledge of Persian, which you do not, you would notice that the books on that site are just introducing books. Nothing more, nothing less. And furthermore, a revisionist by itself can be responded to. But none of my western sources are revisionist sources. Indeed the only reason we had revisionist sources in that article from the blog is because the author is revisionist. So you are mixing up apples with organes. Arab sources you guys introduce are clearly POV. Misplaced Pages requires NPOV . So we bring sources published by verifiable scholars and academics in academic journals. Not newspapers that are POV. And note the other entry was about a revisionist and thus introducing books that respond to a revisionist is not POV at all. Specially since these books were not even quoted! and so your argument does not hold. On the other hand the sources I brought here are not revisionist sources but standard academic sources. --alidoostzadeh 01:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I can read some Farsi (I never said I was a translator) and I know that the website you regard as NPOV is in fact ultra-nationalist and run by an amateur extremist. How can you dismiss the entire Arab media as POV while insist on non-verifiable websites such as www.azargoshnasp.net? What is your problem with the opinions of Arabs? But if you want only academic journals and academics, then lets quote the head of sociology at Shaw University, Prof. Ali al-Taie, who says that "the Arabs of Khuzistan/al-Ahwaz have been in the area before the Persians arrived." Arabs live all along the coast of Iranian territory, so this is truly the Arabian Gulf.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 09:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Again that is POV, the guy is not a historian, his field is not history, he is an Arab nationalist and contradicts scholarly western sources plus history. So his source has nothing to do with the context as per NOR. I can also quote Iranian nationalists. But it is not necessary since we know Elamites were the people of Khuzestan, then indo-Iranian tribes, then Arabs. So do not insert POV and get familiar with ]. As per the website, I mentioned it introductes books that respond to revisionists. It doesn't even quote the books. So note, nothing , absolutely nothing is unverifiable. Since it just points to the existence of such books. That's it. I do not think you understand this point or probably do not have a respond for it. Plus your whole article is baseless, since a revisionist which you are defending is not a geographical concept. And responding to revisionists by introducing some books is not OR. You can't read any Farsi. And do not play the victim game :what is your problem with opinions of Arabs?. Indeed what is wrong with the opinion of Hakim? I guess he is not your type of Arab. Also the coast of Persian Gulf is settled by Iranians and Arabs. Bushehr, Larestan, Khuzestan and etc. There are many Iranians in Bahrain, UAE, Kuwait, Iraq and etc. Plus we mentioned that shi'i muslims do not necessarily follow the arab nationalist convention. We are following wikipedia rules. We have sourced, neutral items and we can insert it and there is nothing that violates wikipedia policy with this regard. --alidoostzadeh 10:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

mmmm.... resourced info! is it something like the intro here that has nothing to do with the dispute but has been r.v. within 30 minutes?! Let's all remember that we are discussing the name of this sea in Arabic. We said that there are many names in classical Arabic but not only الخليج الفارسي but still also called as خليج العجم and خليج البصرة and خليج العراق and خليج القطيف and خليج البحرين and الخليج. So if one is mentioned, all others should be mentioned as well as it has been used for quite long time and all mentioned in classical Arabic. Now back to the "modern" Arabic, that is calling this sea in one name which is الخليج العربي according to resources mentioned above. Regrading the Pan-Iranism and Persianization that is suppressing calling this sea as الخليج العربي in Arabic, which is even mentioned within the article, I would like to say that I brought references and resources for Persianization and Pan-Iranism suppression of Arabic name like here, ,, one of it is the Iranian President, Najad, is interrubting the Prince of Qatar, Hamad, in a press conference for saying -in Arabic- الخليج العربي. This is a "resource" among many I brought regarding the supressing of Arabic name as الخليج العربي due to Pan-Iranism and Persianization. No one from our side mentioned that we want to change the English name! but some users have warm heads more than the required. Back to say, I am not asking to include the Pan-Iranism influnce of suppression for calling this sea in Arabic unless a section in this article is going to be politicalized by others... Regards! Ralhazzaa 17:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Pan-iranism, Persianism and etc. did not create the name Persian Gulf. Pan-Arabism created the name Arabian Gulf. Big difference. I have absolutely no problem mentioning that the false name Khalij-e-Arabi is banned in Iran since we know the true name Khalij-e-Farsi is banned in UAE and Saddam's Iraq and etc. We can mention that fact in the body of the text. So the false name is banned in Iran while the true name is suppressed and banned in UAE. But you can not suppress verifiable neutral western sources that the name "Khalij-e-Arabi" was created by Nasser and pan-arabism and this needs to be in the first line of the introduction. It should say Khalij-Arabi (created in 1950's due to political reason or due to pan-arabism..etc.) . Since the name is mentioned, we need to mention it was created by pan-arabism. So yes the false name khalij-e-Arabi is banned in Iran just like the true name Persian Gulf is banned in UAE and Arab countries. But, the creation of the false name Khalij-e-Arabi was due to pan-arabism. And if you knew just alittle bit about Iranian politics, you would know Ahmadinezhad is a pan-islamist and not a pan-iranist! (that is absolutely ridicolous). He is not a pan-iranist or persianist or nationalist. Basically he is like Erbakan in turkey, a pan-islamist. He is even more pro-palestianian and pro-arab than Arabs themselves and Iranians do not consider him pan-iranist or persianists or whatever. The main name in classical arab and specially the first 50 years of the last century in Arabic language was Persian Gulf. I also brought examples of Arab politicans using it today. You are not the spokesman for all Arabs. Some Arab politicans use this name. I have very close Arab friend from lebanon and he agrees khalij-e-arabi is a bogus name too. So you can not make yourself a spokesman here like you have done previously. Pan-arabism needs to be mentioned in the first line since the name was created by pan-arabist. Something about the year the name was forged needs to be mentionedl. I also would like a neutral source that ahmadinezhad is a pan-Iranist! and this is why we can not quote the Arabic newspaper.--alidoostzadeh 01:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• This article is about the Persian Gulf and any incorrect translation that results in الخليج العربي‎ / al-Khalīj al-Arabi / Arabian Gulf should be removed. Houshyar 06:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

really?!! I can't say but "Oh My God!" ..... --anyway, I'm still as said above (in 21 May 2007) and would like to see a response from "the" open-minded people. Ralhazzaa 07:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

• "الخلیج العربی" (Arabic Gulf) is a new word in Arabic literature for Pan-Arabic purposes: the late Gamal Abdel Nasser's motto at first was -من الخلیج الفارسی الی المحيط الأطلسي - that means "from Persian gulf to Atlantic Ocean "(about the Arabic lands) , but then after conflicts with Shah of Iran (Mohammad Reza Pahlavi) he changed the old name to a new one (Arabian Gulf), so we can't consider it an equivalent for the name in Arabic language itself. --Alborz Fallah 08:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Sea borders

There should be some notification about the sea borders.

The true description: Persian Gulf

The Persian Gulf (Persian: خليج فارس - Khalīj-e Fārs; in Classical Arabic: بحر الفارس Bahr al-Fārs, in in the Southwest Asian region, is an extension of the Gulf of Oman located between Iran (Persia) and the Arabian Peninsula.Pejman.azadi 11:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The true translation of Persian gulf's name in Arabic is: Al-khalij-e-al farsi الخیج الفارسی

Dear All,

Please be advised that the true translation of Persian Gulf's name in modern arabic is Al-Khalij-e- Al farsi or in Arabic: الخیج الفارسی

Thank you for your kind concern.Pejman.azadi 11:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Persian Gulf in the Islamic Period

Before Christ, the Arabs were living more in Hejaz, Yemen, and coasts of Red Sea (ArabianGulf) and were not that much familiar with Persian Gulf. After Ardeshir, king of Iran during Sassanid era campaigned to Yemen upon request of Seif Ibn Ziyazan, governor of Yemen to suppress Abyssinian, the event lead to traffic of Arabs at the coasts of Persian Gulf. With the emergence of Islam and expansion of this religion to Iran, the immigration of Arabs to the coasts of PERSIAN GULF increased. However, in more than 30 geographical, historical, literary, books or the books on interpretation of morals, and jurisprudence, the Muslims and Arab scientists have described PERSIAN GULF. Such books as: Albaladan, History of Yaghoubi, Almaghari, Fotouhalsham, Fatholajam, written by Mohammad Ibn Omar (70 lunar calendar), History of Moghimi, History of Alrosol Valmouk (Mohammad Ibn Jarir Tabari), History of Balami, Ibn Khardazabeh, Ibn Faghih Hamedani, Estakhri, Masoudi, Moghadasi, Ibn Houghal, Ghazvini, Taher Marvazi, Naser Khosrow, Shamseddin Dameshghi, Ghodameh Ibn Jafar, Ibn Yaghoub, Ibn Rasteh, Shahriar Ramhormozi, Ibn Balkhi, Edrisi, Bakran Khorasani, Yaghout Hamoudi, Abolfada, Nobari, Joveyni, Haji Khalifeh (Chalabi), Jorji Zeydan, all have used the name of Persian Gulf in their books since 207 (lunar calendar) so far.Pejman.azadi 11:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

PERSIAN GULF in Contracts and Accords

As of 1507 to 1960, at least in 10 contracts concluded among the countries such as Kuwait, Arabia, Ottoman, Oman, United Emirates, compiled in English and Arabic, the name of PERSIAN GULF has been used. From among the aforesaid contracts the following can be mentioned: 1. General contract with Arabian Emirs on Jan. 8, 1820 between Sheikhs of United Emirates at PERSIAN GULF, signed by General Cairo and 11 chiefs of Arab Tribes, the word: Alkhalij Alfarsi has been used in the Arabic texts. 2. Contract of 1947 on Prohibition of Slaves Sales. 3. Permanent Contract of Peace in 1853. 4. Treaty of 1856 on Slaves Trade. 5. Contract on Independence of Kuwait (this deed was registered on June 19, 1961 with Secretariat of United Nations. 6. Treaty on Determination of Border Lines of Iraq and Kuwait (1996) Also in the political and legal and economic accords concluded between United Emirates and the other countries during the years of 1806 to 1971, the word: Bahre Fars or PERSIAN GULF has been used.Pejman.azadi 11:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

dear "new-comer", it would much better to read the previous discussions before filling up this page with somehting already has been said by people have the same PoV of yours. We all know what u want to say and hear it already many times, but u should notice that this is your own POV but others may have different POV of your (surprisingly could be true!)... now we are trying to discusse this issue in more friendly and less noisy way. I noticed that u were taking long nap in WP since a year and just made few editings only related to this page. Cool down and save the space in this page for serious and more technical talk rather than your mass-ideology flooding here! Ralhazzaa 12:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Please, don't tell people what to do as this is not your personal property. The talks were serious and these contracts are important and should be mentioned. You need to either stick by the consensus or give a new suggestion, since your old suggestion was rejected. My suggestion on the other hand was sourced.--alidoostzadeh 11:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I thought it was a good suggestion. I accept it.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 11:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

dear Sir,
Thanks a lot for your message, We are here to announce our own idea as well you can say your 
own idea too, I'm here to say that Persian Gulf will be remained 
Persian Gulf forever by approved documents.
I respect to all my arab friends, but I should say that arabian gulf 
is not a true translation of Persian Gulf's name. 
arabian gulf is the name of a gulf in the Red Sea. Please be advised that we are here 
to improve and support the Misplaced Pages as well I thank the Wekipedia personel team for their 
superfine creativeness to the oppening this page. 
So Please respect to your friend's idea and let them to announce their opinions.
I'll be glad for your kind advices.Thanks for your kind attentionPejman.azadi 05:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

You are not improving Misplaced Pages. You appear to be trolling this talk page and ignoring previous discussion.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 10:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't tell people what to do as this is not your personal property. He is improving wikipedia and he is a new user. He brought proof from contracts used by Arab countries that have used Persian Gulf officially and these can be used in the article. --alidoostzadeh 11:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

If someone fills a talk page up with repetitive and unhelpful points, I am fully entitled to tell him not to do it.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 11:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually where in the talk page it is repeated: As of 1507 to 1960, at least in 10 contracts concluded among the countries such as Kuwait,

Arabia, Ottoman, Oman, United Emirates, compiled in English and Arabic, the name of PERSIAN GULF has been used.? That seems like new information. This article has 4 archives and users need to come up with solution. I believe the consensus version should be kept since this is best that has so far came out of these talks. Of course if Iranian and Arab users can agree to a new consensus that is fine. But until then the consensus version agreed upon by both sides and specially an Arab admin (means that he has contributed very posivetly to wikipedia and good for him) should be observed. --alidoostzadeh 11:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

A consensus is not a consensus unless everyone agrees. You imposed a consensus that did not exist. This is the reason why these problems exist. The suggestion was to have the common Arabic name along with an English translation of it. As simple as that. I don't know why you have such a problem with this, since no Arab editor is demanding that Persian Gulf is removed from the intro or the title. As for your new friend here, constantly repeating a POV statement on the talk page is not helpful. I suggest you inform him of this.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 12:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually consensus by definition means most people agree. But I did not impose a consensus, users came to consensus. As per the changes you want, I have no problem with it as long as there is footnote with the fact that the name was created for political reason. This is also a fact and I won't mention created by pan-arabism next to it, but I want a footnote with exact quote which I brought from scholarly sources. Also I have digged up Arab books and some Arab politicans (already mentioned Hakim) that have used Persian Gulf. So I guess we should have Arabic Gulf (more common in the Arab world-footnote), but Persian Gulf is used in some books published and also by Arab politicans. Of course any history book, article on history, hadeeths, etc.. published also by nature uses Persian Gulf. So User Ralhazza wants something different than you. Another optinion would be to mention what you want in the footnote. The problem is that I am not sure what different users want. I suggest each user puts their suggestion (without any discussion) in a section and will see what happens. --alidoostzadeh 00:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Dear Ahvaz,

Thanks a lot for your suggestion, but there is a agreement on Persian Gulf's name in the UN and it is accepted by the world community so you can not change the fact by your reasons. I respect to your idea as well I know what you mean but it is very obvious that this name is a official and the only registered name by the world community.Pejman.azadi 12:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Pejman Azadi: No-one is refuting what you are saying and no-one is arguing for a change in the title of this article from its current name. We are all agreed that Persian Gulf is the most commonly used name in the English language and that this should be the name used in the title and throughout the article. The debate is over whether the introduction should include (1) the commonly used Arabic name and (2) the English translation of the Arabic name. The whole argument could end quickly if this was agreed.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 12:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Persian Gulf الخليج الفارسي

Persian Gulf has a true translation in arabic, that is Al-khalije-alfarsi الخليج الفارسي

All of us know that there are some gulfs and seas such as the Gulf of Mexico of the United States or China Sea, sea of Korea...

Moreover there is already a sea of Arabia, also called sea of Oman, on the other hand Persia is a civilization which is one of oldest in this area, so it is a world responsibility to keep the name of this sea, and the only reason to use of Persian Gulf's name is its wide range usage in the world community based on legal agreements and also historical obvious documents. I am sure that my arab friends respect to the world legal laws.Pejman.azadi 12:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Pejman Assadi: Repeating the same point over and over again on this talk page is not helpful and could be seen as disruptive. I realise that you have strong opinions on this issue, but let's try to find a way out of this. Al Khaleej Al Arabi (Arabian Gulf) is the name used by all Arab states in the region. It doesn't matter whether you think this is right or wrong, but this is the official name in these states and the most commonly used name in the Arab world. As such, it should be used in the introduction as the alternative Arabic name.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 12:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Translation of Persian Gulf in different language:( in Persian خليج فارس - Khalīj-e Fārs), in Arabic( الخليج الفارسي al-Khalīj al-Fārisī), In German (Persischer Golf), golf perse in French ...

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. 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. 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. In the Latin American geography books the Persian Gulf has been referred to as More Persicum or the Sea of Pars.

The Latin term "Sinus Persicus" is equivalent to "Persicher Golf" in German, "Persico qolf" in Italian, "Persidskizalir" in Russian and "Perusha Wan" that all mean "Pars". 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.

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", 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.

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.

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.

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.

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".

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.

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.

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.Pejman.azadi 04:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Dear Pejman.azadi,

-Please stick to the discussion point(s) as الأهواز reminded you. It is for (1) the commonly used Arabic name and (2) the English translation of the Arabic name. May I remind u that the UN, that u used as a source, is Using the term الخليج العربي menas Al-khaleej Al-Arabi, in its Arabic-language records (as Arabic is one official language in the UN among 5). Let me also remind u that the Arab world (that is the regular source for Arabic languag) is using the term الخليج العربي, means Al-khaleej Al-Arabi, in all official, media, military and academic records. These are the points we are discussing here right now.

-Classical names of this sea in Arabic were not solely الخليج الفارسي but also were called as خليج العجم، خليج القطيف، خليج البصرة، خليج العراق، خليج البحرين and we should mention this within the text as all of these names were commonly used in the past. Some other users don't want to show all historical infos but only to keep this article in a political one-direction way. That's why it is considered disputed as u may notice.

-In another topic, may I ask u to write your comments as "replies" but not as "new topics" as it is occupying space in this page and make it more messy! Simply, try to edit the section within the page but not click the + button up as I noticed that u r trying to reply or comment on answers rather that providing new topic(s). This will keep the page more organized and we can follow the serious proposal suggested above but your new comments (topic-like) push it back and we can't see it now or vote on it. Thank you for contributing in this page and welcome to WP. Ralhazzaa 06:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Dear Ralhazzaa,

Thanks for your kind message, but I'd say that I know what you want to say and I appreciate for your idea, so I'd say that the true translation of Persian Gulf in arabic is Al-khalij- e- al farsi, and you are using wrong the name of a gulf in Red Sea which is arabian gulf instead of Persian Gulf!!! so I want to know that why you say the translation of Persian Gulf in arabic is arabian gulf???? It is Big Fake!!! I respect to the arab countries because they are our friends but I'd say that if somebody want to publish the false information instead of right information I should stop it because we are here to show the fact and true information, and I want to say that arabian gulf is not translation of Persian Gulf. I am sure that you and your dear friends know it well and I ask you to stop this discussion. arabian is not translation of Persian and this is a FAKE!!!! Please stop it and respect to the literature and legal approved documents.

on the other hand letters with arabian gulf word that are written and sent to the UN, I should say that they are sent by some arabian countries and the UN don't accept arabian gulf in its letters and documents, the only registered name in this regard is PERSIAN GULF.

Don't forget that we all are here to say the true and facts!!!!

By the way I thank you for your idea and I respect you so much.Pejman.azadi 07:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Persian Gulf is a obvious fact and it is supported with several international legal documents.

Dear all friends,

I think we are speaking about Persian Gulf not arabian gulf because arabian gulf is located in the red sea. I think the main problem of arab countries is finding a solution to saving the Palestine and their brothers in Palestine!!! not Persian Gulf's name. On the other hand this is very obvious that nowadays we can find several legal approved documents in the museums, universities and international geographical institutes about Persian Gulf's name which they are showing this gulf is named Persian Gulf, so please don't forget this is a cultural point of view not a political point of view!!!For example you can not change the name of Gulf of Mexic, Gulf of Oman, Sea of Korea or another geogeraphical points, therefore this is a fact that this gulf is named Persian Gulf should be respected by all the nation who are living in this area and all of the world because of its old and valuable history which is belonged to the both of arab and Persian people as well to the all of the world people. It would be appreciated for your kind concern on this issue.Pejman.azadi 09:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Pejman: Misplaced Pages is concerned with commonly used placenames not making judgements on the legality of placenames. The issue is whether Al-Khaleej al-Arabi is commonly used in Arab states (which it is, regardless of whether you think this is wrong) and whether this should be stated in the introduction, along with its English translation (Arabian Gulf). Your constant repetition of the same point is becoming disruptive and is not addressing the issue of the introduction to the article. If you continue to disrupt this talk page, you may be reported to the admins and/or your comments removed from the talk page. It seems we were trying to achieve something through discussion and you, in good faith but perhaps with encouragement from a more established user, have filled the talk page with your opinions.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 10:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Ahwaz: Persian Gulf is common name in the world and arabian gulf does not exist in this area, no need to meantioned that arabian gulf is a gulf's name in red sea, so better to use the name in their right places!!!Pejman.azadi 10:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Arabian Gulf is the name used by Arab Gulf states and this should be reflected in the introduction. Al-Khaleej al-Arabi was agreed by everyone here (including Ali DoostZadeh). The contentious issue was whether to include an English translation.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 11:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Persian Gulf's arab states should know that arabian gulf is located in the red sea and this is because of Pan arabism to use it, the fact is different and Persian Gulf is not arabian Gulf, we are here to stand the right fact not false, so only Persian gulf should be inserted in the introduction.Pejman.azadi 11:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not here to make judgements on right or wrong but to present things in a neutral fashion. Whether or not you think the Arabian Gulf is illegitimate or the result of an ideology is beside the point. The fact is that it is the official name used in Arab countries and this should be stated in the introduction. Again, there is no argument to present this as the common name in the English language and no-one is arguing for a change of article title to Arabian Gulf.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 11:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Hehe. Even one who claims the fake word arabian gulf is an arab Iranian, who perhaps doesn't like persians much, so said to himself like take the revenge!

Resourses and references

I noticed that resources and references are removed repeatedly and intentionally from the intro in this article. These verifiable refs are not conflicting with the so-called compromise (that hasn't been borned so far.. last one was manipulated!).

If u think there are verifible resources from national Arabic modern resource (Iranian-related stuff are not considered here) for the "modern" name in Arabic for this sea, u can bring it! If u want to remove other classical names in Arabic, u should say why u r doing so, otherwise it is vandalisim to remove historical resourced names! Did anyone want to say this sea wasn't called as بحر العجم Bahr al-ájam, بحر الفرس Bahr al-Furs, خليج القطيف Khalīj al-qateef, خليج البصرة Khalīj al-basrah, خليج العراق Khalīj al-Iraq in classical Arabic??? Come on!! don't destroy the article or direct it toward your POV.

I didn't removed the naming of الخليج الفارسي from the "modern" names, but it is clearly require a native, official, academic, Arabic reference for saying so (again, Iran-related things are not).

I'm going to wait for a while before recovering the intro. Provide refs but not ideologoies, plz! Let me hear from you here. Ralhazzaa 12:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The most common name and the oldest name in Arabic is Khalij-e Fars and Bahr-e- Fars. It has been overwhelmingly used. You are violating wikipedia WP:undo weight and WP:freinge. Also what does the late Ottoman Turkish name have to do with it?

