persian gulf.sinus persicus.percy golf. pars sea

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Persian_Gulf"

Officially and historically it is known as the Persian Gulf (and is its ONLY name), unforatanately National Geographic wants to change that!

 SimonP

Some people, especially many Arabs, argue that the Persian Gulf should be called the "Arabian Gulf". They raise two "reasons" for this: One is that, according to them, most of the peoples living around it are Arab(?!). Secondly, they "claim" that "Persian Gulf" has become something of an anachronism; because, according to them, the two nations bordering the Gulf Persia and the Ottoman Empire (who ruled the Arabs in the area) do not exist anymore (!) They claim that because the Ottomans have gone, and the state of Persia is now called Iran, the "Persian Gulf" today represents no "obvious" connection to any of the adjacent lands(!).

The two claims above, however have nothing to with either international norms or simply the truth!

First of all, geographical names are determined by historical facts and documentation regarding the place in question, not by the and birth-rate of certain nations that happen to rise around it! Otherwise, we would have to change the Gulf of Mexico into the Gulf of the U.S.! And after all, the supporters of the "Arabian Gulf" would better not even bother to waiste their energy for the population of Iran alone exceeds the sum of all other Arab states around the Persian Gulf.

Secondly, the "Persian Gulf" does indicate an obvious connection to one of the nations living around it: the Iranians. While the name of the State of Persia has changed to Iran, the majority of Iranians belong to the Persian branch of the Aryan race and consider themselves as such; they speak Persian (the only official language of Iran), and the vast Iranian Province of Persia is still lying above the Persian Gulf. Iranians have called the Gulf beneath their feet the Persian Gulf for thousands of years, since their first ancient Persian Empire. (So have done the most prominent historians of ancient Greece.) All this said, if some people cannot see an obvious connection between the Persian Gulf and the Persian-speaking Iranians, that is their own problem (of lack of general knowledge)! It is like saying that the English Channel represents no obvious connection to the nation living above it because the state is called the U.K.! Iranians can be Iranian and Persian at the same time just as the English can be English and British simultaneously.

Anonymous contribution needing NPOV and wikification

Historical and unique name of The Persian Gulf and its equivalents in different languages has been continuously in used since 3000 years ago in all languages, cultures, and all civilizations throughout the centuries and across the world. More than 2000 ancient literatures, books and maps belong to the past three millenniums, which contain this historical and heritage name are proof to the Persian Gulf as the right nomenclature. It was in 1952 after confiscation of British Petroleum properties by Iranian government that false and politically motivated title of Arabian Gulf was suggested by BP. then it was Roderick Owen (a British representative in the then colonialized Emirates) that for the first time put this suggestion in his book The Golden Bubble of the Arabian Gulf, This suggestion was later imitated by some Arab extremists and fanatic leaders and the BBC was first to support this dirty conspiracy.

Recent Distorting and denomenclature of the Persian Gulf name is not only an insult to the ancient cultures and injustice to the history and overall heritage of mankind but also an aggression to a universal accepted and established 3000 years ancient and heritage name. Assault to a heritage name is similar to the tragedy that happened to the Afghan Buda's statue and the museum of Baghdad on assaults of 12/4/2003 and all are criminal act. Persian Gulf, has been recognized as the real and rightful nomenclature not only by all ancient and past writers and historical nations but also by all modern international organizations and Int. societies among them the followings: 1- United Nation.  Incomplitization and distorting this historical name, is an illegal and unconventional act and in contrast to the resolutions of the UNGEGN and UN Conferences on the Standardization of Geographical Names.

Converting this name by a new false name is a clear breach of international laws and regulations. If we don't react this heritage name will be vanished by petro monies of the fanatic leader in region. For detail in Persian language click: http://parssea.persianblog.ir Persian Gulf equivalents and synonyms = Mare de Persia -Sinus Persici- Mare Persio-Sinus Persico- Mare Perth- Mar Persiano,Mare Pers,Persiski Zaliv ,Persischer Golf ,Sino Persico,Pars sea,Bahre Fars ,Bahre Ajam, Perza Obol- Porucha Wan,Parsi tstsots- Persiste Habbugt. Persicus .Persicon Persique. Persicum. Parsitstsots. Persidski.

Many organisation use "The Gulf", not just British. DJ Clayworth 15:30, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)


Quotation marks do not always imply doubt about a term - here they just mean we are talking about the name rather than the thing itself. DJ Clayworth 16:58, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Historic Names are Essential for Perspective

The use of historic place names is vital to help people understand their world. Changing names to fit times and styles sometimes may be an attempt to hide or deny the past. Certainly, there is a lot in the past of every people that we might wish to forget, but it is neither healthy nor instructional to deny it. We are the evolution of the past. To know where we came from and how far we have traveled is important if we are to understand where we might go in the future as a global society.

