Talk:Persian Gulf/Archive 3

message: (Editors note: this section of comments has been heavily vandalized by a user who is deleting and editing the comments of others.  I have tried to restore it to its pre-vandalized state. -- Gnetwerker 19:25, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Uggghhhh, if you're a normal, moderate Iranian, then God forbid I ever meet an Iranian extremist. And please spare us from any more racists rants, as I have very weak stomach. But I'm sorry that Arabs rename Persian claims as Arab, Arabs must know that the gulf was a Persian accomplishment and thus Persians own naming rights. Silly Arabs. --Inahet 06:50, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  LOL is this the crap they teach you in your schools? No wonder a degree from Arab countries aint worth horse shit. Klymen
You racist Arab, always trying to turn it the other way...
For your information, Persians have not ruled Iran for 800 years, so all of the statements you made are clearly wrong! Also, for your information, the first human rights charter was Persian. Persians never committed genocide, never forced their culture or their language onto others, and when Persians have conquered, never did they massacre the inhabitants. The Arab genocide against everything non-Islamic, non-Christian, and non-Judaism is fact! There are records of it, there are stories of it, and even historians acknowledge it!
And again, Arabs have not done anywhere near the amount of work for human civilisatoin that Persians, and later Turks have. Infact, how many Arabs migrated to Persia when their nations were so poor that they could not even feed their people...
the Persian Gulf has always been the Persian Gulf! You racist Arabs will never stop Arabising others will you? When will you learn? The only place where Arabs ethnically originated in was the Arabian Peninsula, not Israel, not Syria, not Egypt, not Mesopotamia, etc...
What do Arabs have left in this world? Nothing but the image of terrorism, so they start trying to claim other peoples history. You cannot claim Persian scientists, scholars, poets, inventions, bodies of water, land, and anything else that is Iranian. What does Iran have to do until you people put a hault on your racist atitudes? Oh wait, Arabs think that they are God's people and that everyone else has to become Arab and speak Arabic no matter what (LOL) so I guess you people will never stop.
And next time you try and debate with me, please work on your history skills, because all your facts are wrong and I can prove them wrong.
Oh well, I suggest the Arabian Sea page on Wikipedia has the term Iranian Sea in it as well, since some Iranians (such as I) refer to it as that. So if the editors dont mind, could you put a "mistakenly called Iranian Sea by some" in that section. Thank you.
-Iranian Patriot who hates racism.
You big cowardly liar...Persians never comitted genocide(s)? What about your persecution of the Kurds? Your persecution of the Sunni minority in your country? You keep telling me you offered something to human civilization, but you still failed to give me some contributions, showing what a f***ed up liar you are. What do Persians have left in this world? A supermacist, secret fire-worshipper making his little puppets called "presidents" in Iran do his evil bidding by suppressing women. Our contributions to civilization are affirmed by the whole world, you obviously don't have any(other than your excess drinking and wrong man-loving). Also, who are your scientists, scholars, poets? We have almost a 100 times the number of your scientists, scholars, and poets. We don't need your man-loving prose, Allah forbade that for us. I gave our contributions many times...you on the other hand gave none, you keep saying it's the persian gulf, your reasoning is that a greek man came by and called it that. Is that it? 300 million Arabs call it the Arabian Gulf, it stands to be an alternative name, 300 million isn't a negligble number, I'm talking to those who're reading this, not to arash and his clones. Cowards who don't sign their names, obviously are afraid of something. You offered no proof that you contributed more to the world than the Arabs( actually you offered no proof that you contributed at all) obviously you don't have any, Because you have no contributions to tell about. MB 16:02, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Persian Gulf

