Talk:Persian Gulf naming dispute/Archive 1

message: First of all it strictly states the Persian side of the dispute only.
Second, it isn't exactly neutral, in fact it's extremely biased.
These would be enough, right? Well, the fact that there's another party in this dispute has no existance in the existing version of the article, it's as if silly ghosts are disputing the name. Accordingly, i'll add the necessary tag. MB 21:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not add the other side of the dispute yourself? You haven't even said what the other side is so you really haven't provided any justification for the tag. I'm tempted to give you a  (Sorry. Looking at this later, it sounds very insulting, and I didn't mean it like that.) –Tifego(t) 00:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

text: And you say "it isn't exactly neutral, in fact it's extremely biased", but you need to explain that, you can't just say "it's biased" without giving any reason whatsoever. –Tifego(t) 00:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll fix it, until then let's keep the tag, and please stop trying to isult me in the article, it's vandalism and in violation of WP:NPA MB 22:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, it stated a fact I didn't consider insulting. Also, somebody else removed the tag you added just now, that wasn't me. Anyway, I discovered there is a  tag which more accurately expresses the issue, and added that to the page for now. Is that better? –Tifego(t) 00:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The tag should be added 

message: I have no idea why Tesseran cut off the recent UN paper from here and added it to the “Links”!
Hardly anyone reads the links!
Are we hiding something here? Are we MI6? 
82.70.40.190 03:07, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh, it was probably removed because you added a bunch of non-encyclopedic stuff along with the excerpts from the report. I'm still not sure exactly what you were asking for. And Wikipedia usually doesn't simply copy reports from elsewhere, or at least it shouldn't. –Tifego(t) 03:25, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

text: What follows is the text that 82.70.40.190 added to the article, which fits better on a talk page since it's worded as a request. –Tifego(t) 03:12, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  UN paper 

message: The article – which keeps changing under my nose as I type, so this may not hold when you read this – suggests that "the latest UN paper from the Group of Experts on Geographical Names" entitled "Historical, Geographical and Legal Validity of the Name: PERSIAN GULF (4 April 2006)" is an official UN document with an authoritative status. Instead, it is just a technical paper prepared for a meeting of the  UNGEGN, submitted by Iran (see Technical Papers of the 23rd Session of the UNGEGN). LambiamTalk 19:27, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Status of the UN paper gegn23wp61.pdf 

message: I see this article as no different from the "flat-earthers" article. That POV is of course going to have an imbalance. If nobody disagrees, I'll remove the NPOV tag. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 10:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The NPOV tag 

message: Guys, you cannot change the history you just make yourself known to the rest, do what ever you want, many have done it before and achieved nothing but disgrace. Basra is not even in the Persian Gulf you wanxxxs! The more you do it the more Iranians will hate you, keep doing it, I am for it, you just make us hate you more.
Kiumars 01:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: you cannot change the history

message: What the heck is that, how can a Israeli newspaper be represented as the Iranian view point on this matter? I am going to change this section since it is completely irrelevant, and add a true "Iranian" viewpoint- not what a Israeli newspaper says the iranian viewpoint is. just writing this before I change it. 129.16.248.218 16:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Viewpoint of Iran according to Jerusalem Post???? 

message: All invloved parties views should be included, this is not neutral at all in an article about naming ((dispute)), I will wait for some time before editing/adding tag ! -dan
:There is no such thing as "the" Arab point of view. There is a whole generation of Arabs who don't know any better: it is the name they were taught in school, and which they read in their newspapers and hear on television. They may be completely unaware of the existence of a dispute. And there are Arab nationalists who want to see the name "Persian Gulf" wiped from the map(s), also internationally. In summary, their argument is this: We hate the name "Persian Gulf". We love the name "Arabian Gulf". Therefore this body of water must be named "Arabian Gulf". Is this not obvious from the present article? Must this be spelled out more explicitly, and what would be gained by that? If there is a more "neutral" representation of this nationalist point of view (I've never encountered one), let those who adhere to it add it to the article.  --LambiamTalk 07:24, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where's the Arab POV ? 

message: Recently Dalbury commented out three inline citations (, , ) offered in support of the article's claim that "The group of experts on Geographical Names [...] has endorsed 'Persian Gulf' as the official name for this body of water." The edit summary was: hid cited PDF sources that would not open, and the inserted comment has this: "Documents cannot be accessed, Adobe Acrobat Reader says they are damaged".
I had no problem opening these documents. They all show the same "Map No. 3981.1 Rev 1" prepared by the Cartographic Section of the UN's Dept. of Public Information (and not the Expert Group), which shows the name Persian Gulf, and also carries the legend "The boundries [sic] and names shown and the designations used on this map do not imply official endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations." My interpretation of this text is that these maps cannot be used as sources that imply official endorsement by the Expert Group of the name Persian Gulf. Therefore, whether accessible with Acrobat Reader or not, these citations should not be reinstated.  --LambiamTalk 07:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just tried to open one of them again, and the connection timed out waiting for a response. In any case, I suspect it will be hard to find any official UN stance on the name. -- Donald Albury 13:10, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Please remain civil. If the reference given does not support the claim in the article, then it is not a good reference and must not be used, period. It does not matter what we can find elsewhere, because it will not change the fact that this reference is a bad reference. This is so simple and evident to me that I don't understand that this needs to be explained to you. And further, what do you think, would this world map printed before the 1960s state: "The group of experts on Geographical Names [...] has endorsed 'Persian Gulf' as the official name for this body of water." No sir, it wouldn't. So why do you bring something up at all that is so completely irrelevant to what we are discussing? Please be careful what you write, because some people get mad when confronted with illogical arguments.  --LambiamTalk 00:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  UN map evidence 

message: Latin sinus in a geographical sense means "bay, bight, gulf"; it can mean a small bay or harbor. It does not mean "canal", which is canalis. See  Lewis and Short. (In general, it means "intendation, loose fold", like Ar. jaib; hence, sine.) To apply it to the Shatt-al-Arab is strikingly original research. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sinus

message: If you want to have a quotation in the text, you must literally use the words of the source. It is not allowed to change the words. For example, if Mr. Bush said, This notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Iran is simply ridiculous, and you quote this, it must not be changed into An attack by the United States on Iran is an option that is on the table, even if you sincerely believe that that is what he meant. The Jerusalem Post writes, literally: Tehran believes in aggressively defending the historical term "Persian Gulf" against "Arabian Gulf," which it regards as a name dreamed up by Arab nationalists. If you don't like this text, then don't quote it. But if it is quoted, it must be quoted as is. Changing it into something more agreeable is falsification. Many times now I have restored the quotation to the text of the source, and as many times it has been reverted without any attempt at justification. Please defend this behaviour, by explaining why you believe this article does not need to follow the principle that you do not alter someone else's words when quoting them, or stop it.  --LambiamTalk 22:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You still didn't get it? As long as your edits are not in favour of the Iranian interests, it will BE reverted. Jidan 23:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You need to watch you tone, see WP:Civil. User:Kaveh had already put back "aggressively", which is not NPOV either, but part of the quotation nonetheless. --Mardavich 23:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tinkering with quotations 

message: Some things I encountered while looking for the report on the 8th UNCSGN:
*The Kadmon book should be a quotable source, as long as it is properly quoted (without distortion) and properly attributed. If someone feels like following this up: here is more bibliographic info. (I think the "second" author listed is spurious and a misspelling of the name of the first and true author.)
*Another source that looks interesting from an encyclopedic perspective is this paper: Hamid M Almirian, A Historical Study on Nomenclature of the Persian Gulf. Onoma, the Journal of the International Council of Onomastic Sciences, vol. 35 pp 165–184 (2000)..
 --LambiamTalk 03:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Potential sources 

message: Having a bunch of Arab states around that body of water is no reason to change its name. Otherwise we should be calling the Black Sea, the European Sea.
What I cant understand is why all this fuss? The Arabs already have the Arabian Sea and Sea of Oman, and now they want a third body of water named after them?--69.153.70.147 10:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a very interesting question. However, this talk page is not for general discussion about the naming dispute, and we cannot use the talk page as a platform for our personal views. This talk page should be used for one thing only: the topic of how to improve the article. Thank you.  --LambiamTalk 17:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment: If not greed then what?