The Persian Gulf has been called by this name for thousands of years. Indeed, the world also walks upon Persian Carpets, and small art is compared to Persian Miniatures. These concepts have a meaning outside the current name of the country, or even the country itself. When the names in the Middle East change again, (and yet again after that) we don't want a rush to erase our past, but to realize that we are the sum of our past.

Keeping the name Persian Gulf as with many other ancient names, is to accept that we all are human, that we have faults, that things change, and that who humanity was before was probably the best we could do at the time. This acceptance of ourselves through accepting ancient names is a foundation for self-respect which is appropriate for every nation, and every era.

---

Historical and unique name of The Persian Gulf with its equivalents in different languages has been continuously used since 3000 years ago in all languages, all cultures, all civilizations throughout the centuries and across the world. More than 3000 ancient books and maps during the past three milliniums contained this historical and heritage name is a proof to this claim. It was in 1957 that Roderick Owen, a British representative in the then colonialized Emirates, suggested the title “Arabian Gulf” in his book "The golden bublle of the Arabian Gulf" The suggestion was later immetated by some Arabs fanatics, distorting a 3000 years ancient history, resulting in an insult and an aggression to the mankind heritage, universal accepted and established ancient name. Recent misuse of this name is not only an insult to the rich persian culture but also an injustice to the history and the overall heritage of mankind. Persian Gulf has been recognized as the rightful nomenclature by all international organizations among them the followings:

  1. - UN, United Nation.
  2. - UNCSGN-United Nation Conference on Standardization of Geographical Names.
  3. - UN Cartographic Unit Staff.
  4. - IHO–International Hydrographic Organization.
  5. - IMO- International Maritime Organization.
  6. - IAPO-International Associations of Physical Oceanography.
  7. - IHB- International Hydrographic Bureau.
  8. - United nation Documents on geographical names.
  9. - UNICODE- Encoding Standards Consortium.
  10. - ISO- International Standardization Organization.
  11. - IHA- International Hydrographic Association.
  12. - UNGEGN-United Nations Group on Geographic Names.
  13. - UNGIWG- United Nation’s Geographic Information Working group.
  14. - UNGIS- UN Geographical Information.
  15. - IAPO- International Association of Physical Oceanography
  16. - UNEP- United Nation Environmental Program.
  17. - UNESCO.
  18. - HABITAT.
  19. - WB- World Bank.
  20. - ICA- International Cartography Association.
  21. - UNGEGN-United Nations Group on Geographic Names.

Misusing and distorting this historical name, is an illegal act and in contrast to the resolutions of the UNGEGN and UN Conferences on the Standardization of Geographical Names. Converting this name by fals is a clear breach of international laws and regulations.

M. A.GONABADY Heritage Name Society


Please note that what follows by a M. Gonabady is not accurate. None of the organizations that he names have a "rightful nomenclature". You are welcome to visit the site of any of the organizations and do a search on "Arabian Gulf". You will see there are hundreds of official documents using the name. Here is an example: www.un.org/documents/ga/docs/56/a56124a1.pdf The document in the example is a Note by the Secretary-General and distributed by the General Assembly on 26 July 201. It has numerous references to the "Arabian Gulf" and NON to "Persian Gulf"! It is irrelevant how, why, or for how long some Arab people started using the name "Arabian Gulf". The fact is that there are enough people that know this Gulf by that name alone that would warrant it's inclusion in all reference books as a secondary name. Exactly as National Geographic has done. Also, as an Iranian, I am ashamed of some of the things that my nationalist (read racist) fellow countrymen have done to deal with this issue. I apologize for it.
Here are a couple of more examples that use "Arabian Gulf".
http://wbln0018.worldbank.org/EURVP/web.nsf/Pages/Brussels+-+By+region+-+Middle+East+and+North+Africa (http://wbln0018.worldbank.org/EURVP/web.nsf/Pages/Brussels+-+By+region+-+Middle+East+and+North+Africa) The World Bank
http://europa.eu.int/comm/external_relations/med_mideast/intro/index.htm (http://europa.eu.int/comm/external_relations/med_mideast/intro/index.htm) The European Union

thank you . i saw all the document that u claimed i found the name such as arabin gulf institute of ... ,arabian gulf university of ...member of arabian gulf club of ... and etct ... it is very clear that this kind of sentences in UN document refer to the name of that institute and does not mean that UN and its agency recognized this new name for a body of water.thank you all.M.Ajam