message: --- Im sorry, but there is no need for a dispute. The Persian Gulf has always been known as the Persian Gulf. From the time in history when naming of waters ever existed, the Persian Gulf has always been. Why fabricate new terms such as "arabian gulf" or "the gulf". This is silly, its like calling the Caspian Sea, the Russian Sea.
There is no need for a dispute, nor calling this a Controversial Topic. The Persian Gulf will always remain the name for the Persian Gulf. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sinamohajer (talk • contribs) 
Salam, I think we're in need to expand this page and give a more detailed view of the Persian gulf's history. I recollect reading an article also specified in the Reference section about the black slaves that currently reside in Qeshm Island, they were slaves brought in by the portugese slavetraders and then reverted to Shi'ism, later on a Qajar king gave them asylum because of the persecution they endured because of being Shiite under Sunnite controlled territory.
In addition, i think we need to be more detailed on when exactly the naming of Arabian Gulf started being heavily promoted* (Presumably AbdulNasser's era and beyond) as well as the Naming of Persian Gulf, its history, some other unmentioned cool facts like what battles have taken place there, what kind of people have been living there (a more detailed of Greater, Lesser Tonb and Abu Musa islands would be appropriate), etc. Much of wich can be find in the refrence links below but wont hurt to be mentioned on the page as well; I'll try and look for some articles regarding these.--Paradoxic 16:15, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expansion of the page 

message: Yeah, I agree with the Iranian Compatriot guy, lets change the "Borj Al Arab" wiki page into "Borj Al Fars" or include that its also called that. Or like the guy suggested from Arabian Sea to Persian Sea. That way we would have a mutual understanding. However right now this is just Stupid.--Paradoxic 22:01, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I was never suggesting that we actually do that. I was just telling the Arab Wikipedians why their thinking is flawed. And I think i got my point across just fine!Iranian Patriot 00:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Borj Al Farsi/Bahre-Fars

message: I have added the  tag to this article as requested by user:SouthernComfort at WP:AN (not WP:AN/I as I mistakenly put in my edit summary). I have not read the article and have just skimmed this talk page. I am not going to get involved in this issue (I haven't time). Thryduulf 12:13, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you kindly. SouthernComfort 12:36, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV tag 

message: The World Recognizes the Persian Gulf as the Persian Gulf. If the citizens of some arab countries choose to use the false term: "arabian" gulf, then fine, but keep it to your selves. We want WIKIPEDIA to remain factual and represent the world, not the tiny minority of some Arabs who are pushing to change illicitly manufacture historical facts.
I created a new thread because the "Arabian Gulf" thread seems to have lost it's focus on the subject after the first few posts. Anyway ... I believe that Arabian Gulf is not a "commonly accepted" alternative name, in fact I believe it can be more accurately described as a "commonly rejected" alternative name according to many prestigous and unbiased sources including the U.N. which has made it clear in it's editorial directives that the only accepted name of the gulf, is the Persian Gulf. Therefore i think, as User:SouthernComfort had pointed out earlier too, the term is pushing a POV and cleary associated with Arab nationalism. The National Geographic incident is a very good precedent that can be followed here for settling the dispute over bold-facing Arabian Gulf. For those that do not know what i'm talking about, National Geographic Atlas, in one of it's recent editions, had printed the term Arabian Gulf in paranthesis and smaller fonts next to the name Persian Gulf. Shortly after they were requested to review the matter, they removed the term Arabian Gulf even in paranthesis and smaller fonts and placed it only in a footnote that explains about this term being used locally in some Arab countries.
I think National Geographic atlas is an excellent verifiable source that backs the decision for not bold-facing Arabian Gulf. Barnetj 16:52, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A name doesn't have to be widely accepted to be considered an alternative. However, I think people are beginning to make too big a deal out of the number of single-quotes surrounding these words, so I will have to recommend italisizing "Arabian Gulf" as a compromise. Its usage is widespread enough to deserve formatting in a way to point it out from the rest of the text, but since it is also widely rejected by a number of neutral academic sources, should not take the next formatting step up, boldfacing. I think this would be a fair compromise. — TheKMantalk 17:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I support this compromise. Barnetj 18:25, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I support User:TheKMan's compromise. --ManiF 18:38, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