I will make my suggestion soon.--alidoostzadeh 23:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

www.azargoshnasp.net is not verifiable. It is a fringe one-man chauvinist-nationalist website. Al Khaleej al Arabi is the most common name in the Arab world. It's a fact. Khalij-e Fars is the Farsi name. It's a fact.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 00:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

How do you know? Do you even read Arabic? Your lack of knowledge on the basics of Iran and Iraq is somewhat suspicious. Read the article again and it lists classic arabic sources. I have seen that article in multiple places. And it seems like a multitude of authors contribute to the site. I believe the sites you keep mentioning are one-man chavuinist-nationalist websites (al-ahwaz.com and etc. whose ideology's went bye bye with Saddam and are full of racist ethnic cleansed maps). The fact is the name Persian Gulf is used in some Arab sources both modern (and this has been brought in this page and I even brought politicans) and the majority of classic sources. Books with this name in Arab world have been published and etc. --alidoostzadeh 00:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Of course I read Arabic, I am an Arab. The most common name in the Arab world is Al Khaleej al Arabi. Fact. No fake Arab politician from Iran can change this.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 00:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I am pretty convinced you do not read Arabic. Right now you are online, translate this from Ibn Khaldun:وذلك أن ملك التبابعة إنما كان بجزيرة العرب وقرارهم وكرسيهم صنعاء اليمن‏.‏ وجزيرة العرب يحيط بها البحر من ثلاث جهاتها‏:‏ فبحر الهند من الجنوب وبحر فــارس الهابط منه إلى البصرة من المشرق وبحر السويس الهابط منه إلى السويس من أعمال مصر من جهة المغرب كماتراه في مصور الجغرافيا‏.‏ فلا يجد السالكون من اليمن إلى المغرب طريقاً من غير السويس‏.‏ . Also as mentioned Al-Hakim is voted in by millions. So he has more legitimacy. Plus books and articles published in the Arab world were mentioned. Note your argument was that you don't care if it is a fake name. I will respond back: I don't care if you think they are fake arab politicans. Your political opinion has no bearing on what Arab politicans use. Or else with the exception of Iraq, no country in the Arab world has elected representatives.--alidoostzadeh 00:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

It is a description of the geography of the Arabian world. But why should I translate it for you? I am not going to take tests set by you in order to prove my worthiness to edit here.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 00:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

"no country in the Arab world has elected representatives" - please don't make such baseless remarks to provoke a reaction.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 00:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

It took you a while and I am not convinced, but we'll leave that discussion. Also don't put words in my mouth. I said Iraq has elected representatives and the leader of the biggest party users Persian Gulf. Other Arab countries of the Persian Gulf are sheykhdoms (a well known fact). And note you started the political discussion: No fake Arab politician from Iran can change this.. And I said , I do not care about politics in this discussion or your political opinion, but if you are going to bring it up, then actually the only country that does not have fake politicans is one that has elected representatives in a free and democratic election like that of Iraq. Note users have mentioned books and legal documents used in the Arab world. And also I brought an English source that says: often and not always. If you guys don't want to compromise, then majority of users will just accept the old consensus. My version is factual and I'll wait for the other guy's response. --alidoostzadeh 00:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Took me a while?! I am not continually waiting for you to test me and rushing to answer your attacks on me. You originally attacked me as an Iraqi Ba'athist, now you are claiming I am not an Arab or that I am illiterate. You are casting aspersions on me in order to portray me as a fool. I am not some monkey who will dance for you!!!!! So get that straight. Cease your attacks on me.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 00:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

All of the above diatribe is not a sufficient execuse for excluding Arab politicans who are democtratically elected because of your political opinion. At first you wanted something (english name) then you want another (exclusion of Arab politicans, Arab books and English sources that use often). Basically you have dead-ended the discussion. --alidoostzadeh 01:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense. You are desperate to end the discussion with your fake "consensus" by trying to portray me as illiterate. When someone challenges your logic, you respond by a personal attack. First I am a Ba'athist then I am not really Arab and setting stupid language tests for me. This is all highly offensive and I cannot see debating with you getting anywhere.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 01:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense again. Overhere you claimed you know Persian as per your user page, but I showed that this was not true. When I showed you an arabic link:, written by an Arab Person (and the article can be found using google), you claimed it is written by nationalist-chavaunist. Also the sites you keep mentioning are ba'athist, so that was not far off. So that is that. As per consensus, I did not make it or even vote for it. Users did and it is tough that you do not like it, but you can't shove your POV by saying this elected Arab politican is not your faviorate! personal political POV has no room. I will wait for the other user to respond. --alidoostzadeh 01:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting me yet again. I said that the website was chauvinist, which is true. I was not referring to any particular article on that website. Now you have to proove that I have been quoting Ba'athist websites in support of Al Khaleej Al Arabi.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 01:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

And I do know some Farsi, but I am not a great translator.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 01:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Cmon..those were couple of words of Farsi. Two of them Arabic. As per the website, if you can not read Farsi, then you can not claim it is chavaunist, can you? as per ba'athist websites, it has been cited by your friend here and by you in other articles. But I am not here to discuss these issues further. If you say this is not about political opinion and it is the common name in Arabic countries, then I am saying:it is not about political opinion and Arab leaders, Books, and English sources that mention the name Persian Gulf being used in Arabic should be mentioned. It is simple as that. I have brought my version:, I will wait for the other user. Other than that I have incorporated the Arabic translation of the more common politically motivated Arabic name which you wanted. --alidoostzadeh 01:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I myself like to know Ahwaz's background - He says he is Arab, he can speak Persian and English. Are you originally from Ahwaz? --219.3.72.45 01:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I would also like to know your background. Why do you feel the need to use an open proxy? What is your usual Misplaced Pages username?--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 02:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Well I don't think he understands Persian for sure. It was just 4-5 words and this shows it :. He did not know what Tabatabai meant in the shi'i world and etc.. But anyways you should sign in (if you are a new user) and bring a consensus to the discussion.

Nonsense. I asked for a reference and you gave me it. There was no need for a response or for me to translate - you did this anyway without me asking. I know fully well about Shi'ism. You are trying to misrepresent me all the time as an illiterate Sunni Ba'athist.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 01:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The way he speaks, it seems he's the mouthpiece of ALL Arabs. Furthermore, those Arabs who don't fall into line with his perception of things (i.e. Those who call the Gulf, the Persian Gulf) aren't "real" Arabs, but rather "fake" ones. Arabs, like most people don't fall into neat cookie-cutter roles. I find it odd. I'm not at home at the moment, to sign in. --219.3.72.45 01:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Here is my suggestion: . All of it is factual. Ahwaz got what he want, I put the multiple names in reference and also I put the fact that the name was recently forged in reference (did not mention pan-arabism and etc..). Until there is a new solution, we need to keep the page the way it is , so it won't be locked. But other than that, my new solution(And all of it is factual. ) I believe should satisfy everyone and end this bitter dispute(in wikipedia at least) once and for all. Enshallah. --alidoostzadeh 23:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the proposal - But do we really need the classic Arabic name for it? We can mention that later in the document. --219.3.72.45 01:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Well the major(overwhelming majority) classic Arabic name (as well as the oldest) is Persian Gulf.. This is sourced by lots of sources. I think it is good to mention it. --alidoostzadeh 01:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Well.. I found these edits done by alidoostzadeh here are not bad but lack many things to be more informative. If my points, mentioned below, are going to considered, we may reach a compromise

1. notes used should be replaced with verifiable references of good weight to follow the policy of citing refs in WP. Somthing like note # 2 saying: "this name is less often used now" has no meaning and support remving that noted statment, unless it has a reference accepted in WP. If no ref is provided, then it will be tagged as .
2. I agree with the last 219.3.72.45 IP user's comment. No need to say the classical names in the leading. But, if there is any point for telling history in the intor but not in the "Naming history" section, then my next suggestions should be adapted.
3. "modern" name(s) should be before other extinguished classicals. This is not page about Names History!
4. Other classical names that have been used for generations (if not centuries) should be also mentioned as it has been already mentioned in many classical works and used for long time (more than average man's life). We all know how widly-used names like: خليج العجم، خليج القطيف، خليج البحرين، خليج العراق، خليج البصرة were used in "classical" Arabic. Refs are shown in my last edit to the page.
5. Turkish name should be also mentioned as Turkey dominated this Sea for long time (400y) and gave it a name that can't be hidden or suppressed in WP.

These are my suggestions so far. It is not over-dominating any side or suppressing other... only ask to follow WP rules of editing (citing refs, using verifiable resources, giving complete info without cutting, and respecting each other's POV). Hope we reach a compromise sooner. Ralhazzaa 13:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately your incessant edit warring, you have locked up the page. And note your tone: mentioned below, are going to considered, we may reach a compromise.. I do not think you own this article and just because you do not get what you want, you can constantly cause the article to be locked up. Classical names per 30+ Arabic references have been given and that is why it is important to mention the classical name in Arabic. Khalij-al-Ajam has the same meaning as Persian Gulf in Arabic. You need to provide references for the other names. Also Persian Gulf is used in Arabic documents as mention by Pejman Azadi and used by Arab politicans as I mentioned. My source also says Arabs use Arabian Gulf more often, thus I put Persian Gulf as less often. So I am not sure what part of citation you needed. The Ottoman name needs research but there are Ottoman documents with Persian Gulf. Either way, had you not edit warred, other suggestions might have been possible to put in. But by edit warring, you have locked up the article for another month. --alidoostzadeh 17:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

This is my first posting ever to any WP discussion. Please forgive me if I lack the eloquence of many who precede me in this discussion. I've been reading this discussion for a very long time with interest. I must say it reminds me of the Groundhog Day movie! It seems to repeat itself in a circular mode. From my POV, there is one clear and correct answer to this; and that is that the name of this body of water is the Persian Gulf. To add anything else to the English text version of this article produces confusion and inaccuracies. Especially if the so called "Arabian Gulf" name is added as a "translation" of a fabricated but seemingly popular name used in most modern Arab states. The "modern" Arabic name was added to the introduction of this article with consensus in an attempt to resolve some of the issues very recently. It now appears that some are hoping to use this compromise and consensus as a stepping stone to start on their way to further promotion of the fabricated Arabic name. To be clear in the English version of this article, and to end these seemingly endless attempts to enhance the environment for further manipulation and fabrication, only references to the Persian Gulf should be made in the introduction of this article. It makes sense to include the Arabic name in the naming dispute section only. On another note, regarding translation of Arabic to English or most other languages, virtually no personal knowledge is needed these days as many tools such as Google Language Tools can be used easily to translate Arabic to English with ease to get an understandable version of the text. This requires almost no time to do and is fairly effective. With best wishes for all and naive hopes of ending this circular dispute, respectfully, ObserverToSee 20:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

At the end there is a link to the niacouncil website with a PDF file titled, "The Persian Gulf: The Politics of Geographic Renaming." However the link doesn't work. Since this is protected I can't correct it, but if some of the admins have access here is the correct link for the pdf file: http://thearabiangulf.net/Persian_Gulf_bro-scrn.pdf I don't think anybody has issues with adding this link to the reference section since this is only correction of a bad link. Persiancowboy 07:53, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Please say your have with documentary reasons not fake information and racism, this is Persian Gulf , الخليج الفارسي ‎, al-Khalīj al-Fārisī

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.Pejman.azadi 04:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Change of lead WITHOUT Consensus

First off, Pejman - Your constant edits don't improve Misplaced Pages, or help your cause at all! Stop changing the page and stop writing the same thing again and again. It's obvious that 90% of Arabs now use the term Arabian Gulf. There's no denying that!

Second, to Ralhazzaa: You simply cannot change the lead sentence without consensus - Consensus takes time, and until then things should stay as they were. You also are also not improving Misplaced Pages or helping your cause at all. I think a consensus was near, and now I fear that people are going to get angry and lock the page again! I was going to change the lead, but decided against it. I'll wait for others opinion on your change without consensus first.--210.2.198.2 12:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Who r u buddy? better to register in Misplaced Pages and sign in your name to know u better. No consensus has been approached so far as u can notice up this section. Eventhough, my editing is not removing any word!! I just added resources (as WP requries, if u may know) and added classical names where the classical names are mentioned, with resources as well. If someone has references, then bring it up or keep watching. Unresourced info should be tagged with till it referenced. This is what the rules says.. no politics here or ideiology.. but some users can't tolerate the fact that others may have the truth! Ralhazzaa 11:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, no consensus has been reached, but that doesn't mean you can change things to your liking. The discussion was with what should be put in the lead. You made the decision without anyone's consent. I can do the same, but I shan't as I'm waiting for a democratic solution. Remember that Misplaced Pages isn't a dictatorship. I recommend you revert the lead back yourself until a consensus is reached.--210.2.198.2 12:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Your IP address suggests you may be using an open proxy server. It traces back to the Ichikawa Cable Network in Japan, whose IP range is 210.2.198.0-210.2.252.255. An IP address in this range has already been confirmed as an open proxy by Wikimedia. Anon users using open proxy IPs have already appeared on this talk page and have reverted changes to this article. The situation on this talk page is already problemmatic with personal and ethnic attacks without having the intervention of possible sockpuppets using open proxy servers in order to agitate. It is easier to sign up to Misplaced Pages than to go through open proxies, so why not do it?--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 12:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, really? I didn't know that! Thanks for that Hamid. I've signed-up! New profile name is: Persan en Japon. --Persan en Japon 12:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

There appear to be lots of Persians living in Japan who are interested in this article. The previous Japanese Persian commenting here (219.3.72.45) was using a different Japanese IP (Softbank BB). I don't know if it is an open proxy server.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 13:16, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

There are lots of Iranian people in Japan - Not all of them Persian. Softbank BB is an ISP here, just like Ichikawa-Cable Network. Japanese servers all use proxies for privacy purposes. I'm not Iranian by the way.--Persan en Japon 13:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I'd say that some friends want to change the fact here but they should know that arabian gulf is located in red sea, so please be calm and help to improve the article, Persian Gulf doesn't have any alternative name, but it seems you like to use another name! this is not helpful!!!Pejman.azadi 12:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Fully protected

Article has now been fully protected against revert-warring ... again! Second time in a month. Can you guys please discuss the proposed changes here first as this edit war is so wasteful of everyone's time. - Alison ☺ 12:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

GREAT! Look what your decision to change the lead has done Ralhazzaa! This is getting out of hand! Please wait for consensus next time! ARGH!

I don't know why Ralhazzaa wants to change the fact??? this is Persian Gulf and even through fals information you can not change the fact, arabian gulf is located in red sea, all the geogeraphical maps show it. This is very obvious that you want to start a war here....please remember that we are here to improve the Misplaced Pages, your acts don't help the Misplaced Pages!!! all of us read here several documentary reasons about Persian Gulf's name so please stop your act. Pejman.azadi 12:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

JUST PERSIAN GULF (Background for Application of Incorrect Words Instead of PERSIAN GULF)

After England's attack on Khark Island in 1837, the government of Iran at that time protested to England's separatist policy in the PERSIAN GULF and officially warned the government of Britain to avoid mischief intended at separating the southern side of Iran. This warning caused the Times Journal, published in London in 1840, to name the PERSIAN GULF for the first time as Britain Sea, but such a name never found any place. Moreover, following nationalization of the oil industry in Iran in 1950 and dispossession of English Companies and discontinuation of relations between Iran and England, the Ministry of English Colonies, for the first time used the incorrect name of this water body. In these years, the States South of the Persian Gulf were either colonies of Britain or under its support. To compensate its defeat, the government of England published a book by Roderick Oven, an agent of English Spy Org., in 1957 which was immediately translated into Arabic. In this book the assassination of the name PERSIAN GULF began and in 1966, Sir Charles M. Belgrieve, the political agent of England in the affairs of Persian Gulf Southern States supported by England, published a book at the end of his mission named: Golden Bulbs at Arabic Gulf. After coup of Abdolkarim Ghasem in 1958 in Iraq and then coup by Baas and their claims for some lands against Iran, they avoided using the name of PERSIAN GULF for political reasons. In 1960, after Iran and Egypt's disconnection of relationships and after the Arab-Israeli war, anti Iranian actions culminated due to the previous Iranian regime’s support of Israel. This occurred in Arabic Circles and in a congress of Baas Party convened at Damascus, in which participating heads demanded for change of the name of PERSIAN GULF to the forged name of Arabic gulf, without relying on any legal and historical document. Following this, to achieve the political motive, they altered this historical name in the text books of Arabic Countries. After the Islamic Revolution in 1987, followed by breaking relations between USA and Iran, and commencement of the imposed war of Iraq against Iran, there have been some efforts to apply incorrect words instead of the Name Persian Gulf. Most of these efforts were not on purpose but resulted from unawareness of facts. Though, in USA the geographic and publication institutes have been hardly influenced by other countries, but in 2005, we witnessed that the reputable National Geographic Society, with a past history of not accepting and using forged words in its works, distorted the name of PERSIAN GULF and Iranian islands and intentionally mentioned incorrect inf ormation. This action only helped damaging its own international credibility, but ultimately, it surrendered to protests of Iranians throughout the world and corrected its error. It is interesting that Mr. Roderick Oven stipulated in Golden Bulbs at Arabic Gulf: "I visited all parts of PERSIAN GULF and believed that it was Persian Gulf, because I noticed no map or deed, unless it had named the place as Persian Gulf, but when I watched it closely, I found out that the people residing at the southern beaches are Arabs, therefore, to be polite, we should name it: Arabic Gulf." Either Mr. Roderick Oven should have noticed that on the northern sector of that water body, up to 1269 km of coast exists with a far larger population who speak Farsi. This is larger than the Arabian population he was concerned about. He did not notice the important fact that this sea was first named by the Greeks and neither Iranian nor Arabs took any part in it. The Muslims and Arab Geographers learned the names from the Greeks and Romans, and used it in their works, especially that they named Pars Sea, unanimously: Persian Gulf . In the end, it is worth mentioning that the name of Persian Gulf has been admitted in all the live languages of the world so far and all the countries throughout the world, name this Iranian Sea, just in the language of the people: PERSIAN GULF. Even our Arab brothers do not need to alter a historical name to have a gulf of their own, because there had been a gulf in their own name previously mentioned in the historical and geographical works and drawings, which is called at present the Red Sea (Bahr Ahmar).Pejman.azadi 06:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

This article is about Persian Gulf, so the other names should be removed.

This is very clear that we are speaking and writing about Persian Gulf, so why the other FAKE names are written in the oppening of this article? we have many ovvious documens and legal official resons to using the name of Persian Gulf. I thank the Misplaced Pages for this article but it seems this article needs to be written again specially in the opening part without other fake names, please consider the main and original facts.this is your respect to the history, respect to the world community, respect to the UN, and I'd say that Misplaced Pages is a place to showing the facts. It would be appreciateable to remove the other false names. Thank you so much for publishing the facts. Just the Persian Gulf. Pejman.azadi 09:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I totally concur with this recommendation and request. Fabricated names that have been popularized relatively recently because of political incentives with disregard to legitimate historical names should not be promoted in the lead of this article on en.wikipedia.org. They belong in the naming dispute section with the proper explanation for the reasoning of their inclusion. Can we start the process to get a majority consensus for doing this? With respect and best regards ObserverToSee 17:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I totally disagree. And consensus and majority are two different things. There was a consensus on including al-Khaleej al-Arabi in the introduction. The dispute was over whether the English translation - Arabian Gulf - of this should be included. So let's begin there rather than going right back to the beginning and repeating statements that have already been made--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 18:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion and point of view. I applaud your freedom to disagree. I’m sure you’ve checked the link that I provided to Consensus decision making, you’ll notice as quoted below:

“Consensus decision-making is a decision-making process that not only seeks the agreement of most participants, but also to resolve or mitigate the objections of the minority to achieve the most agreeable decision. Consensus is usually defined as meaning both general agreement, and the process of getting to such agreement. Consensus decision-making is thus concerned primarily with that process.”’’

I submit that by leading this article with the proper and historically accurate name of Persian Gulf only and including the fabricated name in the Naming Dispute section only, we have achieved what the consensus decision making process calls for. We have represented the name which is agreed to by most participants and have addressed the objections of the minority participants.

Reading through the endless threads on this discussion, it’s very apparent that the previous consensus was reached to attempt to end this endless cycle. However, as soon as the consensus lead was put in place two consistently objecting minority editors re-surfaced their desire to include the English translation of the Arabic name. Because of the consensus the actual modern Arabic name was introduced in the Arabic text for reference, however, this does not seem to be enough and the consensus appears to have been ignored by the minority.

To eliminate this confusion and distortion of historical facts, I resubmit that we establish a consensus that has the agreement of most but also mitigate the objections of the minority by establishing a proper Naming Dispute section that addresses the objections of the minority . Most respectfully ObserverToSee 19:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you are wrong. I and others stated, during the discussion on a consensus lead paragraph, that the Arabic name should be accompanied by an English translation as al-Khalij al-Arabi is not a translation of Persian Gulf. The fact si that no-one challenged us or disagreed, they just interpreted their own consensus version and imposed it. I reject your submission, which seeks to sideline editors who do not agree with the Iranian POV on the issue of the naming of the Arabian Gulf.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 20:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I celebrate your freedom to reject any submission. However, I believe you’ve just made a strong point as to why including any alternative names in this article’s lead other than Persian Gulf creates confusion and opens the door for manipulation of historical facts and endless circular debate. This resolves nothing and only causes confusion for those unsuspecting visitors who seek truth and knowledge on WikiPedia. There is no reason to take a non English name and translate it back into English other than to promote a fabricated name which has been promoted in Arabic recently. This article appears in the English version of WikiPedia and as such, only the correct English name should appear here. Not an English translation of a fabricated name. I fully expect further rejections by you and your friend, however, I again submit to everyone that we need to come up with a consensus on a lead that most participants agree with and address the objections of the minority participants in the naming dispute section as noted above. As usual with total respect ObserverToSee 21:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Arabian Gulf may be fabricated to you, but for most Arabs it is the name they use. Lert us celebrate the diversity of names for this waterbody. The name of the article will remain Persian Gulf, but people can see that Arabian Gulf is the alternative name used in Arab Gulf countries, in this lead paragraph. This entire debate would be over then. All the best to you.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 21:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

By the way, what other username do you edit with? You seem very well acquainted with Misplaced Pages rules and editing.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 21:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your complement! As I alluded to before, I’ve been reading this discussion and other threads on WikiPedia for a very long time. As such, I’m not surprised by the seemingly usual suspicion and insinuation that I’ve edited under other names and the complement that I seem well versed in WikiPedia editing and rules.