--BrainMafia 07:22, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
BrainMafia, don't sabotage the page. Add your points to the bottom and direct the writer. This isn't an oratory forum. I debunked your UN document below. I do not know more about the other two to form an opinion. But I'm sure finding a reference on Google doesn't mean anything on its own. I wish you could understand that too. Kaveh (talk) 06:14, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Questions

Why my edit which changes the order of naming the local names for the Persian Gulf, and puts the Persian local name first and the Arabic name seconds immidiately changed back by some users? What is the reason for this? If it's the length of coastline, Iran has the longest. If it is the historical right, Persia (Iran) owned the whole of it for thousands of years. What is the reason for insisting on puting Arabic name first?

Another question. Why some users insist on calling the actof delition of the adjective Persian from the name of Persian Gulf as an unbiased act which promotes "avoiding the debate"? --Mani1 06:38, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Repeated information

The fact that some Arab fanatics and certain British institutions like to use their own falsified versions for this historical and legal name is explained fully in the second paragraph of the text and those falsified "variations" are named there. Naming them again in the beginning of the text is superfulous and that's why I omited them. There is in my opinion no need to repeat this information twice in a text. --Mani1 07:24, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Alternate names deserve to be mentioned early, so that people who know them by those names don't think we are talking about something else. DJ Clayworth 13:17, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

There is nobody who does not know the name Persian Gulf and only knowing it as "the Gulf". So I think mentioning recent fabrications, once in the article is enough. --Mani1 15:41, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Mani1 one. Everywhere in Wkipedia the repeated information has been avoided, why some people insist that the information about the recent forgeries should be included twice in this article? --212.238.143.99 08:50, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This is about the names the area is called. Commonly, this is always mentioned in the first paragraph briefly. Then, we need to explain the details and the controversies in details, which is why it's mentioned lower again. BTW, please get yourself a user name. It's very easy and doesn't ask for *any* personal information. Even the email address part is optional. roozbeh 14:11, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)

Hi Roozbeh. I agree with the User:212.238.143.99 that mentioning that forgery twice is unnecessary. You said usually they do that. This is no usual case. Here we have to do with the childish and silly act of some petro-Shaykhs who want to use their petro-dollars to abuse and change the historical geographical names. By recognising their "fabrications" loudly and putting them as legitimate "variants" next to the legal and established name of this body of water, we give those Shaykhs a hand in their act. If I spend some money to print a few books in which the name England will be refered to as the Persialand, would you consider to put that next to the name England as a variant in the Wikipedia articles? --Mani1 09:29, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  1. You are being biased here. Some people (not me) say that it's no forgery to call the place Arabian Gulf. Some people (not me) say that there is no abuse happening here, etc.
  2. We are not giving hands to anybody. We also mention all the names of the Aras River as Araks (Armenian) and Araz (Azerbaijani). Are we helping forgeries? No. We are helping our readers to find that when one talks about an "Arabian Gulf", or "the Gulf", he is referring to the same "Persian Gulf". We also mention lower that some people (including UN) call the area "Persian Gulf". The reader will be able to judge herself which name she wants to use. If she's talking to a chief of state from an Arab country, she may prefer to use the "Arabian Gulf" name in order to make sure he is not offended. Who are we to judge? And if we do judge, we should start judging all other cases, most specially the cases of Palestine, Karabakh, Taiwan, Kashmir, ... We don't do that, because of NPOV.
  3. If you spend that money and publish the books, I guess it will be OK to mention the new name together with the common name in the England article. But only after you published the books. Then, the new name will be judged based on its popularity and it will be mentioned that only a certain person in a certain number of books is doing that.
  4. Please don't forget that I personally prefer to call the region "Persian Gulf". But imposing my personal view would be against Wikpedia policy.
roozbeh 12:53, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)
As I told before, mentioning those forgeries once in an article is more than enough. Wy do you insist on mentioning them twice?

Also you should know that in English language only in a few books published by the petro-dollars, the childish forgery "Ara... Gulf" is mentioned. Those are the only cases. Let us see whether you have the impartiality to mention that in the article! --Mani1 07:31, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Wrong Category

Why is Persian Gulf article listed in the "Arab category" of wikipedia? Can you please move it to Middle East or another Category more appropriate.

Done. Kaveh (talk) 22:06, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Active Vandalism

I removed this from the article:

Apparently the history-revisionist pompous condescending author of this page needs to take its own advice and read some history (and a spelling book for the discussion page):

http://i-cias.com/e.o/pers_glf.htm

What does it say on the page about not posting if one doesn't want one's work unmercifully edited?? Will he/she be so revisionist pompous condescending dogmatic as to remove my comment AGAIN???