message: - Persian Gulf is the correct name for the body of water - Well considering the CORRECT and FACTUAL name for the Body of Water surrounding the Arabian and Persian peninsula is the PERSIAN GULF, it is of no suprise that WIKIPEDIA decided to use the correct name in the Arabic edition. Or do you want them to change historical, global and geographical facts just for you? I dont think that is possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sinamohajer (talk • contribs) 
Regarding the naming dispute, I thought it would be interesting to note that in the Arabic language wikipedia, the main page about this body of water is titled "Persian Gulf" (الخلیج الفارسی in Arabic)    and the article on "Arabian Gulf" (الخلیج العربی in Arabic) is a redirect to the Persian Gulf page . The caption of the first picture in this arabic article roughly translates as: "A map from the year 1565 that shows the name of the gulf as the Persian Gulf, and shows the name Arabian Gulf where the Red Sea is". Barnetj 21:55, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like that page was just moved. The decision looks very controversial since there's been a lot of edit warring over what to call the article. 
 So it's not as clear-cut as you're trying to make it sound. Were you just trying to change the subject? The point was that many major sources present Arabian Gulf as an alternative to Persian Gulf and point out that the name is used by the local population. As I've said many times, bold-facing "Arabian Gulf" is not an endorsement of its usage; it's a recognition of its usage. AucamanTalk 22:39, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you look at the history of the page, you will see that the page has not been "just moved". However it is definitely a controversial subject over there too (as you have pointed out) but what i think is interesting is that eventually the dominant view seems to be in favor of keeping Persian Gulf as the primary name. About whether bold-facing arabian gulf is an endorsement of it or not, please read the posting under section "arabian gulf bold-faced?".  Barnetj 05:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks to me like the page was just moved back to "Arabian Gulf" and is likely to just stay there. AucamanTalk 16:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Persian Gulf in Arabic Wikipedia 

message: I looked into this page because of a note on WP:RFC.  I have noticed a few things, one of them very concerning: Sinamohajer has removed and edited comments apparently made by others, deleted references to the archives, and otherwise vandalized this Talk page, while adding WP:NPA-prohibited attacks, often unsigned.  This must stop.  If it does not, a civil discourse here cannot take place.
Second, there was recently a similarly vitriolic naming dispute at Falkland Islands -- I suggest that people take a look at that.  In the end, the editors of that page determined to use the ISO standard designation in the intro, discussing the controversy regarding the name in a closely-following paragraph.  This is what I would suggest here.  It is neither appropriate to use a name that is not internationally accepted as the page name or (usually) prominently in the introduction, nor is it appropriate to omit entirely a name in common use by a substantial minority, in this case many bordering countries.  But as I said, first the vandalism of this Talk page must stop.  I will try to revert some of it myself. -- Gnetwerker 18:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, and I endorse the quote that: 'bold-facing "Arabian Gulf" is not an endorsement of its usage; it's a recognition of its usage' Robdurbar 18:39, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outside Perspective 

message: The following sentence should be modified:
Since 1960s, Persian Gulf Arabs and their states have usually referred to the water body as the Arabian Gulf.
Up to now, United nations has past three resolutions saying that the name of this Gulf is Persian Gulf. The usage of the word Arabian Gulf has been repeatedly condemed by UN. 
I suggest the following sentence:
Despite three UN resolutions in condeming such act, some Persian Gulf Arabs and their states keep on refering to the water body as the Arabian Gulf. Some Arab states appologized for that.
We can't have the word arabian gulf in this article without mentioning who (Saddam Hossein and President of Egypt) were behind it. The word arabian gulf is not simply a name. There is a hateful politics behind it. The United Nations with its 22 Arab members countries has on several occasions officially declared the unalterable name of the sea between Iran and the Arabian Peninsula as the Persian Gulf.  --Fooladin11:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not Wikipedia's place to take sides in international conflicts.  The NPOV way to state the point above is much more like you first wrote it: "Since the 1960s, some states bordering the Persian Gulf have referred to the body of water as the Arabian Gulf, despite three United Nations resolutions formalizing the name as Persian Gulf.  This states the facts without passing judgements on them.  Partisans on both sides, please take note. -- Gnetwerker 05:37, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This sentence is not acceptable 

message: We're not talking about which name is more "correct". Bold-facing "Arabian Gulf" is not an endorsement of its usage; it's a recognition of its usage. Bold-facing has nothing to do with correctness. You're telling me that "Dubya" is the correct way of addressing the President of United States and that's why it's bold-faced here? Bold-facing has nothing to do with correctness. 
The article's title has to do with correctness. If the article's title was "Arabian Gulf" I would certainly agree with moving it to "Persian Gulf". But that's not the case, and no one is challenging the currect title. 
The fact is that "Arabian Gulf" is used by some people and this deserves mentioning. If you think it's incorrect, then you can explain why it's incorrect. See WP:NPOV: "The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these are fairly presented, but not asserted. All significant points of view are presented, not just the most popular one."
I think it's about time we take a poll on this. AucamanTalk 20:24, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is already mentioned and it does already mention why its incorrect. -- -  K a s h  Talk | email 22:41, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Poll?