message: Ali doostzadeh, you have again inserted the false citations. Are you proud of yourself for so valiantly protecting, with false citations, these so-called "official UN positions", which are actually fabrications disseminated in a war of disinformation propaganda? Are all means allowed here? Have you no shame?  --LambiamTalk 03:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please stop the personal attack and concentrate on  where you blatantly assumed I have no sources for my claims.  The fact is the UN geographical board and catographic center  utilizes Persian Gulf in their maps. Go also visit the UN building.  And furthermore, the fact is that when I mentioned the US board on geographic names, you deleted my reference.  Have you no shame? And note you have made several personal attacks on me and other users.   --alidoostzadeh 04:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: And again and again and again and again and again and again and again

message: (first if anyone wants to open any of the link, use the right mouse button and do a save as , as the files are relatively large).
Regarding the English map of Meractor-Hondius-Jannsonius (they have it in variety of languages and only the English one seems to have a problem) which has Sinus Arabicus and which some users want to use it as evidence.  I will quote very reliable source and also include the more recent maps There is apparantly an error in this map regarding the name of the Persian Gulf.  All editions of Mercator's Geographia contain one map of the world and one of Asia.  Following the Ptolemy tradition, in all of these maps the Red Sea and occasionaly the Gulf of Aden, is called 'Sinus Arabicus', and the Persian Gulf 'Sinus Persicus'.  In the map of Persia included in the Meractor-Hondius atlases, however the Persian Gulf is named 'Sinus Arabicus'.  This nomeclature contradicts not only the Ptolemic tradition but also the world map and the map of Asia in the same atlas, both of them surely prepared by Meractor himself.  The reason for this disrepency could only be the fact that the map of Persia was not completed and probably not even prepared by Meractor, but by Hondius twelve years after Meractor's death.  Hondius or his assistants apparantly mixed up the two Ptolemaic terms Sinus Arabicus and Sinus Persicus. Janssonius must have noticed this error, for he rectified it by using the term 'Sinus Persicus' again for Persian Gulf in his atlases which appeared during the 1640s and later.   .     Note the information is taken from this extremly referenced book:  with over 400+ maps.  The book can be found in every major university (chicago, columbia, harvard) and the author has given many talks in cartographic centers.
a)
Note I have already mentioned as has the author above that in their map of Asia as well as in the texts, the authors of the previous editions exclusively used the term Persian Gulf/Persian Bay.  There has not been a single text evidence found with Sinus Arabicus for Persian Gulf in any classic european text or in any classic Arabic source.   And of course none exist in Arabic  until the rise of pan-arabist nationalism.  
b)
For this article any map should have the relavent textual edition.  Specially since there are many editions of the same atlas, and it is important to also have the latest edition as well since previous mistakes might have been corrected, whereas the texts have not changed much from edition to edition. 
c)
Here is another map with textual evidence from Ortelius Abraham.(again large file).  Note there is a map and textual evidence besides it.  I think such maps are very useful and should be used in the article based on agreements with several other users.  
--alidoostzadeh 04:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New information and correction in their latest editions. Once again highlighting the necessity of textual evidence with maps 

message: Hi there:
It seems that this discussion is never ending and it's difficult to get the overall picture. As an independent person without any regards to my citizenship I should say that this problem is caused by incompetent politicians/clergies and the only way to solve/stop this dispute is democratization of ALL Mid East. Because of the overall timesprit which makes "things go slower" than usual it makes all parts climbing on each other. 
Try to take it little bit easier ok?! After all there is a life to live:=D —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Graduation (talk • contribs) 16:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  To much writings and discussions..... 

message: Since the article is currently protected, would some admin mind to do the following?
* correct header #United Stated to #United States
* add :Category:Hydronymy
* perhaps fix a few dates: put square brackets around them so everyone can see them in their preferred format, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Dates containing a month and a day
Thank you! Wikipeditor 18:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor changes without any POV implications