Now back to the relevant subject at hand. My point was not that the fabricated Arabic name is not used; it was that the translation of the fabricated Arabic name from Arabic into English does not belong in the English version of the lead of this article about the Persian Gulf. The translation of the fabricated Arabic name will only confuse unsuspecting WikiPedia visitors who seek truth and knowledge in the English version of this article. We need to get a consensus to include the proper English name in the lead as Persian Gulf where most participants agree and include an agreeable text under the Naming Dispute section of the article to address objections by the minority participants as I outlined above. Respectfully ObserverToSee 23:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I am wondering why Ahwaz does not celebrate diversity when Hakim and other Arab politicans use the term Persian Gulf. Also a name that is forged for political reason is not a sign of diversity. Why don't Arabs call for example Bayt ol-Moqadas as the "capital of Israel". Because it has political tone. It is good to see more new users join wikipedia because of this article. --alidoostzadeh 23:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with ObserverToSee in this regard. Yes, the name Arabian Gulf was originally created for political reasons, but most Arabic people aren't aware of that anymore. They've grown-up with the Arabian Gulf name and think that is the only name for that body of water. The name might be fake in many people's eyes, but that doesn't mean it's not used.--Persan en Japon 00:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Proposal

This is my proposal: "The Persian Gulf (Persian: خليج فارس - Khalīj-e Fārs; in Modern Arabic: الخليج الفارسي أو الخليج العربي‎ al-Khalīj al-Arabi (Arabian Gulf) or al-Khalīj al-Fārisī (Persian Gulf)), in the Southwest Asian region, is an extension of the Gulf of Oman located between Iran (Persia) and the Arabian Peninsula." There is an acknowledgement that Persian Gulf is the most used name and a translation of the Arabic names, including the modern Arabic name used in Arab Gulf countries and the less common Arabic name that doostzadeh thinks all Iraqis use. I don't undersrand why this should be controversial, since the Iranian name gets precedence in the title, in the lead paragraph and throughout the article. al-Khaleej al-Arabi is obviously not the Arabic translation of Persian Gulf and this must be made clear to the non-Arabic speaker.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 00:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

That is actually not too bad. But lets get some feedback. I believe the footnotes should be there.--alidoostzadeh 00:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind if you want to put in a footnote beside Arabian Gulf and explain the controversies, or add a link to the naming controversy article, but I don't think a long explanation of etymology should exist in the lead paragraph.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 00:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I like this proposed name. It gets rid of the historic names problem (of having to write or footnote every historic name) and mentions both Arabian Gulf and Persian Gulf name in Arabic. Might I also suggest that the term "The Gulf" also be used? I hate that name for it, but it's used to some extent by certain groups.--Persan en Japon 00:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the footnote is necessary. Gulf is really minority--alidoostzadeh 00:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

We could add in "sometimes referred to as The Gulf in the English-speaking world" before "in the Southwest Asian region".--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 00:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I know the word, الخليج, (the Gulf) alone is widely vernacular call for this sea in Arabic (u can hear it from any Egyptian or Lebanese...etc. living there as: أنا أعمل في الخليج : I'm working in The Gulf) that is -in this sense- a shortening for the full name "The Arabian Gulf". Hence, I concur with Persan en Japon and recommend adding it, but probably in the Etymology section if u don't want to overfill the intro and keep only official names.

I can say the proposal is OK but needs to provide a reference that native Arab community (not based or related to Iran) are using the term الخليج الفارسي, otherwise I'll not be optimistic and can predict that any Arab newcomer will remove that name from the "modern" terms, but not from the classicals. It is really not used by native Arabs (not related to Iran) "please! I'm loosing my throat!" and this what makes the intro incorrect & disputed. The term الخليج الفارسي in Arabic should be mentioned in the classical names among others where I, and every Arab, is not denying it. Salam, Ralhazzaa 08:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually you can not make such conditions (or else other conditions like the name is fabricated can be made also right?). Also far worst, you can not be a spokesman for all Arabs. Your an spokesman for yourself. And you do not own the beautiful Arabic language either as it is a universal language and heritage of mankind. Saying "I and every Arab" is not helpful in this discussion and if you continue, this will go no where. I am tired of users in wikipedia in claiming I and every X from my country. I can make conditions that need to show that democratic governments and etc. Also your statements is discriminatory (not based or related to Iran). I can also say (not based or related to Saudia Arabia, UAE..). As per your argument, I have answered it: A) It is used by Arab politicans in Iraq. b) I brought an English book that says "Arabs Often". C) Any Arabic writing person who is going to write a history book about something to do with the region will quote history books with such a name and I have brought tons of Arabic references with this regard. D) And furthermore I do not like to copy old materials here, but it seems it is necessary, so I will quote again: In all the important historical maps and Atlas whether modern or belonging to previous centuries, the water artery located at south of Iran has been registered as Persian Gulf. In the Arabian countries too, it has always been named PERSIAN GULF up to the 70s. For instance, in the Atlas "Alaragh fi Alkhavaret Alghadimeh" by Dr. Ahmad Souseh (Baghdad 1959) including 40 maps among the Arabian sources of the Middle Ages. In the maps presented by Arabian countries to the International Court of the Judiciary for settlements of border claims, the name of PERSIAN GULF has been mentioned. In Atlas of Alkuwait fi Alkharaet Alalam" some maps have been used where there exists the name of PERSIAN GULF. In Atlas of "Alkuwait Ghara fi Alkharaet Altarikhieh" published by the efforts of Abdollah Yousef Alghanim in 1994, there are about 200 maps mentioning the name of PERSIAN GULF. The book: "Osoul Alkuwait Almanshour Alalam" (1991) published in the Netherlands also contains 15 maps where the name of PERSIAN GULF exists. In the book: "Alkhalij alfars Abar Altarikh va Alghoroun" (written by Mohammad Mirza, 1976 Cairo) there are 52 maps drawn out of Arabic sources, mentioning the name of PERSIAN GULF. In Atlas of "History of Islam" (1951-55 America and Egypt) the name Persian Gulf has been mentioned 16 times. In Atlas of "Khalij (Gulf) in the Historical Maps" (1999) excluding three maps which were drawn after 15th century, seem to be included beside the other maps (all of which mention the name of PERSIAN GULF) upon persistence of the honorable person collecting them, where the name has been forged as: Arabic Gulf. In next maps, the same cartographers have corrected the name to Persian Gulf. The Arabic Bank and Beyt Alquran in Bahrain published a large wall calendar in 1996 containing the historical map of Bahrain in which all the maps contain the name of PERSIAN GULF.. --alidoostzadeh 03:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

My proposal is only the Persian Gulf because this is very obvious that political hands and games are working to insert other FAKE names. We are here to show the facts not wrong information. arabian gulf does not exist in this gulf. we are here to speak about Persian Gulf and the translation of this name in arabic is الخليج الفارسي al-Khalīj al-Fārisī, so there is no logic to use any other fake names on this issue. This name has its own legal validity but the other names are fake and don't use in the international communities exept some other small arab countries because of them pan arabism and this is very clear that the pan arabism and politics CAN NOT change this name or insert alternative name. Pan arabism does not work here!!!! I told you before the main problem of arab countries is Palestine, please go and save your arabian lands in Israel and save your brothers and sisters in Israel this is not your duty to determine a fake name for a famouse region in the world. This is Persian Gulf and will be remained Persian Gulf Forever and another name for alternative or secound name does not exist. Pejman.azadi 04:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

You might think it is wrong or inaccurate, but that is the name used by Arabs in Gulf countries and this needs to be stated in the lead paragraph for the sake of accuracy. I don't think that most Arabs use al-Khaleej al-Arabi for political reasons anyway even if Nassir popularised it for his own ideological reasons. Most Arabs in the Gulf are not interested in pan-Arabism, they are more interested in becoming developed and successful states and there are lots of trade expos involving Iran in these Arab states and lots of Iranians live there. It is accepted that Persian Gulf will remain the title and the name referred to throughout the article as it is more commonly used than Arabian Gulf in the English-speaking world - the only suggestion is to include the most common Arab name in the lead paragraph with the English translation for the sake of clarity, as outlined above. Now, the question everyone has to ask themselves is: will one mention of Arabian Gulf in this article lead to the popularisation of the name in the English-speaking world and threaten Iranian sovereignty?--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 10:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The humor in your comment about sovereignty has not escaped me. :-) In return we can ask: Would not including the English translation of an Arabic name in the lead and including it only in the Naming Dispute section threaten the identity of Arabs living in Arab states around the Persian Gulf? I have not seen other instances where a name translation from another language into English has created a new English name. I don’t understand why this needs to be done here. Persan en japon has actually made another good point as to why doing so is not a move toward truth and accuracy. Based on his observation, most young Arabs don’t know the origin of the fabricated name any more because the fabrication was allowed to ferment. By referencing a name derived from a translation here, eventually, that translated name will become legitimate in the English language. I maintain and agree with Pejman azadi that only the name Persian Gulf should appear in the English article about the Persian Gulf. Warmest regards ObserverToSee 15:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

It really depends on whether you want to solve this editorial issue sooner or later. Translation of both the Arabic names in the lead is necessary to indicate that al-Khaleej al-Arabi is not a translation of Persian Gulf but an alternative used in the Arab world. At present, it looks like al-Khaleej al-Arabi is a direct translation into Arabic from the English or Farsi name. It would make no sense to exclude al-Khaleej al-Arabi from the lead altogether as it is the most common name in the Arab world. To do so would be POV-pushing. I think I have proposed the most reasonable compromise, particularly as this dispute started after Arabian Gulf was written in bold and as a clear alternative in English. My compromise states that this is a translation from the Arabic, but not the common name in English. A footnote can be inserted by al-Khaleej al-Arabi (Arabian Gulf) stating the controversy or the origin of the name, which I think goes a long way to addressing Ali Doostzadeh's previous suggestions.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 15:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

It is ironic that the name in Persian خليج فارس - Khalīj-e Fārs is heavily influenced by the Arabic language! Khalīj is an Arabic word and Fārs is the Arabic version of Pārs. Even the name of the Persian language referenced as Farsi is heavily influenced by Arabic as it should be Parsi. The sound derived from the letter "P" does not exist in the Arabic language and it is usually substituted with "B" or "F". Because of this, the name Pars became Fars. So if an authentic Arabic speaker pronounces the "Persian Gulf" in English, it might be pronounced as "Bersian Gulf". If it wasn’t for the political motives, I could understand this as the motive for fabricating the new Arabic name in English. So it's ironic that even though the current Persian name for this body of water is heavily influenced by the Arabic language and pronunciation, it still needs to be eliminated in the Arab world with a fabricated name and in turn translate that into English to come up with a new English name for the Persian Gulf. I'm hopeful that a consensus can be reached not to muddy the water like this and to allow all unsuspecting visitors to WikiPedia be exposed to truth and knowledge without any manipulation of historical facts. Best wishes ObserverToSee 22:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

As you are a newcomer to Misplaced Pages, you should know that Misplaced Pages is not here to judge "truth" or correct "fabrications", it is to reflect facts. The fact is that Arabs refer to al-Khaleej al-Arabi/Arabian Gulf, whether you like it or not and regardless of what you think the reasons for this are. Fact: it is the official name in several Arab states. Misplaced Pages has to reflect that fact and to do this in the lead paragraph alongside the Farsi name with a translation into English so there is no confusion that al-Khalij al-Arabi is a direct translation of Persian Gulf. It is as simple as that. There is plenty on Misplaced Pages devoted to the arguments over the name of the Gulf, so your opinion is not being sidelined.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 22:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Ahwaz's suggestion along with my footnotes is ok but it seems other users do not agree. But I am not a spokesman for all Iranians , so lets wait for more feedbacks. Till then I believe if the page is unlocked, edit warring should not occur since it will be locked up again. --alidoostzadeh 03:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with both you and Ahwaz's suggestions - They both sound fairly reasonable. We just need others to agree as well. --Persan en Japon 02:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's put the full version of the proposal including the footnotes here and start the consensus agreement process. Regards ObserverToSee 21:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the article locking, I want to tell that admins will lock the article in its prior wrong edits that makes the dispute. So, if we are going to unlock it, a Neutrality tag is needed until reaching a NPOV. This is much better than understanding it as completed & informative article.

I would like also to suggest not to include the name الخليج الفارسي within "modern" Arabic names as it is not a true modern-used name, and we shouldn't mislead the readers here. I'm supporting the name الخليج الفارسي to be included within Etymology and Historical section. These are my suggestions in brief. All the best, Ralhazzaa 04:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Your suggestion is unwarranted. I just provided references it is used in the modern names and you had not response. You are not here to compromise, where-as Ahwaz made a good suggestion. I think it is better to hold up constructive approach. --alidoostzadeh 11:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this suggestion is not constructive and does not represent a warranted compromise. Regards ObserverToSee 21:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

PERSIAN GULF in Historical Maps

In all the important historical maps and Atlas whether modern or belonging to previous centuries, the water artery located at south of Iran has been registered as Persian Gulf. In the Arabian countries too, it has always been named PERSIAN GULF up to the 70s. For instance, in the Atlas "Alaragh fi Alkhavaret Alghadimeh" by Dr. Ahmad Souseh (Baghdad 1959) including 40 maps among the Arabian sources of the Middle Ages. In the maps presented by Arabian countries to the International Court of the Judiciary for settlements of border claims, the name of PERSIAN GULF has been mentioned. In Atlas of Alkuwait fi Alkharaet Alalam" some maps have been used where there exists the name of PERSIAN GULF. In Atlas of "Alkuwait Ghara fi Alkharaet Altarikhieh" published by the efforts of Abdollah Yousef Alghanim in 1994, there are about 200 maps mentioning the name of PERSIAN GULF. · The book: "Osoul Alkuwait Almanshour Alalam" (1991) published in the Netherlands also contains 15 maps where the name of PERSIAN GULF exists. · In the book: "Alkhalij alfars Abar Altarikh va Alghoroun" (written by Mohammad Mirza, 1976 Cairo) there are 52 maps drawn out of Arabic sources, mentioning the name of PERSIAN GULF. · In Atlas of "History of Islam" (1951-55 America and Egypt) the name Persian Gulf has been mentioned 16 times. · In Atlas of "Khalij (Gulf) in the Historical Maps" (1999) excluding three maps which were drawn after 15th century, seem to be included beside the other maps (all of which mention the name of PERSIAN GULF) upon persistence of the honorable person collecting them, where the name has been forged as: Arabic Gulf. In next maps, the same cartographers have corrected the name to Persian Gulf. The Arabic Bank and Beyt Alquran in Bahrain published a large wall calendar in 1996 containing the historical map of Bahrain in which all the maps contain the name of PERSIAN GULF. It is interesting that from among 6000 existing historical maps published up to 1890, there are only three maps mentioning the names of Basreh Gulf, Ghatif Gulf, and Arabic Gulf, in addition to which the name of small gulfs located at the coast with local utilization can be also named such as Chah Bahar Gulf, Siraf Gulf, Basreh Gulf, Ghatif Gulf, Bahrain Gulf,…. but such names are not applied to the entirety of the Persian Gulf. It is obvious that the promotional use by the Arabs of the three aforementioned maps, whose identity and originality are not clear, in comparison with 6000 maps and more than 200 historical and tourism books from Irastus to Herodotus to Estakhri and Ibn Houghal, who have all called the water body, PERSIAN GULF, shall lack any value. In the Arabic Dictionary Almonjamed, Library of American Congress, Britain National Library (London), deeds at Ministry of India's Affairs (London), Library of Faculty of Orientalist Studies of London, there are more than 300 maps, containing the name PERSIAN GULF. Furthermore, about 30 valid Atlas have registered the name of PERSIAN GULF within the past 30 years, such as: Atlas of Thomas Herbert (1628), Atlas of Pars, Lousaj University (1863), Atlas of Germany (1861), Pars Envile Atlas (1760), Atlas of Modern Geography (1890), Atlas of London (1873), Atlas of Ernest Embrosius (1922), Atlas of Bilefild (1899), Atlas of Harmsorth (19th Century, London),…. In 18th and 19th centuries when the government of Britain expanded its dominance over the seas and according to some treaties was recognized as supporter and successor of Sheikhs on the south sectors of the PERSIAN GULF, the official maps of the areas from East Seas of Suez, specially India and PERSIAN GULF were drawn up as instructed by the government of Britain, all of which reflect clearly the name of PERSIAN GULF. Some examples are as follows: 1. The Empire of Persia prepared by D'Avnille in 1770. 2. A New Map of the Empire of Persia prepared by D'Avnille in 1794. 3. Persia Map prepared for the new Atlas by Thomsons in 1818. 4. Persia map prepared by Orme, Brown Longman, Rees in 1828. 5. Persia with part of the ottoman Empire prepared by G.long in 1831. 6. Central Asia Map, prepared by Alex Burnes in 1834. 7. Persia Map (1840) prepared for Atlas Black. 8. Persia Map prepared for Atlas Black in 1884. 9. Persia & Cabool Map prepared by A. K. Johnston in 1844. 10. Map of Persia, Cabul, etc. prepared by J. Arrowsmith in 1873. 11. Map of Persia & Afghanistan prepared by A. C. Block in 1854. 12. Maps under title: Map of Persia published in 1886 (this ma p was prepared upon instruction by Ministry of Seafaring and by Information Services of Ministry of War of England.) 13. Map of Persia prepared by Captain St. John upon instruction by Vice -Minister at Indian Affairs, England Cabinet in 1874. 14. Map of Persia pr epared by Information Sector of English Ministry of War in 1891. 15. Map of Iran, Afghanistan and Balouchestan published under supervision of Kerzen in 1891 and 1892. 16. Maps under the title Map of Persia, prepared in Simla Drawing Department in 1897.Pejman.azadi 04:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages's Chair and the Persian Gulf's name

I'd thank Misplaced Pages for publishing this article because it is very necessary to show the facts so I want to say that if Misplaced Pages want to save its chair and genuineness shoud take major consideration to insert the right facts with legal and approved documents, it is very obvious that Persian Gulf is a unique name and does not have any alternative name, and if in other language it is called to another name it is not international and should not insert in this article. we should not enter to the political games because Misplaced Pages is a encyclopedia not more!!! Thanks for your kind attention.Pejman.azadi 05:21, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Etymology section

Can someone please at leas tag the Etymology section as having a biased POV--or at least weasel words? —ScouterSig 18:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The artilce in general is disputed and we are discussing it now. At the moment, we are discussing about the most suitable intro. Later, we will discuss this section. Ralhazzaa 08:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

No need to discussion because it is an obvoius fact that there is not any other alternative name and the Persian Gulf is unique name.Pejman.azadi 16:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The Persian Gulf's name is not Diputed in UN or EU countries, this is arabian gulf that is in disputed and it is located in the Red Sea.Pejman.azadi 09:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the name Arabian Gulf for the Red Sea is disputed in the sense that it's no longer called that! Debating that issue isn't going to help your cause Pejman. --Persan en Japon 02:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

The only proposal should be Persian Gulf because of many many documents that are shown here, so there is no need to insert other unuseful proposals. Why you want to say FAKE information???!!!Pejman.azadi 04:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I have a deal for you. The day you call the Persian Gulf as "Arabian Gulf", will be the day that Saudi Arabia along with every nation in the Middle-East, as well as Southern Russia, Northern Africa, and parts of Greece will be renamed "The Persian Empire", maybe that will jolt your memory a bit. Persianguyagain 08:17, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

To the two users above: Your blatant Persianism doesn't help fix this dispute. Neither does your attack on what Arabs call the Gulf. Thinking that the name Arabian Gulf is fake is your opinion. Most Arabs use that term, so this fact has got to be accepted. --Persan en Japon 09:45, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Dear Sir, The most important thing is that the most population of this gulf call it Persian Gulf, because more than 70 milion people are living beside this gulf and it is called Persian Gulf by Iranian and all of the world believe it, and it is strongly recommanded to you to respect to this name because of its long and honorable history. it is also useful for arabs because they are living beside a famouse Persian history.Pejman.azadi 13:08, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

New Proposal (again)

OK, so here is my new proposal, taking into consideration Ali's suggestions:

The Persian Gulf (Persian: خليج فارس - Khalīj-e Fārs; in Modern Arabic: الخليج الفارسي أو الخليج العربي‎ al-Khalīj al-Arabi (Arabian Gulf) or al-Khalīj al-Fārisī (Persian Gulf)), also sometimes referred to in the English-speaking world as The Gulf, in the Southwest Asian region, is an extension of the Gulf of Oman located between Iran (Persia) and the Arabian Peninsula.

The term al-Khalīj al-Arabi (Arabian Gulf) was popularised by pan-Arabist leaders from the 1960s and is the official name in some Arabs states in the region, but is not the internationally recognised name for the waterbody and remains highly controversial. See: Persian Gulf naming dispute

I hope this is a good starting point to ending this long-running dispute.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 21:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Persian Gulf name is accepted by the World community because of its legal, historical documents and it is very clear that no one can not insert other fake names instead of it by disputing!!!! Arab people should dispute about arabian lands in Palestine!!!! Persian Gulf is Persian Gulf and other fake names could not use instead of it.Pejman.azadi 05:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

*Strong reject: "Arabian Gulf" should only be mentioned in the footnote to explain the translation of the Arabic term, not in the lead or in paranthesis, , puttingit in the

lead is undo weight --behmod talk 22:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC) its amazing how ignorant one can be and not understand that the fact all arabs refer "arabina gulf" are misled and should not be used as an intro because ALL arabs are wrong and they have to learn the truth, they have adapted the false name and wikipedia will guide arabs to the truth!!

It's not undue weight to state the most common name used in Arabic. It is arguably undue weight if Arabian Gulf is given equal status as Persian Gulf in the English language.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 10:30, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

*Strong reject "Persian Gulf, الخليج الفارسي" in Arabic should not be mentioned at all as it makes the article uninformative. So far, no references accepted by WP rules are shown to mention the name الخليج الفارسي that "could be" only used occasionaly by Iranian agents in the Arab world, who are not really Arabs and we can't cite their paid sayings (if any). Ralhazzaa 06:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

(your were responded to before). Actually you can not make such conditions (or else other conditions like the name is fabricated can be made also right?). Also far worst, you can not be a spokesman for all Arabs. Your an spokesman for yourself. And you do not own the beautiful Arabic language either as it is a universal language and heritage of mankind. Saying "I and every Arab" is not helpful in this discussion and if you continue, this will go no where. I am tired of users in wikipedia in claiming I and every X from my country. I can make conditions that need to show that democratic governments and etc. Also your statements is discriminatory (not based or related to Iran). I can also say (not based or related to Saudia Arabia, UAE..). As per your argument, I have answered it: A) It is used by Arab politicans in Iraq. (And your political opinion on these politicans has no bearing on the discussion) b) I brought an English book that says "Arabs Often". C) Any Arabic writing person who is going to write a history book about something to do with the region will quote history books with such a name and I have brought tons of Arabic references with this regard. D) And furthermore I do not like to copy old materials here, but it seems it is necessary, so I will quote again: In all the important historical maps and Atlas whether modern or belonging to previous centuries, the water artery located at south of Iran has been registered as Persian Gulf. In the Arabian countries too, it has always been named PERSIAN GULF up to the 70s. For instance, in the Atlas "Alaragh fi Alkhavaret Alghadimeh" by Dr. Ahmad Souseh (Baghdad 1959) including 40 maps among the Arabian sources of the Middle Ages. In the maps presented by Arabian countries to the International Court of the Judiciary for settlements of border claims, the name of PERSIAN GULF has been mentioned. In Atlas of Alkuwait fi Alkharaet Alalam" some maps have been used where there exists the name of PERSIAN GULF. In Atlas of "Alkuwait Ghara fi Alkharaet Altarikhieh" published by the efforts of Abdollah Yousef Alghanim in 1994, there are about 200 maps mentioning the name of PERSIAN GULF. The book: "Osoul Alkuwait Almanshour Alalam" (1991) published in the Netherlands also contains 15 maps where the name of PERSIAN GULF exists. In the book: "Alkhalij alfars Abar Altarikh va Alghoroun" (written by Mohammad Mirza, 1976 Cairo) there are 52 maps drawn out of Arabic sources, mentioning the name of PERSIAN GULF. In Atlas of "History of Islam" (1951-55 America and Egypt) the name Persian Gulf has been mentioned 16 times. In Atlas of "Khalij (Gulf) in the Historical Maps" (1999) excluding three maps which were drawn after 15th century, seem to be included beside the other maps (all of which mention the name of PERSIAN GULF) upon persistence of the honorable person collecting them, where the name has been forged as: Arabic Gulf. In next maps, the same cartographers have corrected the name to Persian Gulf. The Arabic Bank and Beyt Alquran in Bahrain published a large wall calendar in 1996 containing the historical map of Bahrain in which all the maps contain the name of PERSIAN GULF..

*Strong reject: It is the Persian Gulf, not the Arabian Gulf. The Arabian Gulf does not exist in that body of water. This is just another attempt by the Arabs to claim something they don't own. Stop trying to re-write history. Persianguyagain 08:13, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

No history is being rewritten. The fact is that most Arabs use Arabian Gulf - in the UAE it is illegal to use Persian Gulf - and as such the most common Arabic name should be mentioned in the lead.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 10:30, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Support - However, we must mention in the footnote that the term The Gulf is also political in the footnotes. As for Ralhazza's comments about "Iranian agents in the Arab world" - That's a pretty risky comment to make. Please provide proof before making such remarks.--Persan en Japon 15:55, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

*Strong reject: The name of this Gulf is the Persian Gulf and it has always been like that and will always stay like that. The Honorable Kermanshahi 21:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I would like to see some of the "strong rejects" who refuse to have the common Arabic name in the lead suggest a lead paragraph that is descriptive of the common (not "correct" but common) names for the Gulf. Then let's take it to a vote.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 21:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I second what Ahwaz said - Instead of posting endless examples of the historic name (this is to you Pejman.Azadi) which is not being disputed (we're discussing the modern name and more specifically, the lead for this article), I'd like to see another proposal from the people above who strongly reject. --Persan en Japon 13:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Can we consider having consensus on a version where العربي‎ الخليج al-Khalīj al-Arabi has a footnote where the English translation "Arabian Gulf" is referenced for clarification so that there is no confusion? Have the same thing for الخليج الفارسي where it's footnoted to say that it is the literal translation of "Persian Gulf" into Arabic? Regards ObserverToSee 19:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how moving the translation into a footnote makes it clearer. Although a translation is still better than no translation and I am glad that you agree the common Arabic name should be in the lead, I think it is odd and unusual to put the translation into a footnote.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 20:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Even though the last consensus appears to have been reached without being a real consensus, it still appears to show progress in resolving the issues revolving around the Persian Gulf. In that consensus, it was agreed to allow the Arabic name العربي‎ الخليج al-Khalīj al-Arabi appear next to the Arabic translation of Persian Gulf الخليج الفارسي. You have raised the issue that it is not clear that the literal translation of العربي‎ الخليج al-Khalīj al-Arabi is not Persian Gulf and that it is not clear. Others have raised strong objections in having "Arabian Gulf" show anywhere in the lead of this article. I myself have issues with having the translation of an Arabic name appear to be a legitimate English name. However, in the spirit of compromise, it might be acceptable to have the literal translation of العربي‎ الخليج al-Khalīj al-Arabi into English be included in the footnote to clarify that the literal translation is not Persian Gulf. In the same spirit, the literal translation of the accurate name of Persian Gulf into الخليج الفارسي should be footnoted to indicate as such. Draw a distinct line between what is the actual name and what is a translation of a name from another language into English for clarity. This seems to be a compromise that may be acceptable as a consensus. Hope this makes sense. Regards ObserverToSee 17:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Please respect to the facts and right information and documents and don't try to change the right and correct information, this is at first respect to yourself and then to the others. shame on every body who wants to insert fake information about this article so please say your have with documentary not fake information. Ahvaz!!! please be polite and don't insert false information here.Pejman.azadi 04:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Hehe. Even one who claims the fake word arabian gulf is an arab Iranian, who perhaps doesn't like persians much, so said to himself like take the revenge! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.146.47.150 (talk) 19:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

The only proposal should be: PERSIAN GULF الخليج الفارسي: Applications of the Name PERSIAN GULF by International Organizations

Applications of the Name PERSIAN GULF by International Organizations Organizations and affiliated foundations have applied the correct name of PERSIAN GULF since they have been incorporated, excluding one case, which corrected it through Note No. AD311/1GEN dated March 5, 1971. In confirmation and response to the correspondence of the government of Iran for application of the complete name of PERSIAN GULF in the publications and deeds of United Nations and affiliated organizations, 14 notes and correspondences can be mentioned containing the aforementioned note of Secretariat of United Nations, containing the amendment of Deed IPPD14/UNIDB. From among the other instructions of United Nations, the following samples can be named: · Note No. LA45.82 dated Aug. 10, 1984 (New York) · Circular No. CAB/1/87/63 dated 16.02.1987 of Managing Director of UNESCO. · ST/CSSER/29 dated Jan. 10, 1990. · AD/311/1/GEN dated March 5, 1991. · ST/CS/SER.A/29/Add.1 dated Jan. 24, 1992. · ST/CS/SER.A/29/Add.2 dated Aug. 18, 1994. · ST/CS/SER.A/29/Rev.1 dated May 14, 1999. In all the abovementioned notes and circulars, it has been requested that the water body existing at the south side of Iran be stated: PERSIAN GULF. The Specialized Group for Experts on Standardization of Geographical Names, active in the United Nations Social Economical Council also emphasizes the correct use of historical names for features, and is active in dispute settlement related to geographical names. "Naphtali Cadman" the head of Work Group for Toponymy Information has state d that the motivation to change the name of PERSIAN GULF is purely political.Pejman.azadi 04:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Another Farsi name

Coincidently, I found that a significant number of Iranian citizens are using different term for this sea in Farsi(Persian) language. They are using the term: خليج عربي instead of خليج فارس. They are Iranian citizens indeed, and we know that the official language in Iran is only Farsi.

Here I am showing some samples of this usage mentioned in some well-established websites for some organiztions (recognized as member in the UNPO int'l organization). It is not personal one-man-managed blog-like websites as some others brought before.

Some samples:

I would like to suggest adding this name, خليج عربي, as another modern name in Farsi language according to WP rule of verifiability, citing, reliablity and describing realistic and common information. When it is still unclear and unsourced that the term الخليج الفارسي is a "modern" Arabic name as no such reference -significant group of real Arabs, or reliable resource accepted by WP- has been brought up. We just heard that it is "a" term in modern Arabic but as long as it is unsourced, I am asking to remove it or tag it with . Ralhazzaa 00:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

DON NOT REWRITE THE HISTORY BY YOUR OWN IDEA: PERSIAN GULF IS PERSIAN GULF SUCH AS ANOTHER GEOGRAPHICAL POINTS IN OUR WORLD I'd say that the best thing in the world is to be honest and respect to the others, I am so sorry to say that some body here wants to publish false and fake information but you can not change the facts PERSIAN GULF WILL BE REMAINED PERSIAN GULG FOREVER الخليج الفارسي and no one can not change it by such as these fake information.Pejman.azadi 05:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I always say that please respect to others but it seems Ralhazzaa wants to continue to insert fake information, this is very unpolitely act, why you are inserting these false information here???? more than 72 miloin Persian language speaker are using the term of Persian Gulf and even in Azerbayjan, Kazakistan, Tajikestan or Afghanistan are using this Persian Gulf's name, you see all the Iran's neighborhood countries are using Persian Gulf. So please be polite and don't attack to the other's says!!!! and DON'T delete the other's says!!!! It is obvouse that you want to force false information here, I several times mentioned you that we are here to respect to each other and help to improve the Misplaced Pages not to war!!!Pejman.azadi 06:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Ralhazzaa, your proposal sounds like a case WP:POINT. --AlexanderPar 06:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Ralhazza's links are from political websites: Arabistan.org/Alahwaz.com - If you go to the main page of Arabistan.org, it's all in Arabic. Also, in the Persian language, the ي in خليج عربي doesn't have the dot under it (the actual name for the dot escapes me now). The main page also proves that it's a political website as does the name of the website: Arabistan is the old name of Khuzestan province of Iran and not used or widely known in Iran. The opinions of these people on the above mentioned websites are valid, but that doesn't mean that they're the opinion of the majority of Iranian Arabs. As Ahwaz has mentioned before, some Arabs in Iran call the Persian Gulf as the Arabian Gulf. The people who run this website are some of these Arabs in Iran. They are making a political statement by using the term Arabian Gulf. That's not what is being debated here, and hence the name خليج عربي should not be in the lead because it's not the official name in Persian. --Persan en Japon 13:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Persian Gulf in persian is: خليج فارس Khalij-e-fars and in arabic is Al-khalije-al-farsi الخليج الفارسي

Please be adviced that the term of Persian Gulf in arabic language is: Al-khalije-al-farsi الخليج الفارسي and it doesn't have any other name in arabic and all the Persian language speakers in this area are using this Persian Gulf's name, all the countries near this gulf or countries that are related in this area such as India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Tajikestan are using the Persian Gulf's term.Pejman.azadi 06:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages Please stop this discission and correct the title with the PERSIAN GULF

As a member of Misplaced Pages I am filled with wonder why Misplaced Pages is trying to insert false information on this issue???!!! Misplaced Pages is a encyclopedia so it should contain the right information and it shouldn't enter to the politics or other points of view games!!!! and if it continues to inserting false name instead of PERSIAN GULF it will lose its chair. PERSIAN GULF does not have any other name in arabic language except the Persian Gulf, because it is very very clear that the translation of the term of Persian in arabic language is not the term of arabian!!!!! so please STOP and respect to the International Laws.Pejman.azadi 08:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Pejman: Do you accept that Arabian Gulf is the official name in a number of Arab states? Do you accept that most Arabs use this name?--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 09:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

it is not related to this article if some arab countries is using another name instead of PERSIAN GULF and also it is widly believed that You ahwaz and your friends want to force wrong information here but it is not accepted. Persian Gulf does not have any other alternative name in terms of English article. arabian gulf does not exist in this water area and DON'T try to change the facts, arabian gulf is located in the Red sea. If you want to save your arabian identity please concern on your arabian lands in Palestine not to the Persian Gulf, because all of the world know it as Persian Gulf. It is strongly recommanded to you and your friends that be polite and respect to the International Laws and don't rewrite the geographical points in the world because it is wasting your time!!!!Pejman.azadi 09:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

It is related to the article since it relates to the common names used in the region. Do you accept that Arabian Gulf is commonly used by Arabs in the Gulf region? And please spell my username properly, be polite.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 10:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Ahwaz: You are trying to force an FAKE name but it is very clear that it is just a game! an International name is only Persian Gulf and if some local small countries is trying to use another name its their problem because PERSIAN GULF is the only registered and legal approved name in the world community. It seems that you didn't read the previous talks and archives and always want to circle!!!! local names are not International names and are not accepted by the UN and international organizations and it is widly believed that pan arabism does not work here, I told you and also your friends as well all arabs, go and save your identity in Palestine not here in Persian Gulf also please be adviced that Persian Gulf has been accepted by the world community since 3000 years before and also it is not important if wikipedia insert fake names instead of PERSIAN GULF because the most important thing on this issue is that world community is believed that as the PERSIAN GULF and I told that if wikipedia wants to continue to inserting false information on this regard it will lose its chair and I am here to improve the Misplaced Pages not to War!!!!Pejman.azadi 10:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I would like you to answer my question. Do you accept that Arabian Gulf is the most common name used in Arab states in the Gulf? Yes or no would suffice. Misplaced Pages does not respond to your or my demands but through process.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 10:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

It seems that you want to start another war by my answer!!! arabian gulf is used by some local small countries in the Persian Gulf states because of lake of information and pan arabism JUST IT!!! and it is not accepted by the world community and if you want to use it instead of the right fact you are in a wrong way because it is just wasting your time becase FALSE NAMES IS NOT ACCEPTED BY THE WORLD COMMUNITY AND THE ONLY INTERNATIONAL NAME IS PERSIAN GULF so arabian gulf does not exist in the wide international community because if it existed it should be accepted whereas we see that no it is not accepted!!!! please be adviced that some other fake names are created by pan arabism so they don't have legality and documentary reasons therefore they are not accepted so why you are trying to use them whereas they are fake and are not use bu the UN and international organizations??? it seems it is just a game and wasting the time.PERSIAN GULF DOES NOT HAVE ANY OTHER ALTERNATIVE NAMES, IT IS JUST PERSIAN GULFPejman.azadi 10:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

No-one is arguing for the change in the name of the article. The issue is whether to include the local name of the Gulf. Please remember Misplaced Pages rules: "Misplaced Pages is descriptive, not prescriptive. We cannot declare what a name should be, only what it is."--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 10:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Pejamn.azadi: Please understand that most Arabs call the Persian Gulf as the Arabian Gulf in Arabic. I know you don't like this fact, but it is a fact. You can continue to deny this fact by repeating the same things again and again, but that changes nothing. You're disrupting the flow of this page with your constant verbose additions which are essentially the same things repeated ad nauseam. If you continue this, I shan't hesitate to report you to the administrators.--Persan en Japon 13:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

NOTE TO TALK PAGE CONTRIBUTERS

Please avoid staring new Level 2 Headlines (like this headline) for no apparent reason. It disrupts the flow of the talk page and is counterproductive. A lot of the previous headlines could have been a continuation of previous headlines' discussions. I shan't name names, but it's pretty obvious which users are doing this. Please stop as it doesn't at all help your argument. Thank you! --Persan en Japon 13:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Proposal #...

Here is my proposal, after considering the policy of citing resources as per WP rules:

The Persian Gulf (Persian: خليج فارس Khalīj-e Fārs, or خليج عربي Khalīj arabi ; in Modern Arabic: الخليج العربي‎ al-Khalīj al-Arabi (Arabian Gulf)), also sometimes referred to in the English-speaking world as The Gulf, in the Southwest Asian region, is an extension of the Gulf of Oman located between Iran (Persia) and the Arabian Peninsula.

"

What you are going to say? It is better if someone would like to improve this intro to consider WP rules of providing refs and building informative article. Otherwise, it is waste of our time and energy. All the best, Ralhazzaa 14:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I said this above, but I'll repost here: Actually, Ralhazza's links are from political websites: Arabistan.org/Alahwaz.com - If you go to the main page of Arabistan.org, it's all in Arabic. Also, in the Persian language, the ي in خليج عربي doesn't have the dot under it (the actual name for the dot escapes me now). The main page also proves that it's a political website as does the name of the website: Arabistan is the old name of Khuzestan province of Iran and not used or widely known in Iran. The opinions of these people on the above mentioned websites are valid, but that doesn't mean that they're the opinion of the majority of Iranian Arabs. As Ahwaz has mentioned before, some Arabs in Iran call the Persian Gulf as the Arabian Gulf. The people who run this website are some of these Arabs in Iran. They are making a political statement by using the term Arabian Gulf. That's not what is being debated here, and hence the name خليج عربي should not be in the lead because it's not the official name in Persian. --Persan en Japon 15:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)--

You are right, Persan en Japon. Some of these websites are for Iranian political parties representing hundreds of thousands of Iranians. Arabistan is really the Iranian official old name (in Farsi) for the recent Khuzestan province of Iran as you said, they (Arabistan.org) adapted this name because they are Iranian citizens...simply. We can notice also how they are multilingual (Farsi, English & Arabic...etc.) as they want to deliver and extend their own "message". But we shouldn't forget that they are Iranians! Also, I don't really know how far reports and documents for such political organizations (they are member in the UNPO) is not accepted in WP. All other "claimed" names in Arabic like الخليج الفارسي brought so far by the other POV contributers (but without any sensible resource) are claimed to be used by politicians as well. But still those contributers insist to include such claimed political names -without resources- in the leading. However, you may note that I wanted to include a footnote saying it is less used (supported with refs). I also considered the spelling you indicated in my proposal. Thanks for your comment Persan.. I appreciate your open-minded way of discussion. Ralhazzaa 16:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

While viewing this proposal by User:Ralhazzaa with Misplaced Pages:Assume_good_faith in mind, as User:AlexanderPar points out above, this certainly looks like a case of WP:POINT. I sincerely hope that this is not an attempt to Misplaced Pages:Troll which would be a very sad occurrence here because it seems that almost all participants are following Misplaced Pages:Wiki_spirit. Let’s keep this constructive as it seemed we were making some progress to come up with a consensus that involves compromise. Most respectfully ObserverToSee 16:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be courteous to consider Ralhazzaa's proposal seriously and discuss it constructively. I don't see any evidence of trolling. In fact, I think he's attempt to include all opinions on what to include in the lead, as well as his own.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 17:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I also think Ralhazza explained himself well in his previous response and I don't think he was trying to TROLL here. He has his point of view and it's a valid one as long as he supports it with facts. How about we start again with the previous proposal from Ahwaz since his proposal addressed a lot of the issues raised here from both sides of the debate? It can be a starting point with discussion on what needs to be changed/added/removed? --Persan en Japon 17:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The '''Persian Gulf''' (Persian: خليج فارس - Khalīj-e Fārs; in Modern Arabic: الخليج الفارسي أو الخليج العربي‎ al-Khalīj al-
Arabi(Arabian Gulf) or al-Khalīj al-Fārisī (Persian Gulf)), also sometimes referred to in the English-speaking 
world as ''The Gulf'', in the Southwest Asian region, is an extension of the Gulf of Oman located between Iran (Persia) 
and the Arabian Peninsula.   
  The term al-Khalīj al-Arabi (Arabian Gulf) was popularised by pan-Arabist leaders from the 1960s and is the   
 official name in some Arabs states in the region, but is not the internationally recognised name for the waterbody and   
 remains highly controversial. See: ]

How about this:

The Persian Gulf (Persian: خليج فارس - Khalīj-e Fārs; in Modern Arabic: الخليج الفارسي أو الخليج العربي‎ al-Khalīj al- Arabi or al-Khalīj al-Fārsī )) in the Southwest Asian region, is an extension of the Gulf of Oman located between Iran (Persia) and the Arabian Peninsula.

The term al-Khalīj al-Arabi with literal translation from Arabic into English of Arabian Gulf was popularized by pan-Arabist leaders from the 1960s and is the official name in some Arabs states in the region. It is not the internationally recognized name for this body of water and remains highly controversial. See: Persian Gulf naming dispute

The term al-Khalīj al-Fārsī is the literal translation of Persian Gulf from English into Arabic. This name is not used in Arab States where the name al-Khalīj al-Arabi is used instead.

I'm not sure if this conforms fully to WP formatting standards but hope this can move us further toward consensus as I believe there is compromise from all sides included in this. Regards ObserverToSee 18:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I would support the above proposal if we can try to make it more smooth and clear.

1. Why we should include the footnote 1 for something will be explained later in more details? It is more worrying and unfriendly to point in the intro that THIS NAME HAVE BEEN POPULARIZED BY PAN-ARABIST... and it is not good language anyway. We shouldn't forget that it is the only official name in all Arab countries. Challenging this official and common name within the lead of the article is not good and will generate more negative anticipations. So, this footnote better to be removed.
2. The other "modern" name in Arabic (i.e. الخليج الفارسي) is never used or not common in the Arab world -as the footnote itself says-, neither supported by references nor official in ANY of the Arabic speaking countries. Writing it here in this form is meaningless and more misleading and interpolated (sorry to use this word) rather than informative. It should be removed, IMO.
3. Should that other name in Arabic be adapted, I'll ask also to adapt the other name in Farsi, خليج عربى, as it is more sourced here and used by hundreds of thousands of Iranian citizens. Same standard.. same sense!

What I provided here is simple and clear logic. My previous proposal was everything but Trolling or WP:POINT as the major rules of editing here (in WP) is to provide descriptive information supported with facts and of good weight. What some users couldn't see in my last proposal is the same things they are insisting to include, but on the opposit side. However, I'm still optimistic to reach a compromise by taking my points above seriously in consideration. Ralhazzaa 18:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Forgive me, but which part of your response reflects compromise from your proposal? I'm not seeing any movement on any issues. I have, however, seen compromise coming from Ahwaz and Persan en Japon. In fact, has heavy copying from Ahwaz and Persan en Japon's version. was an attempt to respond to some of your points about the name al-Khalīj al-Fārsī not being used by many. To add a new name in Persian at this stage just causes more debate and rejection. For us to resolve these issues and have a consensus, we should all make compromises and move from our hard positions in good faith. Regards ObserverToSee 19:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you raised the issue of putting the English translations in footnotes before. Is there any reason why they should be in footnotes and not in the lead? Perhaps these sentences could be used after the first sentence instead of putting them in footnotes.

It seems that Ralhazza agrees with your proposal in principle, although he has reservations about wording. Let's start with what we can all agree on rather than what we disagree with.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 10:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to clarify this slight detour about the term خليج عربي in Persian. I explained earlier a bit about why this term cannot be used here as an argument, but wish to clarify further. The sources for the term خليج عربي cannot be used here because they are:

1. 1. Not reliable sources as described by Misplaced Pages since they are not "credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." They are political websites and thus cannot be regarded as "trustworthy" or "authoritative in relation to the subject at hand" (more on this in the last paragraph).
   2. The sources also lack a "neutral point of view" as stipulated by Misplaced Pages . They have three combined biases: Ethnic, national and political.