message: This article has been protected a rather long time for the level of dialogue that's happening on this talk page.  Please try to edit constructively and then it won't be necessary to protect the page.  I'm leaving it unprotected, but if edit warring breaks out again you can always make a new request that it be protected. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 00:06, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. -- -  K a s h  Talk | email 00:50, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unprotected 

message: See Falkland Islands - the "other" name ("Islas Malvinas") there is not bolded. It shouldn't be bolded here for the same reason. Italics is fine, and this was the original format here before a certain someone decided to bold it for no good reason. Up to then, no one had a problem with italics. SouthernComfort 04:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Firstly, "Malvinas" in Falkland Islands is bold-faced now. Secondly, it's usually not a good practice to suggest rewriting a disputed section of an article based on another disputed article. The example of Dubya I gave seems to be better. AucamanTalk 04:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not anymore it's not, and you cannot take this problem to other articles to suit your POV. "Dubya" is a nickname, not a geographical body. The manual of style doesn't say anything about using "alternative" names which are controversial and offensive to a certain group. Bolding is inappropriate. SouthernComfort 04:47, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's nothing offensive about "Arabian Gulf". Also note that Wikipedia is not censored: "Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive." This is not the first time I've seen you call things you don't like "offensive". AucamanTalk 04:58, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's your POV. Iranians consider it offensive  . Yes, and you are offended by plenty of other things as well, so what's your point exactly? Bolding is unnecessary and there are no WP policies or guidelines which stress that it must be bolded. SouthernComfort 05:01, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm an Iranian and I don't think there's anything offensive about the term. That's the point. The notion that term "Arabian Gulf" is "offensive" because it contains the word "Arab" is pretty racist in an of itself. AucamanTalk 05:26, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've provided sources regarding the issue of offensiveness and why it is considered offensive. Again, no WP policy or guideline exists to stress that it must be bolded. SouthernComfort 05:29, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Those sources do not claim that the word is "offensive". Why should it be offensive? AucamanTalk 05:33, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Read the sources - they're fairly clear. And again, no WP policy or guideline exists to stress that it must be bolded. Italics is fine, as with Falkland Islands and other such articles where controversy exists. SouthernComfort 05:34, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Tthe term "Arabian Gulf" is offensive to many, not just Iranians, because of its political nature and the fact that it's a politically constructed name meant to promote Arab superiority and Pan-Arabist ideas. Persian Gulf contains none of those connotations. Kirbytime 05:52, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

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

text: So would i be correct in understanding that, embolidng aside, everyone would be happy with the 'also called the Arabian Gulf by some' with this explained elsewhere in the page, and naming dispute linked to? Robdurbar 07:27, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The wording is currently fine. There is a section on it, how much more do we need to emphasize on the matter?  -  K a s h  Talk | email 10:59, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: To bold or not to bold

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

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

message: If we're going to move a mention of the Arabian Gulf to the bottom of the page, the least we can do is put it in bold so people can see it, as there have already been several instances of users trying to add the mention back to the top. Someone please point me to discussion that led to moving it to the bottom and leaving it in italics only. — TheKMantalk 19:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please look 3 paragraphs above this comment -- -  K a s h  Talk | email 20:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Arabian Gulf, again

message: All encyclopedia's(e.g. Britanica) mention both names, Persian and Arabian Gulf, right in the beginning. Why should wikipedia be different? 
Omitting Arabian Gulf from the beginning of the article is like omitting it from the whole article, why? 
There are many other similiar naming disputes like Sea of Japan (East Sea) or English Channel(La Manche), where both names are mentioned at the beginning of the article, and both are bolded, why should the Persian(Arabian) Gulf article be different?
Unfortunatly, there is a political agenda behind this. Wikipedia should not bow to this. I think its really silly enough that the Iranian's went that far to make website's such as this . I really mean no offense to my Iranian friends, but this is simply childish. jidan 21:33, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: the arabian gulf can be mentioned in the dispute section.  that is the only place where it should be mentioned. that is like telling the turks that they have to have constantinople in bold letters in the istanbul article just because greeks insist on calling it that. it makes no sense.Iranian Patriot 23:41, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Persian( Arabian ) Gulf