Someone should lock the page untill these worked-up people go away. This one obviosuly has no idea what Wiki is, at least he didn't just blank the page like some of the other ones. And as for his point that some Arabs call the Gulf, "Arabian Gulf", it is incoporated in the text and with more details than the provided link.

Please Be Fair...

I realise that the area is 'officially' called the Persian Gulf in the UN...however it also officially called the Arabian Gulf in 22 Arab countries (not to mention there are more Arab countries lining the Gulf than Persian ones)...now that is a significant number of countries whos official line should not be ignored.

Every Arab on the face of the planet calls it the Arabian Gulf and will continue to do so indefinetly...why is their stance not given a fair deal in the article?

Even though the Persian Gulf is so called from a historical perspective this is not a valid reason for calling it so...things change: France was historically called Gaul...not anymore!!! Englishmen were historically called Anglo-Saxons...how often do you hear that today? Saudi Arabia was historically just called Arabia Kuwait was widely called Qurain prior to 1961 Bahrain was historically called Dilmun...........The list is **ENDLESS**

Well...you basically said it yourself: the official name of that gulf in the English-speaking world jsut happens to be "Persian Gulf", and since this is the English-language Wikipedia, we should follow official usage of the name. If the broad majority of Arab-speaking countries uses the term "Arabic Gulf", then the Arabic Wikipedia should use that name, but not the English one. As for things changing...well, they might one day change so that "Arabic Gulf" beomes a common name in common English usage, but until then, it is not our job to work towards changing the name but to record what name people actually use - remember, this is an encyclopedia, not a platform for furthering any agenda.
Additionally, I don't think adding joke links is a good way to garner sympathy for your views - if you think the naming dispute deserves a more prominent mention in the article (it's already mentioned in detail in the second paragraph), we can try and work out some way of phrasing this that everyone can live with. But redirecting valid external links to joke sites is not the way to go. -- Ferkelparade π 22:47, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
In that case I'll just add it in as another link..that way people can have both sites and make up their own mind...freedom of choice..THAT is the way to go! :-D


What is your point? We are talking about waterways. Arabs also call the Pacific Ocean, some other Arabic name. Do we have to change that too? There aren't that many Arab countries bordering the Persian Gulf anyways. Even population-wise, Iran is more populated than the Arab countries to the south of the gulf. Besides this thing just started 40 years ago, I don't think nowadays anyone in their right mind try to rename historical places. I can find Arabic atlases with "Sea of Persia" clearly marked in them from the 1950s. Instead to countering these pointless moves by Arab tyrants, you support them?
Firstly, no sane human would support a tyrant... but I am supporting my roots and I have no reason to be ashmed of being an Arab; and isn't calling the region the "Persian Gulf" supporting the terrorist ayotallahs of Iran, the same people supporting terrorist groups such as Hezbollah (a clear hypocrasy if you ask me!).
, regarding your Pacific Ocean comment.. the Pacific Ocean does not hint to a certain ethnicity or nationality, it is a generic term which purely based on location (I think, but I could be wrong in this regard I have to admit!) hence, nobody is offended. If such a generic name was given to the Arabian Gulf then I would accept it no problem.
But then again you are entitled to your opinions and I have to respect that...only time will tell what will become of the situation (imagine really dramatic music here to add effect!! :-D)
Aren't the Hezbollah Arabs though? By your logic, we should call the Arabian Sea, the Pakistani Sea. But then again, they supported the Taliban! And you are not one people, a Moroccan Arab is nothing like a Saudi. It's not just about the language, even then, Moroccan Arabic is very different than the Saudi one! Besides, if we are to disregard national borders, and count anyone calling the Gulf "Arabian", then there is no reason not to do the same with Persian Gulf. And 5-6 billion call it that. BTW, there should be Arabs that call the waterway Persian Gulf. You haven’t asked every one of them, have you? Also, Persian Gulf is in your historical books, what do you do when quoting an old source? Just ignore the references to the Persian Gulf? Aren’t you by doing that, changing your "roots"? Isn't that a bit silly? And so what if “Persian” hints to an ethnicity, Indian Ocean does too. Are you going call that the “Ocean of Oman”, or “our own Omat Al-Arabiya” Ocean? Are you going to start vandalizing the Jerusalem entry and change everything to "Ghods"? Besides, your original point was that Arabs, who speak Arabic, call the Persian Gulf, something else. You never mentioned ethnicity. Is that what bugs you? Are you a racist? Be reasonable please.

