Talk:Persian Gulf naming dispute

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

For the neutrality and accuracy dispute, please see Talk:Persian Gulf. roozbeh 16:50, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)

This is NOT a suitable comment for inserting a NPOV or Accuracy Dispute. Following the link one finds a moribund discussion that doesn't help matters. I will remove this Dispute notice since there is no actual dispute going on. Merely some lazy messing around with our Wikipedia. If you are going to dispute an article titled "Dispute..." you'd better do the work to make your case clearly and succintly. Emyth 22:23, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

This article is obviously biased!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.253.219.99 (talk • contribs).

"obviously biased"? i don't see how. could you please specify which part is biased? the summary of the artile is that the dispute was started in the 1960s when some Arab nationalists began using the term "arabian gulf" instead of "persian gulf"; however it says the U.N. through at least two directives continues to recognize "persian gulf" as the only standard geographic name of the gulf. it also refers to U.S. State Department and National Geographic Atlas as other important sources to confirm the same position ... ok now, which part of that do you consider biased? it is merely stating facts, it is not even stating an opinion (let alone a biased one). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Barnetj (talk • contribs).
I think I see why he considered this biased, now. It's because the article is named "Persian Gulf naming dispute" over "Arabian Gulf naming dispute", and the introduction strongly implies that "Persian Gulf" is the officially accepted name and places only "Arabian Gulf" in quotes. However, that is a fact that it is the officially accepted name, it's OK to imply facts, and it's not valid to dispute a fact as biased. The only thing that could really be biased about this article now is if it's withholding relevant information on the "Arabian Gulf" side of the dispute, which hasn't been mentioned. --Tifego 22:51, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
The article has indeed a biased “feel”, though that is subjective. However, I can't pinpoint a specific part that I consider incorrect. Instead, I just feel that arguments used by proponents of other names (other than Persian Gulf) use, if there are any, are insufficiently mentioned. – Adhemar 10:16, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] The picture

I added the geographer's nationality, since many people would read the Arabic text and infer he's an Arab, strengthening the Persian side. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MB (talk • contribs).

[edit] The tag should be added

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)

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 {{sofixit}} (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)
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)
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)
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 {{POV-check}} 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)

[edit] UN paper

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)

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)
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)

Help please: I need the direct links to the two UN Secretariat editorial directives in 1994 and 1999 affirming the position of the UN on the Persian Gulf name. Can someone add the direct links please I cannot find them, I found the document on other sites (http://www.marzeporgohar.org/folders/folder_10/Persiangulf.pdf) but I need the direct link to the UN website. The document is ST/CS/SER.A/29/Rev.1, I need it urgently to pass to BBC for their education!


By the way, I also found a recent document on the UN Website (UNITED NATIONS GROUP OF EXPERTS ON GEOGRAPHICAL NAMES, Twenty-third Session; Vienna, 28 March – 4 April 2006, Working Paper No 61): Historical, Geographical and Legal Validity of the Name: PERSIAN GULF (4 April 2006) which is very very interesting and very funny near the end where it explains how some people came up with alternative names!

Extracts from the UN paper:

[[Introduction]]

Geography, as the most ancient human knowledge is an applied science which has different aspects. It studies the reciprocal relation of man and nature and provides the results to the users in the form of documents in writing, books and maps. The names of features and phenomena including natural or man made ones have been considered by geographers for a long time, therefore similar features are distinguished by it. The name of a feature can not be observed on the land like the feature itself. Thus, by mentioning the case on maps, Atlases, and books, it will be protected during different eras as a part of historical, cultural identity and saved as mans heritage.

For the same reason, any change, destruction, or alteration of the names registered in historical deeds and maps is like the destruction of ancient works and is considered as an improper action. Therefore, the names of geographical features profiting from a unique historical identity, should not be utilized as political instruments in reaching a political, tribal, and racial objective, or in any clash with national interests and other's values.

This paper provides a short study of the historical background of the name PERSIAN GULF so that it might cast light on realities.


[[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, 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 information. 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.

Arabs 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).


http://unstats.un.org/unsd/geoinfo/gegn23wp61.pdf 82.70.40.190 11:18, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


Reply to Tifego: why on the earth did you remove the link to the UN paper on the External Links? What is your game mate? The document is the latest and the most comprehensive document I have seen on the subject from the UN! It states the UN’s stand on the subject and you remove it? It covers all the subjects already covered on the page plus some more and comes from the biggest International authority in the world and you delete it! Are you out of your mind? Stop messing about. What is your objection to it?


I also was asking for the URLs to the official UN websites that host the UN Secretariat editorial directives of 1994 and 1999 (I don’t like to refer to third party websites in my document, anyone can fake a document and put it on a website!)


82.70.40.190 11:18, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Status of the UN paper gegn23wp61.pdf

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)


I do invite everyone to read the following for a better understanding of the situation and having more factual elements in refernce to the validity of the Persian Gulf's name. I think that those trying to change this name, should feel shame as they're simply showing their sens of inferiority. Just leave the names as they're... It's PERSIAN gulf god sake.

Read this and be factual if you don't agree, Don't post Naserian pan arabist propaganda non sens please: http://daneshjoo.org/article/publish/article_2385.shtml

[edit] The NPOV tag

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)

[edit] you cannot change the history

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)

This can be taken both sides hun! -dan

[edit] Viewpoint of Iran according to Jerusalem Post????

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)

  • Oh no no no don't do that! According to this Wakopedia Jerusalem Post is the bible! Now you know who runs the show here?

Kiumars

[edit] Where's the Arab POV ?

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)

[edit] UN map evidence

Recently Dalbury commented out three inline citations ([1], [2], [3]) 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)

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)
  • What a load of crap! UN stance on the name has already been stated twice in the last 10 years! Read the 1994 and 1999 directives. Why you guys don’t go to your local libraries and ask for a world map printed before 1960s? If you see any other name used for the Persian Gulf I will shut up otherwise you do. By the way, don’t waist your time trying to download those pdf files, the whole www.un.org is not working!

Kiumars 23:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

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)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/e/r/Talk%7EPersian_Gulf_naming_dispute_86ea.html"