Furthermore, by combining those two websites' views, there has been a synthesis of published materials serving to advance a position. Misplaced Pages states that "that precise analysis must have been published by a reliable source in relation to the topic before it can be published in Misplaced Pages." The above two sources have already been proven not to be "reliable" as their primary purpose is to advance a political agenda. They have also never published anything discussing the background to the use of the term خليج عربي in Persian. Thus, the sources are not acceptable since they have never published this argument in relation to the topic of the article. I'm not attacking the ideas put forth by the sources - They have a legitimate agenda, but for our purpuses, they are not usuable sources. I hope this clarifies matters and we can continue with the compromise.--Persan en Japon 00:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Does these rules and basics in WP shown above by Persan en Japon could be also extended to the term الخليج الفارسي in Arabic? As we all know, it is not used term, no resources supporting this, not official and has been inserted here for political purpose (IMO). Why we consider inserting alternative name in Farsi is not accepted while using another Arabic one is easy-going thing? With good-faith, I would say: you are considering Arabs are quite peaceful.. but not naive! (on the contrary.. with Bad-faith, I will say it is dishonoring!). I would like here to show tell that I'm not opposing to show the name الخليج الفارسي as classical one among all classical names in Arabic. But it is not modern used name, thus it would be better to remove it from there. Briefly, my amendments would make the lead like this:

• The Persian Gulf (Persian: خليج فارس Khalīj-e Fārs (Gulf of Persia); in Arabic: الخليج العربي‎ al-Khalīj al-Arabi (Arabian Gulf)) in the Southwest Asian region, is an extension of the Gulf of Oman located between Iran (Persia) and the Arabian Peninsula.

do you think this text is simple and neutral enough? We still have many sections to describe etymology and hostorical background later and we can extend it widely and tell all what anyone/everyone wants. All the best, Ralhazzaa 04:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

That has been your desired outcome from day one. But you're simply not going to get your way, especially by WP:pointing and being greedy. A compromise means you give up some of your demands - it does not mean that you get your way. The only acceptable solution was the original compromise that most Arab and Iranian users agreed to, everything else should be built upon that proposal.AlexanderPar 05:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

It is strongly rejected and denyed to insert arabian gulf as of second name, because arabian gulf does not exist and it is created because of pan arabism and political games. Just PERSIAN GULFPejman.azadi 04:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Ralhazza, if some Persian website calls it Khalij-e-Americai, that does not make it a valid name in Persian. You've cited two Arab authors from fringe London-based separatist groups who do not represent anyone in Iran, specially non-Arabs. Your proposal is yet another attempt at WP:Point, but you're not doing a good job of it, as Ali Doostzadeh cited examples of Arab politicians who have been voted to office by millions in their home countries, as well as a calendar published in Bahrain and other examples from inside Arab countries using the term Persian Gulf, while you're citing the Persian section of some fringe London-based political group' website.AlexanderPar 04:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

To AlexanderPar, Would you please stop using your "kind warnings" and projecting WP policies toward me as I can consider it harassing and not constructive. It is also better not to use words like: "you're simply not going to get your way" as it is not so friendly, dear! What you had refused as a source were adapted by big community and organizations representing hundreds of thousands of Iranian citizens. How come u can be able to say they represnt no one while they are in the UNPO? Is it because you didn't like to read those articles writtin in Farsi? Do you own the Farsi language or it is the officially used for all Iraninas? If you want to deny Arabs of Iran as citizens and part of the state, then we have a problem with you, and you will not be able to use the same standard to bring up sources from the Arab world made by Iraninas settled in Arab countries, right? Duoble standards doesn't work here. It is better to stay cool and try to approach a NPOV rather than falsifying others or denying their mandate. Re-read my last note with cool-head and try to give useful feedback. Ralhazzaa 05:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Alexander: If we exclude all sources on Iran that are not based in Iran, the US-based Encyclopaedia Iranica would be the first to go! Being based in London or Washington doesn't make any group unverifiable - in fact, they are beyond the reach of Iranian censors.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 10:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Fringe groups are fringe groups, regardless of location. You can't compare SCIRI, the largest political party in Iraq with a popular democratic mandate, with one-man show separatist parties based in London. This discussion is pointless, as none of the links provided by Ralhazzaa meet WP:RS requirements anyways. AlexanderPar 11:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Why do you think they are fringe groups or "one-man shows"? Do you have any proof of this or the idea that they are based in London? Also, one passing remark by one SCIRI politician, who has spent most of his life in Iran and is an Iranian citizen, does not represent the opinion of all Iraqis. SCIRI was once a fringe extremist group based in Tehran, remember?--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 11:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

They're fringe groups because they have no popular mandate to represent anyone, SCIRI has won the democratic elections in Iraq, so it does have a popular mandate, and elected SCIRI politicians do speak on behalf of Iraqi people, and they do use the term Persian Gulf. The term is also used in Bahrain and other Arab countries, but "Arabian Gulf" is not used in Iran. The name "Arabian Gulf" has zero precedence in Farsi and couple of fringe separatist websites (two authors) using it makes no difference as I can find a couple of authors calling this body of water "American Gulf" in Farsi, but that would not make "American Gulf" a valid name in Farsi. Plus, there is no proof that those authors represent anyone as they have not been elected. Whereas for the regular usage of Persian Gulf in Arabic, Ali Doustzadeh has already established on this discussion page that: 1) Some elected Arab officials use the name. 2) Arabs, when writing history, must use the name, since they are quoting history books. 2) In the Arab countries, this body of water had always been called Persian Gulf up to the 1970s. AlexanderPar 12:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Iraqis do not use the term Persian Gulf, even if a couple of politicians do. Also, no Ahwazi Arab group is permitted to exist in Iran let alone contest elections, so it is irrelevant whether they are elected. No Arab country uses the Farsi name for the Gulf. Apart from a calender you say exists in Bahrain and one comment by an Iranian citizen elected to the Iraqi parliament, there is no evidence to support this POV.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 13:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Have you surveyed every person in Iraq and had every single one of them say "I do not use the term Persian Gulf"? You really should stop speaking on behalf of 27 million Iraqis, that's the job of their elected representatives who do use the term Persian Gulf. Even Iraq's president uses the term Persian Gulf. So the evidence is overwhelming, but you refuse to acknowledge it. AlexanderPar 14:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Have you surveyed every person in Iraq - of course not, neither have you. their elected representatives who do use the term Persian Gulf - one politician said it once and it's not surprising he said it as he is an Iranian citizen. I doubt those who elected him did so on the basis that he once used the Iranian name for the Arabian Gulf. the evidence is overwhelming - not really. The evidence is overwhelming that Gulf Arabs, including Ahwazi Arabs living in Iran, use Arabian Gulf.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 19:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Is the Iraqi president an "Iranian citizen" too? Have you been reviewing the Iraqi politicians' citizenship papers? An elected politician has popular mandate, something that you and the fringe "Al-Ahwazi" groups lack. The evidence is overwhelming that Persian Gulf is used in Arabic on regular basis, your refusal to accept this fact does not negate the fact. AlexanderPar 20:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Um, well, the President of Iraq is not an Arab. As this is about the common name used by Arabs, Talabani's opinion is neither here nor there. But I've never seen evidence that he uses the Iranian name for the Gulf. Do you have a source? The idea that "Persian Gulf is used in Arabic on regular basis" other than on Al-Alam TV (which has an audience of two or three Arabs) is wrong. As for a popular mandate, Ahwazis who express themselves tend to end up looking like this or this . Given there are no free or fair elections in Iran, I don't think you can say that any party is more or less representative than another.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 22:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

You mean the "Ahwazis" who express themselves like this? Anyone can see that these fringe "Al-Ahwazi" groups, headed by Sunni Baathists, do ot represent Iranian Arabs the vast majority of whom are Shia. You keep out-doing your self Ahwaz. Al-Alam TV "has an audience of two or three Arabs" now? Last time I checked, Al-Alam TV had one of the largest audiences in the Arab world. Talabani is the president of Iraq, an Arab country, and if you watch any of his interviews you'd see that he always uses the term Persian Gulf, like millions of other Iraqis.AlexanderPar 23:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Have you been to Al-Ahwaz? Have you surveyed everyone in Al-Ahwaz? You keep coming up with claims about London-based Sunni Ba'athists, which tick all the boxes of "Iran's enemies". In fact, the groups Ralhazza cites are not in London and they are not Sunni or even Ba'athist. It's a case of Iranian mythology spun by the current paranoid regime. But this is a tangent you've shot off on. Let's deal with your other accusation, that Talabani always says Persian Gulf. Please say when he has said it and also quote some of these "millions of Iraqis" - not the Iranian politicians installed in the Iraqi government, but real Iraqi Arabs.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 23:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I know many people from Ahvaz, they all regard these fringe "Al-Ahwazi" groups as a Sunni Baathist phenomenon with no real connection to their community. There are no "real" or "fake" Iraqis, Iraqis are Iraqis, the era of Saddam and his racist regime is over. Most Iraqi Kurds, and many Iraqi Shias use the term Persian Gulf. Weather or not you derogatorily call them "Iranian politicians installed in the Iraqi government" is irrelevant, they're Iraqis democratically elected by other Iraqis.AlexanderPar 00:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

You must know the former Misplaced Pages editor SouthernComfort very well then; he was a Persian who claimed to live in Al-Ahwaz. He was banned from writing on Iran-related articles for edit warring and POV pushing . Indeed, you have been compared to him .--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 00:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Never heard of him. What is his real name? I know many people from Ahvaz in real life, but I am neither from Ahvaz nor have ever been there. AlexanderPar 00:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

You must be pretty angry that you have been accused of being a sockpuppet of a banned used, although you are silent on these accusations levelled at you. Never mind. Perhaps you could show some of this restraint on this talk page. Of course, I know lots of Ahwazi Arabs and none share your opinions. But this is all subjective and anecdotal and probably won't get us anywhere. So, let's stop the inferences that I am a Ba'athist and all that nonsense and reach a consensus.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 01:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me? I was neither "silent" nor "angry", lot of people say a lot of things, I am not going to get worked up over it. I am only interested in helping build this encyclopedia, and I won't show "restraint" when I see ideologues exhausting the community's patience, and preventing a compromise from being reached.AlexanderPar 01:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Interesting discussion! Even though this particular part doesn't have much to do with the topic at hand about the Persian Gulf, I for one was not aware that there is such opposition and resistance movement in Ahvas by Arab Iranians! I know this is naive, but in this day and age, becoming united should be the objective, not to separate. Sorry, I'll get back to the relevant subject at hand...

Due to several obvious documents my proposal goes to the PERSIAN GULF and another name is srtongly ignored so be calm and learn that pan arabism does not work here, go and save your rights in palestine not here in Persian Gulf article!!!Pejman.azadi 06:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Some people think that they can insert another false name as second name for the Persian Gulf's name but actually it is very clear that they are supported by some politics groups and playing their rules very well, please be adviced that DON NOT try to change the facts because PERSIAN GULF WILL BE REMAINED PERSIAN GULF FOREVER and please say your have with documentary papers and approved documents why you want to force wrong information here???? is it your duty????? I am so sorry for you but the educated people stop you and it is due to lake of your information about histiry and laws. Pejman.azadi 06:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we should debate the validity of the groups that Ralhazza cited - They are a group that exist for whatever reason. I mentioned before that they should not be used as sources because they're political groups and thus biased. I don't think that can be debated. In that regard the rules I mentioned earlier can be extended to the term الخليج الفارسي in Arabic. I doubt many Arabic people use the term, and unless I'm proven otherwise, I'll have to agree with Ralhazza and Ahwaz on this matter. Can someone prove them wrong? --Persan en Japon 12:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

They've already been proven wrong, check my last comment. There is enough usage in Arabic for الخليج الفارسي, that the name is included in the title of the Arabic Misplaced Pages article on this body of water الخليج العربي/الخليج الفارسي. AlexanderPar 13:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Aha, so if Arabic Misplaced Pages is the measure of what we do here, then the Arabic name and English translation should be clearly stated in the lead paragraph, as I originally proposed. Perhaps the article should also be renamed Persian Gulf (Arabian Gulf)--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 13:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Don’t act coy or WP:TROLL. Arabic Misplaced Pages is not the measure of what we do in English Misplaced Pages, however the title of their article is proof of regular usage of Persian Gulf in Arabic language which obviously exists - and I have proven it. AlexanderPar 14:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

How am I trolling? Let's be consistent here and call it Persian Gulf (Arabian Gulf), which is the title you advocate for the Shatt al-Arab (Arvand Rud). But if Arabic Misplaced Pages is not a measure of what we do in English Misplaced Pages, why bring it up?--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 19:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Because it proves that Persian Gulf has popular usage in Arabic.AlexanderPar 20:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

To AlexanderPar: This is the second request to cool down and stop warning others by using WP rules as it is your sword!! You are the one who is making it a soapbox discussion by insisting to interpolate a non-used, unofficial, uncommon name of political background and dictate Arab users to adpat your unqualified insertions. Since when you are considering Ar-WP your resource???? This is quite naive! You know exactly how some users start to vandalize that article in Arabic and terrify Ar-WP editors. If you can't bring any resource to support your claims, then an Admin will see how fuzzy the discussion is going with other users here and determine how to settle it down. Bring your resources -if any- here and let's finish it. But before bringing anything spend few minutes here. Show us any of your alleged resources that use the name الخليج الفارسي in Arabic now in Arabian country as official name! All what did you brought has not been shown so far.. just bubbles.. how the reader can beleive us if we tell him: someone in the Arab world is using it!! where is your resource?? show me links.. documents.. references that WP accept.. otherwise stop discussing your dead points. Finally, remember that the resources I brought is accepted by WP rules of citing refs as it has been made by many native Iranians representing hundreds of thousands of Iranian citizens and have internationally recognized character as organization. It is not like your claimed resource that the SIIC is saying so... show me any.. any resource or publication they have saying so.. Finally, remember that the official name for this sea in Iraq is الخليج العربي and most of Alhakeem's family members are Iranian citizens. Ralhazzaa 14:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't lecture me, I know the rules better than you do. You've exhausted the community's patience to the point where a compromise seems impossible here. It's been proven beyond any doubt that الخليج الفارسي has regular usage in Arabic language. but you simply refuse to acknowledge this fact. But since you asked, here are several sources in Arabic using Persian Gulf. AlexanderPar 15:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The name "Arabian Gulf" does not exist in English. Granted to clarify that الخليج العربي‎ al-Khalīj al-Arabi which is used by most (not all) Arabs in modern day translates into “Arabian Gulf” in English. The only reason to include it anywhere in the article is to address your point that لخليج العربي‎ al-Khalīj al-Arabi is not a translation of "Persian Gulf", this is a compromise! The Arabic Misplaced Pages, on the other hand is in Arabic so the use of the name لخليج العربي‎ is not inconsistent with the language and the use of the name by most Arabs. The Arabic Misplaced Pages correctly and justifiably includes الخليج الفارسي al-Khalīj al-Fārsī because it is being used by Arabs as well. Was I mistaken to think that we seemed to be on our way to compromise to have consensus to resolve this on Misplaced Pages? It looks like every time we try to take one step forward, the Arabic POV takes 2-3 steps back! How is this considered compromise in good faith? ObserverToSee 14:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Well.. if you do small google search for "Arabian Gulf", you will find 1,030,000 hit for this in English! That's why it should be included as a true translation for that sea.. something like the English Channel that is called Le Manch in French.. not Canal Anglaise! Regarding Ar-WP, it is not your resource before.. how come it is your resource now? Is there any thing about self-citing in WP articles? Of course not! Moreover, try to read the article in Ar-WP and you will see how it says الخليج الفارسي term is one of the extinct names and not used in Arabic and it is only used by Iranian Arabic-speaking media! It looks the Iranian POV that lead it to dead-end always whenever it approachs a compromise using simple logic. Bring on your resources (read rules first) and don't waste our time and energy. Ralhazzaa 15:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Arabic Misplaced Pages also uses Arabian Gulf in the title. Either Arabic Misplaced Pages is a measure of what we do here or it is not. If not, then don't bring it up.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 19:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I did the same search as Ralhazzaa, and got the same number. I then did an advance search and had the words Persian (to remove Iranian pages that challend the name Arabian Gulf) and Rugby (the name of the Arabian Gulf Rugby team) removed from the search and I got 863,000 - Still a big number. I then clicked on two random links on different pages, and then did that again to get a total random selection! I found that they all relate in some way to Arab countries in the Gulf: Companies that do business there, scientist that teach at Arabian universities or tour groups with tours to Dubai. I'm not saying that the term "Arabian Gulf" isn't used in English! The term Arabian Gulf is used, but only because Arab countries in the Gulf prefer the term, so foreigners use the term out of courtesy (or they are forced to do so as in the case of the UAE, where the term Persian Gulf is banned). If for example however, you go to Lufthansa.com, you'll see the terms Persian Gulf and or Arabian Gulf used interchangeably depending on which Gulf country's profile you read. What I'm trying to say is that the reason the term "Arabian Gulf" is being used more in English is because the importance of Arab nations is rising. -- Persan en Japon 15:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

"Don't waste our time and energy"? This doesn't appear to be a constructive and cool headed statement in a discussion about compromise. I still don't see any points from your very original stance that you have compromised from! On another topic, it's worth checking and realizing the difference between adapt and adopt for you Ralhazza :-). Regards ObserverToSee 15:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I think الخليج العربي/الخليج الفارسي article in Arabic has the الخليج الفارسي because older generation of Arabs called it that and they still might do (if they're alive!). Furthermore, الخليج الفارسي is the Arabic translation of the name that is used internationally so it makes sense to have it in the header. -- Persan en Japon 15:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Dear Persan en Japon, I would like to turn your attention that "الخليج الفارسي" is not the true translation for "Persian Gulf" from English to Arabic. You may see documents from the UN, UNESCO, trans. by BBC, trans. by Reuters... Ralhazzaa 15:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

NO! NO! I agree with you on that fact Ralhazzaa. I meant to say that the term الخليج الفارسي is the Arabic translation of the term Persian Gulf which is used more internationally. --Persan en Japon 15:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

O! I see.. but isn't this a transliteration and more like a machine-translation. Somthing like: Canal Anglais in French for the English Channel? If this is the way, then Basra Körfezi should also be changed to Farsi Körfezi in Turkish or what? Should we transliterate the English term in Arabic letters? why? what is the meaning of doing so? Should we also transliterate the Arabic name الخليج العربي into Farsi? Ralhazzaa 16:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't الخليج الفارسي = Persian Gulf in the Arabic language? That's all I meant to say! I didn't mean to say that it should be used in Arabic since the Gulf already has a name which is used predominantly in Arabic: The Arabian Gulf. --Persan en Japon 16:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

NO! NO! الخليج الفارسي is the true translation for Persian Gulf from English to Arabic, check these documents from UN, trans. by BBC, trans. by Reuters... Wow, my google skills are a bit sharper than I imagined. AlexanderPar 16:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Come on man! You know clearly what did you brought.. for the 1st one, scroll down and you will find: ليست وثيقة رسمية من وثائق الامم المتحدة means: not official document in the UN. Others were reporting either from Iran or for Iranian official... if those reporters are not saying Persian Gulf (in any language) they will be kicked out of the country!!! right? It is banned , , and not considered within diplomatic manners neither by a Minister or a President. Do you want to discuss if this name is adapted by Arabic-speaking people in such standards? Then what about the name خليج عربى used by hundreds of thousands of Iranians that has been already shown with refs? I'm using the same standard of yours! How sharp are the facts.. how sharp are Misplaced Pages's rules? more than your google? Cool down and don't dictate geographical names in other's languages. Ralhazzaa 17:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Even a contributor in this discussion with pretty much the same point of view as yours has shown you with reference to WP rules that what you have referenced is not admissible here! Why do you ignore Persan en Japon as well? From your lack of response to my repeated questions about what you are compromising with, it's becoming clear that you do not intend to compromise. Let me know if this is incorrect and what you are compromising with from your original stance. If nothing, then what's the point of these discussions as far as you are concerned Ralhazzaa? ObserverToSee 19:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

It's already been referenced that الخليج الفارسي is being used by Arabs in Arabic. You just choose to ignore all the references Ralhazzaa. I'm still looking and trying to find anything that you Ralhazzaa are showing a compromise with. Is there anything? ObserverToSee 16:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Of course it is incorrect what you are expecting. I want to reach a compromise that gives every part his right to provide himslef, his culture, his real, common and official terms and not to be dictated by others. As per notes of Persan en Japon, I think Ahwaz gave a response for it.. it is not a personal discussion to response to everyone separately here! Also, you may notice that Persan didn't falsified the refs at all.. he tried to say it is not giving biased or reliable idea.. but that was his own analysis.. if we are going to consider his analysis, then all of your resources (that still not shown) will collapse down.. all waht you (not u in person I mean) claimed was of political background, says by politicians, says by minority ethnic groups.. etc that has been all applied to refs I brought but freezed down to what you are trying to bring. If your brought refs will be the same, then you are giving me the same right of rising up my refs whatever u like it or not. Do you remember that the footnote of that term الخليج الفارسي was saying it is not used? Why u was supporting it by then? If we will keep that term with the footnote: not used, what will be the the logic of saying it? Ralhazzaa 19:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I urge you to read and absorb what is in the spirit of a compromise. You need to give and take. I'm not seeing any points from your original stance that you are moving away from and compromising with. Regarding your reference to my compromised from above, that's a fairly reasonable example of a compromise. It actually says " The term al-Khalīj al-Fārsī is the literal translation of Persian Gulf from English into Arabic. This name is not used in Arab States where the name al-Khalīj al-Arabi is used instead". It does't say not used entirely. You've commended others for being open minded in several posts in here when they've agreed with your point of view. I believe it's still possible for you to be open minded with regard to some others' point of view and when it comes to compromising. Otherwise, we'll all be turning our wheels without coming up with a consensus which will make it very likely for another edit war and another extended period of article lock. Here's to being open minded and discussing in good faith. Regards ObserverToSee 20:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Good observations ObserverToSee. Ralhazzaa is obviously not interested in a compromise, he's exhausted the community's patience to a point that a compromise seems impossible, and many editors have given up. At this point, the best option for everyone is to forget about Ralhazzaa and work on a compromise that will suit both sides, and is acceptable to most editors here. Should Ralhazzaa choose to act against consensus once there is a consensus among editors, he can be addressed through appropriate channels. So my advise to you all: proceed with consensus building and stop replying to Ralhazzaa. AlexanderPar 20:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that is probably the worst advice you could give, particularly as Ralhazza appeared to agree in part with ObserverToSee's proposal which means he has gone further than out friend Pejman.azadi. I agree that there has to be a compromise and this has to include all opinions, while sticking to Misplaced Pages rules. That way, we get something that is likely to remain in place and ends this debate. --الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 20:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Ralhazza has "agreed in part" to almost all the proposals here. But at the end of the day, he's not willing to compromise an iota from his original stand, as evident by his latest counter proposal to ObserverToSee. The community's patience has worn thin, it's time to move on, and proceed with consensus building with or without Ralhazzaa, Pejman.azadi or anyone else who doesn't understand what compromise means. AlexanderPar 20:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Gentlemen, name-calling causes people to put-up their defenses and prevents compromise. I could call people on both sides of the debate names, but I don't since it doesn't help solve this problem! --Persan en Japon 23:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to build Consensus with Compromise

In any debate and controversial topic, all sides have to give and take. In re-submitting the proposal below, I believe all sides have given and taken and a compromise is presented. This is derived from the most recent attempt at consensus which currently appears in this locked article. One point of view believes that any appearance of Arabian Gulf as well as الخليج العربي‎ al-Khalīj al-Arabi is not acceptable (this includes me :-)). Another point of view believes that الخليج الفارسي al-Khalīj al-Fārsī should not appear. I believe this proposal has given and taken from both sides. All terms are included with relevant footnotes and decription to address concerns by all involved. It shows Arabian Gulf not far from the lead and it explains that most Arab states do not use al-Khalīj al-Fārsī. It builds on the previous apparent consensus which is being debated now.

