"

 what people must know 
well i'm a malaysian guy and i have to say what i really see, if we look to The total length of the Gulf coast about 3300 meters, the share of Iran which has about one third only and the rest belongs to arab countries, also if we will look to the side of Iran we will find them arab people persianized but originally they are an arab people who want to get out of the iranian government and make their own arabic country. more over look to the Roman & Ottman Epires and u will not find the name ""persian"" also because i understand arabic i checked in this site what is written in arabic then i found the map was using the term ""Sein Arabique"" then i wish that my arab friend get the name because in the time while the persian empire was strong they change that name while they was in golden age it doesnt give them the right to make it standred name.

 No Referance for the Sheikh Saeed House's Map, what do you think? 

 false allegations 
False alleations and fake maps have been answered [].   
 Please don't delete information, maps, documents and historical citing from ancient historian without cosulting other editors of this page ahead. This is organized vandalizing! You mentioned a website that is Iranian and represent Iran's POV and cannot be neutral or reliable to judge a ""fake map""!!!. Wikipedia and not affiliated to the Iranian government and doesn't represent one-side of ideology. This page is semi-protected not to be destroyed or vandalized by IP address users. As editors here, you should not praise such behavior and immediately revert the page to its last preview. Radical changes to refelect one-POV is not accepted. This behavior is going to be reported to Wikipedia adminstrators. Please consider helping instead of damaging or orienting. Ralhazzaa 

The maps you have presented aren't anything new Ralhazaa. I can't believe people keep having the same discussions in this talk page over and over again. and everytime the discussions reach the same conclusion, but then after a couple of weeks another person starts the same pointless round of edits. To be very brief (these have been discussed in length in different sections of the talk page and it's archives):  1. The maps you mentioned were proven to be inaccurate and were corrected in their later versions. verified through several articles and sources.  2. The UN resolution you mentioned does not pertain to ""international"" bodies of water, but to bodies of water that are shared between two or more countries. There is a difference. For example Shat-al-Arab is a river which falls under that category. But international waters do not fall under that category and the UN geographical names committee approves the standard  international name for them.  

 To ralhazza.  First of all we have discussed all issues here.  There does not exist a single textual evidence for Arabian Gulf.  We have about 300+ maps and 8 maps you brought from different books all have maps of Persian Gulf and their newer edition have been corrected.  It is all there and you can not insert a POV without discussion.  Read it again: [].  Why aren't you bringing newer maps from the newer editions of those books and mentioning that texts calls it Persian Gulf?   

 Perfect truth is not attainable like this. Show all POVs boys! 

Hi all,

In this page, ancient referential maps, citations from historical books, UN resolutions and policies is going to be added in brief to balance and neutralize this page, as many users wanted through this talk, considering the policies of editing on Wikipedia. Evaluating “Undue weight” cannot not to be decided only by small group of users, logically. These maps are going to show different side of information and represent different POV (not just by Arabs). Medieval maps, classical history references, UN organization reports related to solving dispute in geographical naming should show both POV for giving more neutrality in this page. Other users are required not to violate the using of references by saying ""It is incorrect!"" or ""False"" as long as it is apparently Ancient, Referential, Internationally Accepted and Used, Showing different POV(s) and Neutral. References should have adequate level of credibility and neutrality of author/source/provider/maker. Questionable references is something like this one as it is pr