Solution to the Problem !!

I, the WikiGenius, have come up with the best and most effective solution to this problem.. since it seems that the Arabs and Iranians are about to gut each other of this trivial matter...how about renaming the area the Middle Eastern Gulf ... accurate enough for locating the place, and vague enough not to wind anyone up...

Alternatively, just call the place the American Gulf owing to the number of US warships and sea bases in the region!

UN stuff

This thing isn't supposed to be in the main article. These documents either exist or not. Now if you can demonstrate that they don't, you can remove them. But just linking to General Assembly and Security Council resolutions doesn't cut it for me. The UN has countless other forums. Here is the bit I removed:

(NOTE: Both of these supposed resolutions have not been found on any of the UN resources! UN has ALL of the General Assembly and Security Council resolutions online going back to 1946. Find OTHER resolutions of interest here: www.un.org/documents If anyone can authenticate the validity of these "resolutions" please replace this note with proper reference.)

Kaveh (talk) 22:54, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Fair enough. But why don't YOU demonstrate that they DO exist. (After all isn't it easier to prove something DOES exist than it DOESN'T?) The only bodies of the UN that pass resolutions are the General Assembly and the Security Council. And since they didn't pass such resolutions it does cut it for me! So here is the bit I removed, and you can put it back when you show us they are real:
However, the Iranian government led two resolutions in the United Nations to officially recognize that body of water 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.
I don't need to do that. It's an existing reference in the text. If you care enough you can take time to demonstrate that such claims are not true. You can contact the original person who put that bit of info in the article to help you. But you don’t just go around removing facts you deem suspicious from articles. You obviously don't much about how the UN functions. There are many other forums within the UN that hold meetings and pass resolutions. I quite frankly don’t know what your grudge is, as you seem have devoted yourself to this one particular article. I restore the text for now. Kaveh (talk) 02:23, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Whenever you prove that Iraq doesn't have weapons of mass destruction, I'll prove that these resolutions don't exist. It is ridiculous to ask someone to prove something that is not there! If you want to continue your irrational Bush-like logic, then I can add three (3) resolutions to your 2 well versed on how UN works maybe you can prove that those don't exist. And I didn't suddenly remove your so called "facts", I just questioned them, but you said I couldn't question them and moved my comment here. So naturally I think it would be fair to move the "questioned fact" here also until it is proven. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

BTW, so just you know, as soon as someone adds anything to an article it becomes "existing reference". Why in your view should that make it immune to question?

Finally, the original reference was put in there by an anonymous person so I have no way of asking them where they got it, if they care so much for its inclusion they can step forward and clarify the source. --BrainMafia 16:01, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Listen BrainMafia, I respect your opinion. But I fail to see the relevance of your points to this debate. I explain in simple terms. You have noted that you could not find the aforementioned resolutions in a UN website that contains the major General Assembly and the Security Council resolutions. I debunked by answering that that website DOES NOT contain every single declaration and resolution passed by very many forums of the United Nations. Now, the procedure in Wiki is when you doubt the validity of a point in an article, you note that part here in the talk section. The Persian Gulf resolutions were added more than a year ago. Since then, many active and respected members of Wikipedia have edited this article. You are welcome to follow this discussion to the bottom of things here in the talk section. But until you have managed to form a general conciseness, I ask you to refrain from removing facts from the article. This is not a pissing contest.
For the benefit of public discourse, I explain my understanding of the situation. First of all, I am aware of specific directives by the secretariat of the UN that make direct demands as to only use Persian Gulf when referring to that body of water. However, they add when materials provided by governments are circulated, the terminology should be kept intact. Thus, it is no surprise that some UN documents exist with those references. The specific example you gave was the declaration of candidacy for a Bahraini delegate and was only stating his previous appointments to the "Federation of the Arabian Gulf States." The UN does not change official documents provided by its member states. It does however, use Persian Gulf in every document that it produces itself. Including the maps produced by its cartographic department. Furthermore, I don't believe "if Google cannot cache it then it doesn't exist!" I suggest you follow your own advice and spend some time in your local UN authorized library, where they archive most of what is circulates by the UN (and not just major resolutions, but daily declarations by EVERY dept. of the organization).
Kaveh (talk) 06:00, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Naming Issues

It is really funny how Iranian care for the name!! It is and it will reamain PERSIAN GULF forever ... ).

he first announcement was made through the document UNAD, 311/Geneva on March 5, 1971, and the second was UNLA 45.8.2 section C, on August 10, 1984. I would also like to refer you to this statement from the British Government http://www.persiangulfonline.org/images/afshin3.gif which was sent