Proposal resubmission:

The Persian Gulf (Persian: خليج فارس - Khalīj-e Fārs; in Modern Arabic: الخليج الفارسي أو الخليج العربي‎ al-Khalīj al- Arabi or al-Khalīj al-Fārsī )) in the Southwest Asian region, is an extension of the Gulf of Oman located between Iran (Persia) and the Arabian Peninsula.

The term al-Khalīj al-Arabi with literal translation from Arabic into English of Arabian Gulf was popularized by pan-Arabist leaders from the 1960s and is the official name in some Arab states in the region. It is not the internationally recognized name for this body of water and remains highly controversial. See: Persian Gulf naming dispute

The term al-Khalīj al-Fārsī is the literal translation of Persian Gulf from English into Arabic. This name is not used in Arab States where the name al-Khalīj al-Arabi is used instead.

With sincere hopes that we can resolve the issues and reach a consensus in this debate. ObserverToSee 21:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe you answered my question on this proposal, or perhaps your answer got lost amid Pejman's "essays". It's a good step towards consensus. But why do you find it necessary to footnote what you have written? Could these sentences not come in the lead, after the first sentence?--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 22:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I thought I answered it in my prefix paragraph to the proposal. I didn't explain my thoughts clearly enough. The reason for having that in is that there were strong rejections of having "Arabian Gulf" in the lead itself. Your primary concern was that it's not clear that al-Khalīj al-Arabi is not a translation of Persian Gulf. So I'm hoping that each side gets their point of view addressed. Those who object to having Arabian Gulf in the lead don't see it right there and those who want to see Arabian Gulf there see it a close away. It also addresses the issue brought up from Ali.Doostzadeh about having a footnote reference the controversy if al-Khalīj al-Arabi is referenced. attempts to address the issue with having al-Khalīj al-Fārsī there. I hope this makes sense. Regards ObserverToSee 23:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Plus, this is English Misplaced Pages, the title is suppose to be translated into the main foreign languages, not the other way around. The lead is already cluttered with too much of information as it is, anyone wishing to see the translation into English can read on the footnotes.AlexanderPar 23:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, a step in the right direction! I wish to see what Ralhazzaa thinks about this. And by the way, where is Ali.Doostzadeh? I haven't seen him here for a while now! --Persan en Japon 23:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to take a two-day break from this talk page as it has consumed my life a bit too much! I tried to bring a neutral point of view - I supported both sides when I just reviewed the facts and didn't let my own emotions cloud my judgement. I think people need to start doing the same in order to build consensus. Here are some things to consider:

1. To those who support the term Persian Gulf: Why can't Arabs call the Gulf, the Arabian Gulf in their own language? Many nations have different names for geographical points, so why can't Arabs use what they wish? Ralhazzaa gave the good example of the English Channel/La Manche/Het Kannal (English/French/Dutch) which has no naming dispute. As another example, Arabs call the Caspian Sea as the بحر قزوين (Sea of Qazvin) - Why not try to have them change that? Or why not have the world change the name Caspian Sea to the Persian equivalents دریای خَزَر یا دریای مازندران (Sea of Khazar/Sea of Mazandaran)? Or why not have the Turks change their name for the Gulf from Basra Korfezi to Farsca Korfezi? Why do some consider the term الخليج العربي‎ as fake, even though it's in Arabic?
2. To those who support the term Arabian Gulf: The same as above, but in another light - Using the same example as the English Channel mentioned above, why can't Arabs not dispute the term Persian Gulf as name of that body of water in all other languages but Arabic (and Turkish)? Why not use the term Arabian Gulf in Arabic, but switch over to the Persian Gulf when speaking/writing in English? The Turks switch over to the Persian Gulf for Basra Korfezi when writing in English , and the French switch to the English Channel for La Manche when writing in English . Why can't Arabs do the same for the Persian Gulf?

I hope these ideas clear your mind and let you think beyond your own prejudices/opinions. See you in a couple of days! --Persan en Japon 00:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I would like to say that personalizing the discussion is the most killing way for a discussion. How can a user ask others to ignor other POV because he didn't like it? This is a clear evidence that AlexanderPar et al. refuse, in his/their deep mind, to reach a compromise.

What I saw here proposed by ObserverToSee is a clear step backward jumping over all what has been requested by other POV side. This recessive proposal still include footnotes 1 that is generating negative anticipation about this name (like: don't beleive it.. it is fabricated!) and clear dishonoring for Arabs by indicating the Pan-Arabism as a ghost who cannibalized the facts!! Footnote 2 is saying directly that this term is not used, then what is the logic behind indicating it? No one so far (for special AlexanderPar and ObserverToSee) didn't show clear response for these two footnotes, even when Ahwaz asked for it. It looks that you want to jump over WP rules of editing and citing resources. How can you provide a name if it is not resourced? What is the meaning of providing a transliteration from English to Arabic in the En-WP? Does this "logic" could be extended to provide another name in Farsi, خليج عربى, along with refs as WP rules requires? Compromise needs to give and take, not to dictate your POV and inserting text without any real value in life (like what footnote 2 says). Why no one of you understand the nice commnet provided by Persan en Japon and digest it instead of trying to do personal attack against me if I provided facts and refs and comments that you didn't like? It is clear that you don't want to give out some of your believes to reach a compromise and still insist to insert something without any value or refs. Your words are clear and direct evidence of violating Guides of Talk Pages and Civility in WP.. could also be a Harrasment. But as we are here to reach a compromise, I'm not going to report your offensive words and behavior.. it is better to show the white side of your heart here. Only what I can say that your recessive proposal is clear step backward and not providing any changes. What we should reach is One name is Farsi; خليج فارس, one name in Arabic; الخليج العربي. Etymology section is wide enough to throw your theories there, later. Ralhazzaa 10:13, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Against my better judgment, I'll ask again; Ralhazzaa, what have you compromised with here with what you wish to reach? I don't see any from your very original position! The proposal I resubmitted is the exact same submission as before with copying from Ahwaz and Persan's versions. How can it be a step backward? ObserverToSee 13:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

What is proposed up is full of unresourced, unqualified and misedited info. What Ahwaz asked is shown above (namely: "why do you find it necessary to footnote what you have written?") but you are still insisting to ignor what the other POV editors are asking for. You didn't support your claimed name with refs, refused to use the same standard with the Farsi name خليج عربى, insist to insert two meaningless footnotes. What AlexanderPar and you said before is refelting how far you are in your depths from reaching a compromise as long as you are closing your eyes and ears and insist to use double standards of inserting names. If you are serious show me your feedback for these proposals, pick one!

1. The Persian Gulf (Persian: خليج فارس Khalīj-e Fārs (Gulf of Persia); in Arabic: الخليج العربي‎ al-Khalīj al-Arabi (Arabian Gulf)) in the Southwest Asian region, is an extension of the Gulf of Oman located between Iran (Persia) and the Arabian Peninsula. Or... 2. The Persian Gulf (Persian: خليج فارس Khalīj-e Fārs (Gulf of Persia) or خليج عربى Khalīj arabi (Arabian Gulf); in Arabic: الخليج العربي‎ al-Khalīj al-Arabi (Arabian Gulf) or الخليج الفارسي al-Khalīj al-Fārsī (Persian Gulf)) in the Southwest Asian region, is an extension of the Gulf of Oman located between Iran (Persia) and the Arabian Peninsula.

It reflects two styles of presenting the names, equal -but not mergeable- for both sides in each POV. In No. 2, although there are no refs for the term الخليج الفارسي in Arabic, but I include it trying to reach a compromise, while the other Farsi name (with refs) will be included as well... it is a give and take.. right? However, my personal choise is No. 1 to be more simple. Show to everyone how it is your real wish is to reach a compromise... not to dictate political, uncommon, unused, unresourced names instead. Show us that you want to reach NPOV but not pushing toward adapting your POV by "ignoring" other users! Ralhazzaa 14:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe ObserverToSee has made a genuine attempt to reach a compromise on which a consensus can be built. I am unsure about footnoting the material though, but have not yet made up my mind.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 14:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I think ObserverToSee's proposal is probably the best compromise we can reach as it encompasses all points of view, without excluding any. Footnotes are better than nothing.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 20:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

It looks like we've finally made some real progress. I can sense that you are not very happy about it and to be honest neither am I. Both of us have given something up and although not totally happy, have accepted it and seem to be able to live with it. A true compromise in good faith to reach a consensus. I hope others can accept and compromise the same. Congratulations! ObserverToSee 20:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

The important thing is to ensure that the proposal is in keeping with Misplaced Pages rules and NPOV. This is the best possible solution in the circumstances and I hope that it can be agreed upon because the alternative route - RfC, Mediation, ArbCom - would be so tedious that people will inevitably drop out and no consensus will emerge as each side with become more entrenched and defensive. I hope that the spirit of compromise will spread to other Iran-related articles and world peace may reign on the Earth.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 21:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I would like support what Ahwaz said, and ask to remove the 1st note that is indicated clearly in the text later. You may notice that you didn't give out anything serious to reach this compromise... we can't keep it suspended like this.. but we should really put it down sooner and stop showing unfriendly comments and notes. You really know that what is told in the 1st note give the feeling of no-good-faith for readers and will generate a negative reaction towards Arabs. I really don't guarantee if a newcomer of Arabian background will find it offensive and a new edit-war can start again with such a thorn left. Let's try to fill up the compromise and go to fix other sections. Ralhazzaa 21:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

If you read my original POV, you'll know that what I have compromised with is not insignificant, believe me. That's not here nor there. If you support what Ahwaz said, then we have a compromise with the proposal in its current form including the footnotes. ObserverToSee 21:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I've also made a significant compromise (given that my suggestion was for the English translation of the Arabic name in the lead, which I've dropped in favour of your proposal). Given that our positions are poles apart, it is inevitable that both sides will have to make a giant leap.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 21:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

If a compromise is achieved, I would like an admin to semi-protect the article so that anons and new users are not able to disrupt the article and re-open an edit war.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 21:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this recommendation. However, I'm not sure we have a consensus and an acceptable compromise to all yet. If we do, great! I hope we can end this before the 1 month full protection is expired. With best hopes ObserverToSee 21:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd say ObserverToSee's proposal is an acceptable one, but what happens to the classic Arabic name? If we're removing it from the lead, then we should at least include it somewhere in the footnotes. AlexanderPar 21:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I think Ralhazza suggested some time ago to a section or paragraphs on various names for the Gulf and the etymology of the name.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 21:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Al-Ahwaz, it's suprising how an arab iranian is hostile to persians, your comments are everywhere in wikipedia just to fight with persians (not only this issue!), get a damn life, and stop this sadistic attitute toward Persians. thank you p.s. Historical facts are not to be abused for personal revenge of an ethnicity —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.146.47.150 (talk) 19:08, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

The NAME is most important?

At least half the article is dedicated to the name. The name!? I try to imagine some grade school student searching Misplaced Pages for information on the Persian Gulf and discovering mostly a Misplaced Pages feud over the name. How disappointed they must be. I couldn't resist comparing it to the article got the Gulf of Mexico. I realize that the Persian Gulf is probably most famous for the conflicts that the adjacent countries have fought within it, but must those conflicts extend to the very name used in Misplaced Pages to describe it? Other than a category, the article doesn't explain that this a gulf of the Indian Ocean. There's no oceanography. Only scant mention of wildlife. The Persian Gulf is rich with incredible history dating back millenia, yet there is absolutely no mention of epic history unless it is to justify the name. This article should be a source of embarrassment to Misplaced Pages. The Persian Gulf is the stuff of myths and legends, and it's been reduced to petty bicker over what it should be called. I don't see how making sure your favorite name for the body of water is shown as the "true" name makes Misplaced Pages a better place. If you care about this gulf, put the information about the GULF first. --JJLatWiki 16:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Have a look to the very above proposal , No. 1 exactly, presented (actually, repeated) proposed previously by many users here and see how it is simple, informative, not presenting politicial games, abstract, and enough for a Name! Unfortunately, it has been rejected always (but not for the last request.. we are waiting a minute of good-thinking) due to things you may feel if you have a quick look on past talks. Politicalizing the article was "The Major" and "The Lonely" target of many users coming here. But recently we are only dealing with kind of better users and hope we approach a compromise sooner to throw this issue back and pay attention more to the sea's issue. Ralhazzaa 17:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Coming into a middle of a relatively constructive debate and shouting about how it is shameful to have this debate won't achieve anything. It is better to deal with this and settle this matter than allow a situation to continue for another year, with continual reprotection. And I am grateful that AlexanderPar and ObserverToSee are making a genuine effort to engage rather than edit war, putting forward suggestions for consensus. If you find it petty, then why say anything at all? Anyway, it looks like we are near a resolution, so there's little point in throwing in a grenade into a debate now.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 18:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I was commenting more on the article than on the debate. If I were to comment on the debate, I would have to say that the debate looks like an attempt to please everyone where no one will be pleased unless their homeland/language/historic POV is somehow honored in the first sentence. All the while, the article is being ignore, neglected, and abused. Why do people vigorously insist that the term, "Persian Gulf" be shown in other languages in the english language version of Misplaced Pages? Why does the first sentence have to show every name for the gulf that regional nations and local inhabitants have for it? I will guarantee that no compromise can please all the people who are in the debate now, and the debate will never end as long as such a compromise is the goal. And in the end, all of you editors who have presumably studied the gulf and have all the great history of the gulf locked inside your heads will do nothing to help others who want to learn about the gulf. I will try stay out of that debate because I really don't know much about the history of the name(s) by which it has been known. I will hazard a guess that there is a name by which it best known in countries where english is the primary language. If you are near an accepted compromise, I congratulate you and wish you all the best of luck in keeping it stable. --JJLatWiki 18:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Why do people vigorously insist that the term, "Persian Gulf" be shown in other languages in the english language version of Misplaced Pages? Because Misplaced Pages tends to put the local name beside the English name in the first sentence. The controversy is due to the fact that the Arabs and the Persians have different names for the Gulf. Persians regard the name Persian Gulf as a matter of their identity and that the name commonly used by Gulf Arabs - Arabian Gulf - is offensive and rooted in anti-Persian sentiments. Arabs see no reason why their common name for the Gulf - which is populated by Arabs both in the Arab states and in Iran - should be excluded. Sure, a compromise is about accepting that you cannot get everything you want, but I think most people engaged in this debate have accepted that to settle the matter will require compromise. If we don't get this right now, it may go all the way to the Arbitration Committee with sanctions imposed on editors deemed disruptive. Whether you like it or not, there is an editorial disagreement here and it should be solved. Once a compromise is reached, the article will be unlocked and you are welcome to add in details relating to natural history, etc.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 19:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

JJLatWiki does make a good point. This is English wikipedia, local names or how the names are shown in other languages, are not of enough significance to keep the article permanently neglected because of these problems. If no compromise is eventually reached, we could go with JJLatWiki's suggestion and remove all the foreign names/texts from the lead to end this nonsense.AlexanderPar 21:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

That might be a good idea, but it has not been suggested and I am unsure whether this would be in keeping with Misplaced Pages style.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 22:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

You're right that it wasn't my suggestion, but I'll make it now. And I think it would be in keeping with the intention of Misplaced Pages. I've seen it before where particularly contentious material is removed from an article while it's debated for the sake of the article. It might be easier to move on by simply letting it go. I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the Persian Gulf known as such for its connection to Persia? And isn't it the case that Persia no longer exists? So modern-day Persians shouldn't feel that the name exhaults them as a people, but is merely one name for a body of water that happens to be derived from the same name from which their ancestry came. Isn't it also the case that the Persian Gulf is practically universally recognized as mostly international waters and isn't the property of the Persian people? So, to formalize the suggestion: If a compromise consensus can not be reached by 1AM GMT of June 18, agree to remove the most controversial material from the main article so that it can be unblocked and other areas of the article worked on, WHILE the debate over the controversy continues. --JJLatWiki 00:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you will find it hard to argue that because Reza Pahlavi changed the name of Persia to Iran, the name Persian Gulf is now irrelevant. As for international waters, there is the Indian Ocean whose shores include much more than India - it would be problemmatic if Misplaced Pages were to also call it the Somali Ocean or the Pakistani Ocean. Let's keep the debate within the rules of Misplaced Pages. It is accepted that Persian Gulf is the most common name in English and this should be the title of the article. The dispute is simply over the Arabic name for the Gulf, which Persians find unacceptable. There is acceptance here of the Arabic name in the lead paragraph, but a rejection of the translation of the Arabic name into English. Consequently, it is agreed by two editors from each side of the debate that this translation be moved to the footnotes (it remains to be seen whether others will agree to this). There is also the question of wording of the footnotes, but I think this is less contentious.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 01:02, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello all friends specially ahvaz!!!!, I'd say that ahvaz is trying to say something in support with false information. I appreciate your trying but at first you should insert right information!!!! the PERSIAN GULF's name dosen't depend on Reza Pahlavi or other personns because this name has its own legal validity during the history and legal international documents for example in the UN and I strongly ask you please SAY YOUR HAVE WITH LOGICAL DOCUMENTS NOT PAN-ARABISM, I appreciate that if you do it. PERSIAN GULF is an INTERNATIONAL NAME AND DOESN'T HAVE ANY OTHER ALTERNATIVE NAMES EVEN IN ARABIC, so if any other false name is using in arabic language it is cause to pan-arabism and it is not international name so it shoudn't come in this article. I have a good example here for you my dear friend, for example Caspan sea in Persian language is called Daryaye khazar or Bahre Ghazvin in arabic, but it is not its international name and it is called internationally as the Caspian sea, so the Persian Gulf should be named Persian Gulf in international community and it doesn't depend on any other persons like Reza Pahlavi or anyone else, I'm really really filled with wonder what you said on this regard!!, please remember that we are friends and we want to show the facts and improve the Misplaced Pages so I appreciate your kind attention on this regard. Pejman.azadi 05:50, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Here we go again! Pejaman: If you read what Ahwaz wrote carefully, you'd realize that he merely stated that Reza Shah changed the name of the nation from Persia to Iran in English (to match the nation's Persian name). You also need to stop saying that the Gulf has no alternative names even in Arabic - It does! Why can't you just accept this fact? Almost everyone here has! --Persan en Japon 16:13, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm really filled with wonder about your logic!!! you are saying a subject that doesn't have any relate with this article, we are speaking about PERSIAN GULF's NAME there is no any relate on this subject, because PERSIA and IRAN are names of a country and both of them are names of IRAN country, so what do you want to say??? Reza shah change this name to Iran or what else...so what?!!!! both of them are used and are equal meaning and equal definition and there is no need to mentioned that we could't see any logicical documantation in your says! PERSIAN GULF doesn't have any alternative name even in arabic because if it had it is because of pan-arabism and it is not an international name. Please Stop and don't open a digressive chapter here!!!! it seems you want to avert the article and it is not useful!!! PERSIAN GULF IS PERSIAN GULF AND WILL BE REMAINED ONLY PERSIAN GULF FOREVER Pejman.azadi 05:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean you wonder about my logic? Reza Shah did change the name of the country from Persia to Iran, didn't he? That's what Ahwaz said. He even said that even though Reza Shah changed the name of the country from Persia to Iran, it's hard to argue "the name Persian Gulf is now irrelevant". I'm also aware that Iran and Persia are interchangeable, since Mohammad Reza Pahlavi decreed that both names can be used to describe Iran. The current Islamic Republic also agrees with this - Just look at the Iranian Government's BETA Tourist Website. Also, please don't assume that I'm not familiar with Iranian history and culture or I'm trying to avert the focus of the article. In fact, you're the one who keeps misfocusing the argument by stating that the name "Arabian Gulf" doesn't exist! If Arabs use it, then it does exist, regardless of how it came to be used. -- Persan en Japon 15:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to say that Persian Gulf's name is not related to the change of Persia to Iran name, however both of them have equal meaning. It seems that you want to open a diversionary issue here, but please be informed that this is not helpful to improve the Misplaced Pages. If I said that Persian Gulf doesn't have any alternative name even in arabic it is due to if it had, it is because of pan-arabism and it is not international name and should be removed immediately from of this article because we are here to publish the facts and true information not to insert the information which is created by bigotry . Persian Gulf is only Persian Gulf because of several legal approved documents in the UN and other International organization and I repeat my say that arabian gulf does not exist in this water area. It is very claer and arab people are using the wrong and false term instead of original name because of pan-arabism which is started from jamal abdol naser time, it is better for arabs to try to save arabian lands in Palestine and they should help to their muslim brothers not to change the geographical names, it is due to lake of logic if not why you are trying to insrt false and wrong information here???? PERSIAN GULF IS PERSIAN GULF AND WILL BE REMAINED PERSIAN GULF FOREVER. Please be adviced that Persian Gulf belong to the history and all the nation and it should be respected and all arabs should proud to live beside of this honorable sea side because of its long proud history. it is not just a name it is a International Name. Please remember that Persian Gulf belongs to the all arabs and Persian and don't to try to avert the article and start a fanaticism war because this article is not related to the to fanaticism. This name is an International Name I have a good exapmle for you on this issue, you can not change the Indian ocean name because it is an International name so you are only wasting your time so please be adviced that PERSIAN GULF DOES NOT HAVE ANY ALTERNATIVE NAME. Thank you again for taking the time to read this issue. Pejman.azadi 06:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I give-up! You obviously either don't read everything I wrote, or don't understand anything that I wrote. I suspect the latter! --Persan en Japon 14:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

New Proposal (version x)

OK, so here is my new proposal, taking into consideration everybody's suggestions:

The Persian Gulf (Persian: خليج فارس - Khalīj-e Fārs; In Arabic: الخليج العربي‎ al-Khalīj al-Arabi (translation: Arabian Gulf) , also sometimes referred to as The Gulf in a controversial attempt to stay neutral), in the Southwest Asian region, is an extension of the Arabian Sea located between Iran (Persia) and the Arabian Peninsula.

With a few minor exceptions, the name Persian Gulf has and continues to be the most readily recognized name for this body of water since antiquity. The term al-Khalīj al-Arabi (Arabian Gulf) was popularised by pan-Arabist leaders from the 1960s and is the official name in some Arabs states in the region, but is not the internationally recognised name for the waterbody and remains highly controversial. See: Persian Gulf naming dispute

I have tried to remain neutral. What do you think? -- Persan en Japon 03:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• Reject Absolutely not, unacceptable. What kind of a compromise is this? This is what User:Ralhazza wanted all along, it can't be called a "compromise". A compromise means you give up some of your demands - it does not mean that you get your way. User:ObserverToSee's proposal was more or less acceptable, but not this.AlexanderPar 03:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Reject This is not a compromise. The term "Arabian Gulf" is not the legitimate name of this body of water in English. It is politically-motivated disinformation intended to deceive people into using an alternative name in English for the Persian Gulf in order make that alternative name become legitimate. Such a politically-motivated objective have no place in Misplaced Pages since it violates Misplaced Pages's NPOV policy. Houshyar 03:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Accept as it is a clear NPOV. Arabic name has been translated as it is used in the Arab world and translated to English as the Arabs translate it to English in their official documents. I compromise with this proposal.

Note for AlexanderPar and some others: I didn't like the offensive way of ALexanderPar of personalizing the talk!! Hold on boy!! Don't reply whatever other user suggest as: NOOO THIS IS WHAT Ralhazzaa PROPOSED!! It makes you looks disarrayed and over-tensed in other's eyes. Nothing personal between me and you... Frankly talking, it is not interesting for me to talk with you anyway. Ralhazzaa 05:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• Reject As User:Persan en japon have said just above he has "given up". This is not a comprimise by far. I give to credit to User:Ralhazzaa for his/her commitment to his/her POV and time s/he puts on it but that should not make us leave the Encyclopedic standards just to reach another level of comprimise that would satisfy a particular user (noting we already do have a comprimise).Farmanesh 07:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Support - it seems a completely reasonable and concise compromise.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 10:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Reject - it seems a completely revisionist and premeditated move, designed to legitimize a fabricated term.--Zereshk 16:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Reject - This is seems to be a fairly one sided compromise proposal. I don't see much, if any, "give" on the Arab POV. There are 2 or 3 "gives" on the Persian POV. Perhaps we should go with the suggestion in the discussion above where in this "English" wikipedia we only refer to "English" names and drop the rest and only reference "Persian Gulf" here.ObserverToSee 13:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

It seems like you have changed your mind. You were willing to mention the translation of the Arabic name, now you don't want it at all.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 14:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

"Perhaps" is a consideration not a decision. Seeing how a "compromise" here does not seem to be reachable, I think we should all consider removing all sources of contention from this article and move forward with improving it as suggested in the section above. Even though it's not totally within wikipedia "style", removing all references to non English language names will remove the objectionable items since no one is contesting the proper name in English of the "Persian Gulf". ObserverToSee 14:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that neither the Farsi nor the Arabic names be mentioned at all in the article?--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 15:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

At this point, yes, remove all non English names and texts from the lead of this article and only reference the non contested name of "Persian Gulf" in English. Let the argument move to the respective language sites. Start really improving this article with all of the rich information that is really relevant. ObserverToSee 15:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

How good and comfortable to reach a compromise for this article... but now I start to believe that some users like ObserverToSee and AlexanderPar are coming here only to reject for the sake of rejection and keeping this place as a black hole of hateness and destroying the soul of WP. What you can't see in this compromise that other users gave a big concession by letting that offensive and unlogical footnote to stay with the name الخليج العربي Arabian Gulf, that is widely used (just google for it to see how it is widely used!) while you still want to remove it and insist to insert unresourced name, that is against WP rules. Think twice and try not to over cramp... only try to understand the spirit of WP and "what is" a compromise! Ralhazzaa 14:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I suggest we keep this impersonal as you mention above. It seems that the only one interested in personalizing the discussion is non other than you! I implore you once again to read and absorb Compromise and also Assume_good_faith ObserverToSee 14:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Some of the above users are quite intolerable: Putting words into my mouth? I never said that "I've given up" on this topic. I was referring to another users constant drivel. As for my compromise, I included a neutral point of view incorporating both sides of the debate. I specifically stated that the name is controversial. I even mentioned that the term The Gulf is politically motivated. Furthermore, the footnote states that the name Persian Gulf has been the most recognized body since antiquity and continues to be so today! I'm trying to stop this deadlock... What do you people propose? -- Persan en Japon 15:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest to consider what JJLatWiki proposed before, to keep just one name in the intro, and remove all writtin in Farsi and Arabic. This will push it ahead and later in the Etymology section we can expand it as it is fitting there more than the intro. As long as Iranians want to insert a name refused by Arabs, and Arabs want to mention a name refused by Iranians, it is a clear dead-end. So, better to remove it all (there are interwiki links for these languages, right?). Ralhazzaa 08:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Now we are getting somewhere. That's some pretty good idea Ralhazzaa. AlexanderPar 10:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• Reject compromise means giving and taking, I don't see any "giving" from other side of POV. --Pejman47 18:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

JJLatWiki Proposal #1

How about only the literal translations of "Persian Gulf" in the first sentence, and the next sentence an acknowledgement that some regional states recognize the gulf as the "Arabian Gulf".

The Persian Gulf (Persian: خليج فارس - Khalīj-e Fārs; In Arabic: _____ _____ al-Khalīj Arabic word for Persian) in the Southwest Asian region, is an extension of the Arabian Sea located between Iran and the Arabian Peninsula. In some regional states, the gulf is also recognized as the "Arabian Gulf".

No explanation of the controversy to enflame anyone. I think it respects the fact that regional naming can differ from the larger internationally recognized name, but does not involve itself in a naming controversy. --JJLatWiki 15:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully Final Proposal for the Lead section

-- Start --

The Persian Gulf, in the Southwest Asian region, is an extension of the Gulf of Oman located between Iran (Persia) and the Arabian Peninsula.

The Persian Gulf was the focus of the Iraq-Iran War that lasted from 1980 to 1988, with each side attacking the other's oil tankers. In 1991, the Persian Gulf again was the background for what was called the "Persian Gulf War" or "The Gulf War" when Iraq invaded Kuwait and was subsequently pushed back, despite the fact that this conflict was primarily a land conflict.

The natural environment of the Persian Gulf is very rich with good fishing grounds, extensive coral reefs, and abundant pearl oysters, but its ecology has become increasingly under pressure from the heavy industrialisation and in particular the repeated major petroleum spillages associated with recent wars fought in the region.

-- End ---

This is the exact text that exists in the current version of the article that is locked minus the extra languages and names. Hopefully we can put this one in place and start making real improvements to the article. ObserverToSee 14:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Support: I do however want to clarify that the Persian Gulf isn't geographically marked as an extension of the Gulf of Oman, but an extension/arm of (either) the Arabian Sea or the Indian Ocean . Can we also re-word the intro? The current wording sounds awkward! --Persan en Japon 12:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Support: PERSIAN GULF:

Gerhard Mercator's atlas production in 1578 from Ptolemy's Geographia clearly depicting Sinus Arabicus(today's Red Sea) and Persicus Sinus (Persian Gulf)

For more information on this issue and the name of PERSIAN GULF please view the address below:

http://www.persiangulfonline.org/maps.htm

Pejman.azadi 10:47, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Gulf of Basra

There should be more details regarding the name Gulf of Basra as it is a hitorical name that started very early in the Islamic history, and remains in use until today. --87.109.233.150 17:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it has been called Gulf of Basra in any period of the history. Ammar ( - ) 18:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes, it was since Umar build the city of Basra. There are so many documents to prove that. The name remain official in Iraq until 1958 when it was replaced with "Arabian Gulf" but it is still official in Turky.

But the proper name is Persian Gulf. The Honorable Kermanshahi 09:03, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

The approved Proposal (Part 1): Persian Gulf and Persian Sea

MAPS (Part 1):

Published in "The Times" (London) in 1913. The map is significant in that the Brits at that time published Persian Gulf.

http://www.persiangulfonline.org/images/sundaytimesMap.jpg

Pejman.azadi 05:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Can you use other name instead of British Channel/ or delete the name of British Channel? So you Can Not use other name instead of PERSIAN GULF!

If you search on the maps, in the Europe between the UK and France you can see a channel that is called the British Channel, it is very clear that no one can not change the names on the geographical maps so I'd say that this is a historical and legal approved name on the International Maps and Persian Gulf does not have any alternative name, please respect to the world international laws and also respect to the history. Persian Gulf has a long history more than 3000 years ago, so it doesn't have any other FAKE names as alternative names. Please don't enter to the political games!!! PERSIAN GULF WILL BE REMAINED PERSIAN GULF AND DOESN'T HAVE ANY OTHER ALTERNATIVE NAMES, PERSIAN GULF IS AN INTERNATIONAL NAME. Pejman.azadi 12:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

It is called the English Channel in the UK and La Manche in France. It has two names. Likewise, Iranians refer to the Persian Gulf and Arabs refer to the Arabian Gulf. That's the truth of the matter.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 13:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

As you can see in Google Earth or another International Maps it is called only English Channel so I'd say that if you want to show the facts in another way it is due to your Flag-Waving!!! Persian Gulf is an International Name and can not be changed.Pejman.azadi 04:46, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at English Channel. It states: "The English Channel (Template:Lang-fr (IPA: ), "the sleeve") is the part of the Atlantic Ocean ..."--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 10:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd say that this channel Internationally is called British Channel. Pejman.azadi 11:27, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

No offence intended, but you don't know what you're talking about. I have never heard the term "British Channel" in my entire life.

In any case, what is used internationally is only of significance if the language in question is English. If, say, the Ukrainians want to call the English Channel the "French Channel", more power to 'em. --Saforrest 11:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

* Well , we had some similar debate about the "Arvand Rud/ Shatt al arab " and in that case , الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz suggested to use English name which was near to Arabic one .Why does he changes his point of views in this case ?--Alborz Fallah 12:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I haven't changed my view. I have not advocated changing the article's title to Arabian Gulf/Persian Gulf or Arabian Gulf. I've said that the name used by Arabs - both in English and Arabic - should be mentioned in the lead paragraph, just as is the case with Arvand Rood in the Shatt al-Arab article. There should be consistency. The most popular name used in English should be the title and alternative names should be in the lead paragraph.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 13:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Please be adviced that you wrote your last own idea about the Persian Gulf here in this part whereas the final decision that is Persian Gulf as the final article name was approved here and the final desission was made here!!! So why you want to start a new challenge here??!!! Please stop and avoid to start a new chalenge here to avoid to luck again this article. The English Channel or Arvandrood are just some examples and they have their own names so please avoid to mix and conflict them with the Persian gulf's name because if they are named here it was just for example and we can not conflict them here. they are different cases and if they are mentioned here it was a point of view in historical and legal names on the maps, Moreover the Persian Gulf is a natural-Historical and Geographical point in the world and is named on the historical maps only as the Persian Gulf. From a Juridical point of view the Persian Gulf is approved by the UN and that is why I mentioned the English channel example here but they are different cases!!! It is clearly that this Gulf originally is called as Persian Gulf and if any other names is used in some arab countries rather than the Persian Gulf, it is due to the false information, so we are here to mention the facts. not to mention that other articles such as Arvandrood or the others have their articles and you can discause about them in their discussion part not here!!! Please be note that arabian gulf does not exist in this area and it is just an alternative name for the Red Sea!!! Thanks for your attention in this regard.

Pejman.azadi 11:51, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

The English Channel or Arvandrood are just some examples and they have their own names so please avoid to mix and conflict them with the Persian gulf's name - you were the one who raised the issue of the English Channel. If you look at the article on the English Channel, you will see that it gives the alternative French name. The same is true of the Shatt al-Arab and its Farsi alternative. In my mind, the alternative Arab name, Arabian Gulf, should be mentioned in the Persian Gulf article's leading paragraph. But sadly common sense is lacking on Misplaced Pages and mob rule prevails, but that does not change the fact that Arabs use the term Arabian Gulf - it's a problem with Misplaced Pages that the Arabic name is censored.

This is just a working paper document and not a legal document, as claimed in this article.--الأهواز | Hamid | Al-Ahwaz 15:32, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

No need to mention that arabian gulf does not exist in this area and if you want to know more about this gulf you should study more about History. It is very obvious that arabian gulf (Red Sea) is located in the KSA and Yemen coast. If you want to know more about Red Sea please study more in this issue and don't insert false information here. Persian Gulf is the only approved and fairly name to this Gulf!!! Please visit:

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

We had several discussion in this regard in the past times and we come to this realization that the only fairly name to this Gulf is only the Persian Gulf and also From a Juridical point of view the Persian Gulf is approved by the UN so please be calm and understand the true name and true fact. Please don't mix the Persian Gulf's name with the Red Sea name. It is not fairly to change or insert false information here in Misplaced Pages and I know why some arab people are doing this!! It is not fairly that if Iran has some problems with western countries you want to change or insert false alternative name instead of the Persian Gulf's name!!! The History shows that Iran is a peaceful country and Iranian People don't allow to the others to infringe an International Contract. For sure you can visit the UN official website and you will see this Gulf is named Persian Gulf, it is very easy way to understand the fact please DO IT!!!

http://www.un.org/Depts/Cartographic/map/profile/mideastr.pdf

http://www.un.org/Depts/Cartographic/english/htmain.htm

Pejman.azadi 05:30, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no "juridicial" view, what ever that means. There is no legal document declaring the names of any places. There are working groups set up to establish a common name used in UN circles, but this is not legally binding. However, this is irrelevant to Misplaced Pages. Myanmar is the official legal name of that country, but is still commonly known as Burma because that is what it is known as in the English language - this is acknowledged in the lead paragraph in the article for that country. Similarly, Gulf Arabs refer to this waterbody as Arabian Gulf, whether you like it or not, whether or not this the name used by UN committees, whether or not it is the oldest name for the Gulf. Misplaced Pages is not here to set legal precedence or determine the "correct" name, but reflect the reality.

The reality is that Arabian Gulf is commonly used in the Gulf region. The reason it is not used in the lead paragraph of this article was because of campaigning and the fact that users like me could not be bothered to get into this fight. We compromised on having neither the Farsi nor Arabic names, mentioning only Persian Gulf in the lead paragraph. This is not strictly Misplaced Pages policy, but was agreed just to prevent the article from becoming a battleground and to focus efforts on more important aspects of the Arabian Gulf, its geography and peoples.--الأهواز | Hamid | Al-Ahwaz 09:43, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

To say the fabricated name is not there because of campaigning is not accurate. Neither is saying users like me could not be bothered to get into this fight. Reviewing the discussion history reveals a clear fight that was fought. Why would you want to instigate renewed friction over this by posting something like this?! ObserverToSee 22:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

This thread was started by Pejman.azadi. I am giving my answer to it. I am not instigating anything. Campaigning is evident on many articles, although I don't believe you are a party to this campaigning.--▓▒░الأهواز ★ Al-Ahwaz░▒▓ 22:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I would have to be really creative in my thinking not to see this quoted from above as written by you; "But sadly common sense is lacking on Misplaced Pages and mob rule prevails" and "it's a problem with Misplaced Pages that the Arabic name is censored" as instigating anything negative or to incite others into jumping into this discussion again. Alas, I shall exercise this creativity and see it as an honest response to a 1 month old thread that was rekindled. ObserverToSee 13:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

... a discussion that I did not rekindle, but simply participate in, as the talk page is being filled up with Pejman.azadi's statements - which admins appear to believe is constructive. And I stand by my statement about mob rule, for that is the nature of Misplaced Pages as a whole and not specific to this article - I meant no offence to you. That said, I am not pressing for any changes to the current version, I am putting forward my opinion in the face of emboldened and capitalised statements and an accusation of hypocrisy against me by Alborz Fallah. Given the fact that I sought compromise in discussions on this page, in the face of hostility, I have a right to defend myself from these accusations.--▓▒░الأهواز ★ Al-Ahwaz░▒▓ 13:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the timely rekindled thread provides a perfect opportunity to advance on a campaign to legitimize a fabricated name, if one was on such a campaign. But once again, I'll choose to be creative and not see it that way. Thanks for your continued participation and enrichment of Misplaced Pages. ObserverToSee 13:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd say that this recurrent discussion is started by Ahvaz as the history of discussion shows it very clearly! I want to ask him why he want to re-start a repeated circle here!!! we come to the realization that the only fairly and legal-approved name to this gulf base on the UN documents, old International Maps, Old Historical maps and other International Organizations is the Persian Gulf.

Ofcourse there is juridicial view because if you want to cheat and insert FAKE information instead of an International Agreement you will be under a big Question Mark!!!!

From a Juridical point of view the Persian Gulf is approved by the UN

There is no logic in your speech because if Mianmar is other name of Burma it is due to that both of these names can be used and are equal and both of these names are used on the maps but the Persian Gulf doesn't have any other alternative name and if any other FAKE name is used instead of it, it is very clear that is due to pan-arabism!!!! not due to logical and legal documents!!! so be adviced that don't insert other fake and false names in this regard. I offer you to visit the UN official website:

http://www.un.org/Depts/Cartographic/english/htmain.htm

http://www.un.org/Depts/Cartographic/map/profile/mideastr.pdf

Also I have many many other documents they are showing only the Persian Gulf on the very very Historical maps!!! and they can be verified easily from the other FAKE maps and there is no any cheat in this regard.

Please be adviced that the name of Persian Gulf has a very old historical back ground and you are not allowed to mix it with political views or pan-arabism!!!

it is very obvious!!! the Persian Gulf does not have any other alternative name, and it is clear that you respect to the International Law, I know that you agree with the UN documents or other International Organizations and please stop to open a repeated discussion here! Thank You for your kind attention in this regard.

Pejman.azadi 05:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Pejman.azadi, but you re-opened the discussion with your talk about the "British Channel" and "Persian Gulf will be remained Persian Gulf forever". Some people have said that you should be ignored, but I am engaging you in a debate on this, which is the whole point of the talk page.--▓▒░الأهواز ★ Al-Ahwaz░▒▓ 08:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

At first I'd say I am sorry about your idea because this is your logic that you are saying I should be ignored or some body said I have to be ignored.... I know that people are your friends, you was the first one that re-start the repeated discission here about Persian Gulf, and every body who read this talk page can understand it very well, and now you don't have anything to say and you announced a new challenge here about ignoring me!!! here is the place to insert the facts not Fake information! I hope that I will not receive to your challengeable speechs again here!!! Please Don't insert challengeable says here because here is a cultural place not to fighting!!! Thanks!!!!Pejman.azadi 10:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood me. I am not ignoring you, I am discussing this issue with you. Some have suggested you should be ignored, but I am not. Obviously, if I was ignoring you, there would be no discussion on this thread.--▓▒░الأهواز ★ Al-Ahwaz░▒▓ 10:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm not too well studied on the subject, but I believe the "Arabian Gulf" is not even a historically used term by Arabs, but was instead a racially motivated (and offensive) name generated by Nasserism/Arab nationalism due to Iran's support for Israel in the 50s, 60s and 70s? Similarly, no one would refer to the original Hebrews as blacks in any encyclopedia simply because Black Nationalists of the 20th century decided to invent the theory, despite no historical or scientific basis. The Arabs have the right to refer to this gulf as the "arabian gulf." That doesn't change the fact that this name, at no point in history, has EVER been internationally recognized. The only place you'll find Arabian Gulf on a map is if the map was published by Arabs or British imperialists during the 30s, 40s, and during the Mossadegh coup in the 50s. No non-Arab country ever publishes maps with the Persian Gulf called "The Gulf" or "The Arabian Gulf." Let's get realistic. The fact that people are somehow trying to rationalize what is essentially Arab chauvinism on an encyclopedia article is disturbing. This has been referred to as the Persian Gulf ever since the Ancient Greeks...

Alas, if the Arabs really want to include the "Arabian Gulf" in this article, then go ahead. Make sure you include that the reason the term "Arabian Gulf" was invented in the early 20th century (and continues to be disturbingly propagated not by just Arab governments, but even by everyday Arabs now) is because of overt and disturbing Anti-Iranian and Anti-Semitic sentiment within the Arab world? Yes, it'll help the Arabs improve their image. At least Iranians are embarrassed by their government. It seems some of the Arabs on this page like their dictators and their Pan-Arab racists, though, which is why they are trying to legitimize a term that was racially motivated from its very root? We should also include "Aryan" as an alternative term for "German" in the German people article, since that was a product of German chauvinism, too. -MadarB 20:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Compromise

After reading the endless discussions on this talk page, I am trying a compromise proposed by JJLatWiki, which User:Ralhazzaa, User:AlexanderPar, User:Persan en Japon , and others agreed to while the article was locked. I would like to see this dispute settled, so in the meantime please don't blindly revert my changes or change the intro to avoid getting the article locked again. PashaGol 05:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! It seems like a fair compromise! --Persan en Japon 18:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your fairly conclusion!
I agree with your decision.
Pejman.azadi 04:42, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Persian Gulf as an International name is a place for the peace and friendship!

Dear Friends, I'd say that due to the fact, Persian Gulf was a peaceful place and we should try to keep it as a place for friendship place between all neighborhood countries. In conclussion I'd appreciate all the friends discussing on this regard.

Pejman.azadi 11:44, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Depth

The article states that the average depth of the Persian Gulf is 50m. The website gives the time-averaged volume and surface area of the Gulf, and by dividing the volume by the area finds an average depth of 36m. Is the 50m figure wrong, or calculated in some other way? Whatever the figure, the method of averaging should be stated to avoid ambiguity - AG, Stockport, UK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.179.96.137 (talk) 00:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

BenB4 and top priority

well BenB4 thinks that this article does not belong to the high prority for wikiproject Iran while it does for Arabs. I do not think that he is in a osition to decide on wikiproject Iran editors. Ok for this matter the WP Iran editors decide on the priority of this article. I think it shoulf be rated as 'High' do you agree? --Babakexorramdin 00:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

The lead

I have recently added material that is reliably sourced and neutral to the Persian Gulf article. Pejman.azadi and a few others have engaged in a tag team effort to undo my edits. I agree that the Persian Gulf is the correct name. However, it is a fact that some people (mostly Arabs) use Arabian Gulf. I have provided several very reliable sources for this. I do not sanction the usage of "Arabian Gulf." Yet, we must portray this fact. Indeed, the fact is portrayed in the article, but not in the lead. Per WP:LEAD, it must be presented in the lead as well. There was a pseudo compromise. The so-called "compromise" did not establish consensus. Please see WP:CONSENSUS. "When consensus is referred to in Misplaced Pages discussion, it always means 'within the framework of established policy and practice'. Even a majority of a limited group of editors will almost never outweigh community consensus on a wider scale, as documented within policies." The compromise was against Misplaced Pages guidelines, specifically WP:LEAD.--Agha Nader (talk) 20:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Agha Nader that the name Persian Gulf is correct. I also know that this lead was a cause of a lot of headaches some months back! I have reworded Agha Nader's lead in order to appease Pejman.Azadi and some others. It's just a rehash of what's written here - That Arabs call it the "Arabian Gulf". --Persan en Japon (talk) 10:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

It's funny that some Arabs, make Persian IDs on wikipedia, and try to suggest themselves as " rational Persians! " and proceed some of Arabian nationalistic, anti Persian thoughts. I think Persian civilization has been humane enough not to be mocked by these childish tricks. 195.146.47.134 (talk) 21:25, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Were you referring to me? I'm Persian and this whole Arabian Gulf issue causes me a lot of anger as well. However, I realized that the best way to fight it is to accept that Arabs call it another name, but educate others as to why using the Arabic term is incorrect. This is a better way to protect the name Persian Gulf than hiding the fact that Arabs call it something else. --Persan en Japon (talk) 09:46, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I added the word controversially in the lead as a way to find a common ground between the opposing sides. Let's be fair: Arabs call it the Arabian Gulf, so it should be mentioned. However, I think that the Arabic term is controversial because it was never approved by the United Nations or all the countries which border the Gulf. Furthermore, the term Arabian Gulf began to be used in modern times from the 1960s because of political reasons.

I definitely agree. The term Arabian Gulf, no matter how 'wrong', 'illegal', or repulsive to some editors, must be included in the lead. Please see WP:LEAD. The lead would be misleading if it just mentioned the Persian Gulf. This is because there is insurmountable evidence, by the most reliable of sources, that some people use the term Arabian Gulf.--Agha Nader (talk) 06:05, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

• Adding the sentence "Some refer to the gulf as the Arabian Gulf or simply as The Gulf",violates the WP:LEAD.
  "briefly describing its notable controversies" means according to "verifiability and other policies",one may mention new nationalistic Arabian name-changing policy in the lead by briefly referring to the "Naming dispute" section ,but the sentence "Some call it ..." is not showing controversy , and is weighting the pseudo-name near-equal the legitimate name in the important lead section. --Alborz Fallah (talk) 08:42, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

If the sentence "This body of water is sometimes controversially referred to as the Arabian Gulf by Arabs", is going to be inserted in the lead ,then the correct form should be something like this :"Although "Persian gulf" is the established international name , but sometimes controversially referred to as the Arabian Gulf by Arabs".--Alborz Fallah (talk) 08:54, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Indian Ocean: Can we at least get the geographical aspect of the lead corrected before we debate the proper lead? As I mentioned before, the Persian Gulf is referred to as an "arm" or "extension" of the Arabian Sea, not the Indian Ocean. Here are two examples from different encyclopedias: Encarta and Columbia encyclopedias. Can the person who locked this change this first? --Persan en Japon (talk) 09:46, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the " Arabian sea" or the "Indian Ocean" is the main topic of the debate.The real contravery is "how to mention the new naming policy of some Arabian goverments in the lead of this article".If you want to change the Indian Ocean , then do it! No one is against that!--Alborz Fallah (talk) 09:54, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I cannot change it as it's locked! Can the person who locked it, fix that part? --Persan en Japon (talk) 11:27, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Alborz Fallah, I would not object to this "Although 'Persian Gulf' is the established international name , it is sometimes controversially referred to as the Arabian Gulf by Arabs".--Agha Nader (talk) 14:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Me neither: Shall we vote on it? --Persan en Japon (talk) 16:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I said "If the sentence is going to be inserted in the lead, then it shall like ..." then if there is a vote, then first it maybe about the necessity of mentioning it in the lead, then about the how to mention it! Indeed when you write "a few others have engaged in a tag team effort to undo my edits", I was just defending my edit and not proposing a vote. --Alborz Fallah (talk) 08:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• As I explained to Agha Nader, naming issue is already discussed in detail within the article's body, it doesn't belong in the lead. Besides the fact that the name "Arabian Gulf" is not a common name in English, and therefore not covered by WP:lead of the English Wiipedia, placing the controversy in the lead, will only make the article unstable and volatile with both sides trying to add and remove their POVs to and from it. Trust me, it will be a never-ending source of edit-waring and hostility, it's simply not worth it. The current version had broad consensus of both sides and had made the article calm and stable since July, lets keep it that way for the sake of article. AlexanderPar (talk) 18:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Consensus can change. Plus, the old compromise was in violation of WP:CONSENSUS. This is because the compromise created a lead that was contrary to the guidelines set by WP:LEAD. For instance, WP:LEAD states "The lead should... briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any." I have provided sources that prove that some Arabs use the term Arabian Gulf. In addition, there are multitudes of sources that prove there is controversy over the alternate usage. Moreover, the controversy inherently manifested itself in the debates that were held before. Finally, I do not fear the "never-ending source of edit-waring and hostility" that will arise from having a legitimate article. We will not compromise the quality of the article because some editors are disruptive.--Agha Nader (talk) 18:46, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

• Basically, I agree with AlexanderPar. We are going over and over on the same issue which we got a comprimise at. Seems everything being said here has already been said many times (see old talks) and got similar answers, still some feel reviewing it helps, so here is my 2 cents. Yes, for all reasons Agha Nader say we should mention in the article that some people call it other names than Persian Gulf, we respect those poeple and with proper references we will mention that in the article (as already had been mentioned), feel free to enhance that part. However as said many times before and now by AlexanderPar, that doesn't need to go into the 'Lead'. Adding to AlexanderPar's point, it is also WP:Undue weight and bringing the naming dispute to the Lead is disruptive.Farmanesh (talk) 19:19, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

• If I might add a comment, it would appear that while there is some agreement as to an alternate statement in the Lead which notes that the Persian Gulf is also referred to as the Arabian Gulf (mostly within SA), there appears to be some debate as to whether it belongs in the Lead. Is the naming discrepancy discussed within the body of the article? - Arcayne () 20:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes it is included in the body. --Agha Nader (talk) 00:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

• I also agree with AlexanderPar and Farmanesh. This issue was discussed extensively and agreed that the name translated from Arabic would not appear in the lead for the English version of the article. That name in English is a literal translation of the name created recently in Arabic which is not relevant in the English language and would be a case of WP:Undue weight. ObserverToSee (talk) 02:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

We are not going to exclude it from the lead just because it was agreed upon. According to WP:CONSENSUS, "When consensus is referred to in Misplaced Pages discussion, it always means 'within the framework of established policy and practice'. Even a majority of a limited group of editors will almost never outweigh community consensus on a wider scale, as documented within policies." Quite simply, your compromise was invalid. It was in violation of the WP:LEAD, and established guideline and practice of Misplaced Pages. By the way, there was absolutely no rational reason to exclude the words "Arabian Gulf" from the lead while including it in the body (except of course to attempt to hide it). --Agha Nader (talk) 00:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

and what is your answer to WP:Undue weight?Farmanesh (talk) 02:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Farmanesh jan, I am not trying to add 'Some people believe that correct name is Arabian Gulf.' That is a minority view. What I propose adding is something to the effect of "This body of water is sometimes controversially referred to as the Arabian Gulf by Arabs, or simply as The Gulf." Virtually everybody agrees that it "is sometimes controversially referred to as the Arabian Gulf by Arabs." It most certainly is not the minority view that "is sometimes controversially referred to as the Arabian Gulf by Arabs." Therefore, WP:Undue weight does not apply (since it only refers to fringe views). --Agha Nader (talk) 03:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

To quote from WP:Undue weight: "Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.". I submit that what you're proposing does constitute a case of WP:Undue weight. As a very small demonstration of the point; there are 53 or so other language versions for the Persian Gulf article on WikiPedia. There are (almost) no references to the Arabic name in any of them except for the Arabic version. Out of the entire population of the planet, the Arabic name is used by a very small percentage. To give the Arabic name prominence in the lead of the English version of this article constitutes WP:Undue weight. Why should we do this? Because a very small minority uses the name in Arabic and strives to legitimize it in English? ObserverToSee (talk) 19:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I am happy that you have exposed your motives. You admitted that you trying to keep the Arabian Gulf from becoming legitimate in English. It is not our job to 'protect the true name.' Your evidence--if we can call it that-- of it being undue is extremely lousy. By the way, almost every person agrees that it "is sometimes controversially referred to as the Arabian Gulf by Arabs." That is a majority view, not a fringe view.--Agha Nader (talk) 22:32, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I have to admit, I did not expect this type of response from you. You are totally ignoring the fact that looking at the total population of the planet, it is a very small minority that uses the Arabic name for the Persian Gulf. Why are you ignoring that when determining if WP:Undue weight is applicable here? Regardless of what you think you've determined as my motive for involvement here, that does not change the facts. WikiPedia is here to promote truth and neutral point of view. As quoted above, giving prominence to a name promoted by a very small minority is WP:Undue weight. It doesn't matter if all of us agree that this small minority uses the Arabic name. The fact that the minority is very small is what makes the difference. Surely you can see that if your own motives are pure. ObserverToSee (talk) 23:02, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

It is not undue weight to say that it "is sometimes controversially referred to as the Arabian Gulf by Arabs." Even if only a tiny minority uses the name Arabian Gulf, it would not be undue weight to mention that they do. You see? We are not adding that some believe that the real, correct, 'true' name is Arabian Gulf. We are just saying that some Arabs call it the Arabian Gulf, and that is a fact held by the majority. --Agha Nader (talk) 23:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

By putting it in the lead, you would be providing a name used by a very small minority "prominence" which is where the WP:Undue weight comes in. No one, at this time is arguing that the name should not appear in the body where it is not as prominent, although a case can be made for that as well given the letter of WP:Undue weight. The lead as it currently stands provides for the necessary neutrality. ObserverToSee (talk) 00:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:Undue weight does not apply. It only applies to contentious minority views. What I wish to add is a not a minority view. You seem to think that you can censor the 'false name' by excluding its utterance. --Agha Nader (talk) 00:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

The wisdom of WP:Undue weight is very apparent here. Regardless of how you choose to apply it, giving "prominence" to the name used by a very small minority in the lead, violates the neutrality. Indeed, if other sources for knowledge had such a wise policy or guideline in place, this would not be an issue anywhere. ObserverToSee (talk) 00:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Prove that it is giving prominence to the term Arabian Gulf. It is saying that it is controversially used. By the way, are you a sockpuppet?--Agha Nader (talk) 00:34, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Interesting that you would ask me if I am a sockpuppet. It reminds me of another editor who asked if I was editing under another name when I first started participating here. I choose to ignore this striking similarity both in your arguments and methods and not resort to what you've decided to do. I'm not sure if you've actually read everything in the above discussions before deciding our compromise was not valid. I think you owe it to yourself and everyone else here to do so. It's very clear that putting the Arabic name in the lead is providing it additional prominence resulting in WP:Undue weight. ObserverToSee (talk) 00:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Agha Nader, you have been warned repeatedly here and on other article discussion pages to find some more lasting method by which to restrain your incivil tendencies. Asking someone if they are a sock-puppet is both a personal attack and an uncivil thing to ask. If you think someone is a sock-puppet, use WP:SPP and WP:RFCU to verify one way or the other, and let an admin do the accusing. You have been here long enough to know the protocol. Statements like those do not promote a professional editing atmosphere. - Arcayne () 01:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

You are wikistalking.--Agha Nader (talk) 01:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Er, did you just miss that previous post about not making personal attacks? this page has been watchlisted for over a year. - Arcayne () 02:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

You are stalking, I have reported you. Do you have anything to say about the current discussion?--Agha Nader (talk) 02:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Nothing I haven't already said. Please let me know where this "report" is located. - Arcayne () 03:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

• User:Agha Nader you started changing a topic with long discussed comprimise and as we respected you and your point of view we did engage in a civil talk. While I didn't agree with your points but saw the merit of it and answered to it. However in above talks you have changed from being a person who engages in civil dialouge to one who attackes personally and also doesn't assume good faith by calling people sock-puppet. I think by this manner you just reduced our civil disscusion to an unacceptable level. Also you did a disservice to your own claims. I think we are done by current discussion as you ran out of legitimate reasoning. Farmanesh (talk) 05:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

There is absolutely nothing uncivil about anything I have said. I asked Observer if he was a sock. I have suspicions that he is, but I have not accused him of it (this is because I assumed good faith). It is you who has "ran out of legitimate reasoning." For it is you who has made several baseless arguments that I have responded to. First you say there was consensus (I proved that the compromise was in violation of WP:LEAD and WP:CONSENSUS. Then you said it was undue weight (I rebutted by saying that no evidence has been provided by that it is a marginal view that some people controversially use the term Arabian Gulf). Of course, you did not respond to my rebuttals (you ignored them and repeated yourself). Sure, I directed one of my posts to Arcayne but that is because he has stalked me. --Agha Nader (talk) 05:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

So Nader, are you suggesting that asking Observer if he is a sock is not as uncivil as if you shouted it from the rooftops? So, if I asked if you were a thief because your behavior 'reminded' me of one, the accusation in and of itself could not be considered uncivil or a personal attack? Let's not split hairs. If you want to accuse someone of bad behavior, there are places to do so - not in the article discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arcayne (talk • contribs) 07:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

What am I missing here?! Where has Farmanesh been rebutted by you and repeated himself? If we're reading the same talk page, it seems that it is you, Agha Nader, who's repeating and ignoring valid points about WP:Undue weight and insisting that additional prominence be given to a name that is used by a very small minority. Resorting to baseless insinuations does not strengthen your argument. Repeating your insinuation and stating your suspicion openly amounts to an accusation. Again, I choose not to do the same for you as I do not wish to be uncivil. The lead of this article is currently neutral as it is supposed to be. ObserverToSee (talk) 06:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

• I just had a first look at this page and was shocked by the lack of information. Note from WP:No Angry Mastodons-"always bear the big picture in mind: we're here to provide information for nonspecialists." There are (unfortunately!) still millions of people in the world who are confused about the most basic ethnic divisions in the Middle East, e.g., the difference between Persians and Arabs. Such people might come to this article hoping to figure out some of that history, but because of this intense dispute about a very small matter of the presentation of names in the lead, they will not learn anything. I would just call upon all parties to reach SOME consensus -- even if you're not 100% happy with it -- as quickly as possible so this article can be unlocked and expanded. User:snarkhunter22

I completely agree with you, very correct. This article have had this same dispute for much longer before the first time I ever saw this article and seemingly it will continue to face it. We have reached consensus as you propose before after very long discussion with involvment of many editors which kept the article peaceful, stable and unlocked for long time. Now someone again started the discussion (actually first unilaterally made the changes s/he liked and only later started to talk about it). We have properly responded to him/her and considered his/her points.

I think it is time for an administrator to have a look at this talk and unlock the page. Farmanesh 22:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I have enumerated to Farmanesh several reasons as to why undue weight does not apply. Unfortunately she ignored them. So I will present further evidence to her. If scholarly sources use the term Arabian Gulf in addition to (or in lieu of) Persian Gulf, then there is more than a marginal minority who use the term. Farmanesh claims that the mere utterance of Arabian Gulf is in violation of undue weight. She equates the proposed addition of material that claims that it is "controversially referred to as the Arabian Gulf by some Arabs," to material (which I do not propose) that claims the Arabian Gulf is an alternate name used by many. For it is an universally accepted fact that it is "controversially referred to as the Arabian Gulf by some Arabs." If a bunch of academic sources feel it is necessary to mention the conflict, then surely it isn't undue weight for Misplaced Pages to do so as well. And of course, the lead should summarize the article.

• National Geographic writes "Historically and most commonly known as the Persian Gulf, this body of water is referred to by some as the Arabian Gulf" . Why would National Geographic write that if it is is a fringe view?
• This article discusses the controversy .
• Quite frankly, this notable article uses the term Arabian Gulf. .
• Another example
• Another scholarly work that uses Arabian Gulf

The undue weight argument is inherently flawed anyway. If it is notable enough to bear a section in the article it should be in the lead by WP:LEAD. Even works that aren't necessarily focused upon the name conflict, they mention that the Arabian Gulf is used by some. That demonstrates that it isn't undue weight to mention the Arabian Gulf.--Agha Nader 07:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

What you are saying here is that there are some cases who use other names than Persian Gulf, well that is not disputed. However when you give 5 cases of usage of other names, there are millions of case for usage of Persian Gulf and thats where WP:Undue weight applies.

However what I said now and what you are saying are not adding anything to this discussion, these have been extensively discussed before. The reason wwe are here to discuss again is to see if there is any new reasons to change the comprimise which apparently there is none. That is why I propose admins to look to our discussion and unlock the article.

If you happen to bring any new points, we would be happy to discuss more. Otherwise we are just repeating ourselves and also many others before us.Farmanesh 22:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

The Lead (arbitrary break)

Someone please correct me if I am wrong, but as I see it, these are the main points of the discussion thus far:

1. the Persian Gulf is the more common term for the body of water in question;

2. the body of water is also referred to as the Arabian Gulf (whether this is an occurrence solely within SA needs to be cited);

3. the naming discrepancy is discussed within the body of the article;

4. We have citations for both uses;

5. the article for the Arabian Gulf notes the Persian Gulf naming dispute as well as Red Sea;

It seems rather clear that the argument about this is pointless. Governments have been bickering about this for at least a century and been trying to revise maps for nearly that long. Redirects may be a eventual solution, merging the data from the Arabian Gulf into the main article for the Persian Gulf, though I can foresee problems with doing something similar with the Red Sea article. For now, however, is there something with noting in the Lead something similar to this:

(existing version) The Persian Gulf, in the Southwest Asian region, is an extension of the Indian Ocean located between Iran and the Arabian Peninsula.

(proposed version) The Persian Gulf (also called the Arabian Gulf and the Red Sea), located in the Southwest Asian region, is an extension of the Indian Ocean located between Iran and the Arabian Peninsula.

- Arcayne () 09:20, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

In proposed version, note that the red Sea has been sometimes called "Arabian Gulf" and not the Persian gulf(as the Read Sea)!--Alborz Fallah 09:48, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Right, but all three terms refer to the same body of water, correct? - Arcayne () 11:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

No my freind, Red Sea is completly different than Persian Gulf. Red Sea has been called Arabian Gulf in few historical case but it has nothing to do with Persian Gulf.

Beside Red Sea mistake, your proposal has the WP:Undue weight problem which has been discussed many times before and again in some extent now.Farmanesh 22:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

• It has been argued that WP:Undue weight does not apply here. In fact it applies very strongly as the letter of this policy/guideline is very clear that a view held by a tiny minority can not be provided undue prominence. This can not be ignored. Quoting further from WP:Undue weight: "We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views". The fact that a very tiny minority of the world population has the view that the Persian Gulf has an alternate name can not be disputed and everyone agrees. It has been suggested that this article is in violation of WP:Lead. If it is, it is perhaps because undue prominence has been given to a view of a tiny minority by including a detailed description of the naming dispute in the main article. I think we should follow as noted above and have the naming dispute presented in its own section only and reference Persian_Gulf_naming_dispute only. Further, National Geographic may not have the same properly defined policies/guidelines such as WP:Undue weight where they can be influenced by small minorities through various means of pressure. The lead should not change and if anything, the section for the naming dispute needs to be redone to follow WikiPedia rules such as WP:Undue weight. Thankfully, this is WikiPedia and WikiPedia rules prevail. ObserverToSee 21:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Thankfully, this is Misplaced Pages, and not ObserverToSee-Land where you can ignore facts. I absolutely love how you provide no evidence that it is a fringe view and ignore the plethora of scholarly works that show that it is not.--Agha Nader 22:51, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Why a tint of incivility again? Why do you have to resort to this? The points are very clear. They can't be ignored. As quoted, a tiny minority's point of view can not be given prominence. Justifiably and wisely so that the situation we have now in other sources of knowledge doesn't arise here in WikiPedia. We can't ignore this and we all should strive to keep this article neutral regardless of any personal feelings. ObserverToSee 23:03, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

What incivility? Show me evidence that it is a fringe view.--Agha Nader 23:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I've already explained this several times. I'll do it yet again. Please don't continue to ignore this. What you have been repeating about a large number believing that Arabs call the Persian Gulf by an alternate name is not relevant with regard to WP:Undue weight. The fact that Arabs are a very small minority who call the Persian Gulf with an alternate name is what makes the difference and makes it a view of a tiny minority. What needs to be proven here? ObserverToSee 02:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The scholarly articles I sourced are not Arab. --Agha Nader 02:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Consensus has been made between various users. Inserting Arabian Gulf means insering Persian Gulf in Arabic publications as well as the fact that the naming was political. The issue has been discussed already. Also please mind personal attacks. "Thankfully, this is Misplaced Pages, and not ObserverToSee-Land " is considered a personal attack. --alidoostzadeh 02:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

You have just violated WP:AGF. For I did not attack Observer. You assumed this. I reminded him that this is an encyclopedia, and his assertions are meaningless unless they are backed by evidence. I also find this statement to be amusing "The issue has been discussed already." As if consensus can't change! I quote WP:CONSENSUS, "Consensus is not immutable. It is reasonable, and sometimes necessary, for the community to change its mind." Moreover, this issue is different than the previous discussion because I propose adding that it is controversially referred to as the Arabian Gulf: an important distinction.--Agha Nader 03:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Agha Nader, it looks like you have totally ignored the point again. What point is there in the discussion then? WP:Undue weight applies here. It doesn't matter if there are articles out there that say Arabs use an alternate name for the Persian Gulf. What matters is that Arabs are a very small minority in using the alternate name for the Persian Gulf. Very simple. ObserverToSee 04:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Clearly, Arabs aren't the only ones who use the name Arabian Gulf. Guess what? I'll let you in on a little secret. Some scholars use it too! What a shock! I found these secret articles:

• This article discusses the controversy .
• Quite frankly, this notable article uses the term Arabian Gulf. .
• Another example
• Another scholarly work that uses Arabian Gulf

Don't tell anyone about them. We'll just ignore them. --Agha Nader 04:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Again and again, just b/c a limited number of articles use it, it should be mentioned in the article but as they are very limited cases (compare to many many who use Persian Gulf) it would be WP:Undue weight to have it in the lead.

Even one of the links you gave yourself up there which is an encyclopedia article, mention it in the body of the article and leaves it out of the lead section. At least please accept the encyclopedic standard of the link you yourself provide to us! Farmanesh 04:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Limited eh? How many do you need? I love how you skew the facts! That source has only a one sentence lead! In the second sentence it describes the controversy. Oh, Farmanesh, have you stooped to this low? Are you willing to mislead your fellow editors?--Agha Nader 05:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

1. Working Paper No. 61, UNITED NATIONS GROUP OF EXPERTS ON GEOGRAPHICAL NAMES, dated March 28, April 4, 2006 (); accessed February 09, 2007
2. "The Arab-Iranian nomenclatural controversy over the Gulf, which was so bitter in the late 50s and early 60s, was a by-product of the late President Nasser of Egypt's brand of Arab nationalism ... 'Arabian Gulf' is in fact a recent Arab appellation for that body of water..." ( Eilts, Hermann F. "Security Considerations in the Persian Gulf." International Security :Vol. 5, No. 2. (Autumn, 1980), pp. 79-113. )
3. s recognized by the United States Board on Geographic names, the name of the body of water that lies between Iran and the Arab states of the Gulf Cooperation Council is the Persian Gulf. For political reasons, Arabs often refer to it as the Arab or Arabian Gulf (The Persian Gulf at the Millennium: Essays in Politics, Economy, Security, and Religion edited by Gary G. Sick, Lawrence G. Potter, pg 8).
4. Some appropriate citation to attest that at least 2 regional countries refer to the gulf as Arabian Gulf

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Old requests for peer review
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Iran articles
• High-importance Iran articles
• WikiProject Iran articles