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

message: Wikipedia is not a nationalists site, it should be Neutral,
i really dont see why would some Iranian think that Putting the term Arabian Gulf in the main Article is Naltionalistic thing?, its an alternative term USED by more than one states members of the UN,
the UN has official papers in it has the Term Arabian Gulf ( yes it does, go to www.un.org and search for the term Arabian gulf you will get around 470 pages, and the term persian gulf you will get 920 pages) so its mentioned in the UN papers !
I as an Arab know History and know that the Term Persian Gulf is the most commonly used term and its been used for at least the last 2500 years
BUT
this does NOT mean that this Gulf been Called Persian Gulf Always, this is misleading and not true, this body of water had OLDER names, such as the Bitter Sea called by the Babylonians, and an older name is also the Lower Sea called by the older civilization of Sumer.
Sumerians were not Iranians and Were there 2000 years before persians has their first great Empire.
my point is that this Gulf had different names through History, Latest one in the 60s Arab decided to change the name ( iam not talking about right or wrong, iam talking about Facts that i know" and changed it to Arabian Gulf due to some relation problems with Persia under the Shah who supported Israel and the rest of the bla bla bla....etc.
so saying that this Gulf has only one name is Wrong.
even Encyclopedia Britannica has the Term Arabian Gulf mentioned in Bold under the main Topic name which Persian Gulf,
its a FACT that this Term is used , not by one nation But by more than 10 ( i wanted to say 21 as the members of the Arab league but to be sure its more than 10).
since its USED officially then its A fact that its been used,, Igonoring this FACT is Pure Denial,
i hope Wikipedia stay Neutral and present FACTS,
ultra Senstive people should accept facts, and try to controle their Nationalisim , specially in sties like these, you dont know maybe with this paranoia and unltra sensitivity you will send the wrong msg.
take care
Ioj 06:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Those UN documents you are talking are written by Arab states within the UN. The UN uses the term Persian Gulf and Persian Gulf only in its own documents.  And by your logic, if a group of countries started calling the Arabian Sea the Iranian Sea that makes it ok?  The fact is, the term arabian gulf was invented to create tension between Iran and the Arab world by the british, and now the Arabs, who obviously still want that tension, are insisting on keeping this term.  It makes no sense to me at all, i dont get the logic.Iranian Patriot 00:10, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: this is not a matter of being anti-arab. i personally, as an iranian, respect arabs and their culture very much. however it's not acceptable to use an encyclopedia  as an instrument for promoting the campaign of a small group of people/countries that are trying to change the historical name of a region of the world.  i'm amazed why some people label the actions of iranians in defending the historical and legal name of the  persian gulf as "nationalist emotions"! !   the name was already there(!), and then a nationalist arab leader started the new term "arabian" gulf just 40 years ago and since then arab states have gone as far as passing different legislation to promote the new name. ok, now let's be fair and take a second to review the history of the issue in your mind. who do you think is acting on "nationalist emotions"? Barnetj 18:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The alternative name IS mentioned so please stop saying that we are denying its existence. To completely erase the name is wrong as you mentioned but this article IS NOT doing that as the name is very clearly mentioned and its existence is acknowledged. However, the attempt to make this "alternative" name look as legitimate as the original name is completely wrong. This alternative is ONLY used in a few countries (all of them Arab) and it is not internationally accepted; UN does not recognize it either (has mentioned on more than one occasion that the only acceptable name is Persian Gulf) The other name however is used in the whole world and not just among Persian people and not just historically but even today. The difference is very clear. I don’t appreciate you implying that Iranians are racist since it is very offensive. It is easy to accuse a group of people but it is not wise to do so. Please avoid personal attacks. Gol 04:43, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

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

message: I would suggest that Persian Gulf States be made a redirect to this article, as everything under that title can and should be discussed here.  Of course I am not saying this of the Persian Gulf Arab States article, as that smaller region has a cultural distinctiveness which merits its own article.--Pharos 04:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. That article is only a stub and has the potential to be expanded (trade, navigation, etc.). Kaveh 17:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But my point is that trade, navigation etc. should properly be discussed at the main Persian Gulf article.  We don't have a Southeast Asian States article; all of that information is satisfactorally at the Southeast Asia article.--Pharos 22:46, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge of [[Persian Gulf States]] 

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

message: If anyone desire to change any name, They can change Washington DC to Washington DJ with respect to all DJs. Or change LosAngles to Tehrangles because Iranian people live there. In this case you are busy with your Names' Game. It will be good for yourself if you think it is good for other people.
zandweb 12:27, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Persian Gulf is Persian 

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

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

message: *Why is the other name of the gulf:"arabian gulf, always removed, although its a wide used name, and officially recognized by some soverign states?
*The name is disputed, why isn't this mentioned in the introduction? 
Jidan 17:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Simply because this article is mostly written by Persians (take a look at the history). I have nothing against our brothers in Iran, but I live in Bahrain (the only island nation that is located in the middle of this gulf), and I never seen this gulf called "Persian", even in our English media. —MK (talk) 16:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

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

message: Seeing as this article is protected, I would like to ask, how can we settle this dispute peacefully??
If it's a content dispute, let me know what the dispute is and I will listen - I am impartial here, and am offering to help.
Thanks, --SunStar Net 00:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi SunStar, its nice to see a non-iranian user for a change who is interested in this debate. The thing is that this gulf, just like Sea of Japan (East Sea) or English Channel(La Manche), has two alternative names, Arabian Gulf and Persian Gulf. The Iranian users don't want the arabian gulf to be mentioned as an alternative name and see it as a declartion of war by the arabs against them, which is really stupid. To give you a glimpse of what I mean, type in google "arabian gulf", the first site you are going to get is this http://arabian-gulf.info/, which interestingly also links to this exact article.  Jidan 20:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no alternative to the Persian Gulf, there is just the Persian Gulf. If tomorrow Iran starts using the term Persian Sea instead of Arabian Sea, that does not make Persian Sea an alternative name.Khosrow II 05:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A comment about this; the reason Arabian Gulf should be mentioned is because this encyclopedia is a global one; it can be mentioned, provided you properly source them. Yes, only a few may mention it; but it's probably worth mentioning it. --SunStar Net 00:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's already mentioned under Persian_Gulf#Naming_dispute as the result of a previous compromise, but as discussed and agreed to previously, the mention shouldn't be in the lead as that would be assigning undue weight to a name which is controversial, not commonly used in English, and not internationally recognized. --ManiF 01:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

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

text: Good point, Jidan, your introduction seems like a good one so far... --SunStar Net 21:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Arabian Gulf is not a legitimate name and it was recently removed from one of the most presitigous magazines, the national geographic after they tried to publish it next to Persian Gulf .  The pan-arabist created name Arabian Gulf Can be explained in another paragraph after first mentioning that it was coined by arab nationalists because of their anti-Iranian feelings.  The name Persian Gulf is the historic name as well as the much more widely used name.  Also I am sure somebody can call the US as Arabia and make it widespread, but it does not mean such a name should be used in the first paragraph.  Arabian Gulf is an offensive name propogated by Arab nationalists, Ba'athists and the like-minded and no matter how much oil money is pumped into it, it lacks history.  Also historically Arabian Gulf has been the name identified with the red sea.   --alidoostzadeh 03:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm an American, and not iranian, and I can say I have never heard it called the "Arabian Gulf". All of our maps in the english-speaking world are consistent with persian. --Shamir1 06:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I totally agree that is the case and this is an English wikipedia. Although millions if not billions in oil money is pulled into it to do historical falsification and with an increasing crookedness in scholarship all over the world, they are unfortunately people doing their best to falsify historical names. I don't know I just see more academic disintegrity everyday.  Either way  Arabian Gulf from ancient time is just another for the red sea (Strabo).  Persian Gulf is also used by Strabo to refer to Persian Gulf.  This is an ancient convention and there is no way a recent nationalistic madeup name deserve first paragraph.  --alidoostzadeh 06:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Again, agreed. Wikipedia is not a soap box, the term Arabian Gulf is an alternative to the Red sea and it is an incorrect reference if used for the Persian Gulf, Wikipedia should not promote incorrect alternative names to things. It is clear from the article that there is a dispute but the name stands as Persian Gulf according to UN and as recognised by most as it has always been --K a s h  Talk | email 11:54, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection