Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-12-14 Persian Gulf

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Request details

[edit] Who are the involved parties?

• Arcayne (talk • contribs • email)
• Persan en japon (talk • contribs • email)
• Alborz Fallah (talk • contribs • email)
• ObserverToSee (talk • contribs • email)
• Ali doostzadeh (talk • contribs • email)
• Agha Nader (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Sia34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• AlexanderPar (talk • contribs • email)

(others to appear)

[edit] What's going on?

Arcayne

There is a disagreement as to the inclusion of the controversial term, 'Arabian Gulf' to the Lead. One side feels that to do so is to violate undue weight, and the other side feels that the controversy, citability and notability (and actual, current presence in the article) satisfy any concerns as to undue weight.

The current Lead statement in contention is shown thusly in the protected article:

"The Persian Gulf, in the Southwest Asian region, is an extension of the Indian Ocean located between Iran and the Arabian Peninsula.[1]"

[edit] What would you like to change about that?

I think that we need to come to a lasting resolution of this, before it extends up to ArbCom for deliberation. The article has been locked since November 25th, 2007. Clearly, a resolution would unlock the article and resolve any deleterious edit-warring that tends to plague the article.

I believe that the article needs to mention the cited fact that the body of water is alternatively (and controversially) known as the 'Arabian Gulf', like thus:

"The Persian Gulf (also controversially known as the Arabian Gulf),a a body of water in the Southwest Asian region, and an extension of the Indian Ocean located between Iran and the Arabian Peninsula.[1]"

- Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mediator notes

I'm happy to serve as meditator in this dispute (my first such case). Over the next few days I will read through the article and associated talk pages to familarise myself. In this time, both sides should submit comments stating their position on the matter. I look foward to a speedy resolution. CloudNine (talk) 19:50, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Administrative notes

As an aside, I'd also like the introduction to change from "...an extension of the Indian Ocean located between..." to "...an extension of the Arabian Sea located between...". This is the way the Persian Gulf is described geographically. --Persan en Japon (talk) 01:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

• As per WP:LEAD:

  In general, the relative emphasis given to material in the lead should reflect its relative importance to the subject according to reliable sources.

  
  In this case , almost everyone -I mean both sides- agrees about the auxiliary name's (Arabian Gulf) false nature and importance, and the information about that controversial name is covered in the remainder of the article, then that name should not appear in the lead because it may gain officiality in contrast of the WP:Undue weight:

For example, the article on the Earth doesn't mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, a view of a distinct minority.

Do you think the lead section of the Earth (Persian gulf), should contain a section about Flat Earth (Arabian Gulf)?!--Alborz Fallah (talk) 10:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the discussion will be served better if we avoided straw man arguments (ie, the Flat Earth bit), instead focusing on the actual disagreements, as those comments sniping at the validity of the Arabian Gulf naming as equivalent with that of a Flat Earth are just distracting, rude and generally lead to basic incivility. Let's all play nice.

To begin with, I don't think that the alternative - not "auxiliary" name is conceded as false by "almost everyone". It isn't our mandate to evaluate the truth or falsehood of the arguments for and against the usage of the Arabian Gulf. If is our mandate to note when those arguments occur.

The application of the Undue Weight argument is flawed at its most basic level. Evaluating whether something is of undue weight requires a relative neutrality to make that observation. I would submit that if one is to judge from the tone of many of the participants, this is more of a personal issue than a professional one. Granted, that's one editor's observation, but ones that are gleaned from easily citable examples within the article discussion. When many of the participants argue that even mentioning the Arabian Gulf in the lead lessens the validity of the Persian Gulf (and thus the Persian perception of 'ownership'), it becomes clear that more forces are at play that simple disagreement. Specifically, Tehran believes in aggressively defending the historical term "Persian Gulf" against "Arabian Gulf," which it regards as a name dreamed up by Arab nationalists. ([1]). That the matter is seen to be specifically tied to Iranian personhood, it is understandable that some of that would be reflected within the article and article discussion.

The undue weight argument is also misapplied in that there are numerous citations wherein the term 'Arabian Gulf' is used. Also, the actual presence of an article on the naming dispute counters that the Arabian Gulf is naught but a flimsy lie. As well, statements concerning the naming dispute appear in the article itself.

An alternative, cited name is used in virtually every article within Wikipedia when the presence of multiple identifiers exist. Just using entertainers as examples, i would point out David Bowie for David Jones, Ricky Martin for Enrique José Martín Morales or even Googoosh for Faegheh Atashin. Notability requires us to make a not of those names which can also be cited as alternatively naming the subject. The Arabian Gulf is not used to describe the Red Sea, or the Gulf of Mexico or Lake Taal; it is used to describe the same body of water also known as the Persian Gulf. As a notable number of people refer to it as the Arabian Gulf, we must pay heed to that.

Lastly, we need to note the alternative name in the Lead not only because it is a naming convention, but because it is cited material featured in the body of the text. As per WP:LEAD, the summarizing/introductory nature of the Lead means that we mention notable controversies, and this one is a doozy.

Therefore, i feell that the mentioning of the Arabian Gulf (making note of its controversial nature) needs to be mentioned in the Lead.

Your argument is slightly flawed: You mentioned that a notable number of people refer to the Gulf as the Arabian Gulf. I do not disagree with that statement. However, the reason why Arabs refer to the Gulf as the Arabian Gulf is why it's controversial. Think about this: In the English language, the body of water separating the United Kingdom and France is known as the English Channel. The French refer to this as La Manche. Why is there no controversy? Because the French don't try to ram their name for that body of water down the throat of English speakers and vice versa. There is an agreement: When the body of water is discussed in English, the name is the English Channel. When its discussed in French, La Manche is used. Arabs refuse to do this and insist on using their own name for the Gulf in English. This is why Iranians are so against the term Arabian Gulf: It's because every language with the exception of Arabic and Turkish already refers to it as the Persian Gulf. Why don't Iranians get angry when Turks refer to the Gulf as Basra Körfezi (Gulf of Basra)? It's because the Turks switch to the term Persian Gulf when they speak about the Gulf in English. (example from Turkish media) The reason that Arabs insist on using an alternative name was originally because of an anti-Iranian measure in the 1960s. That's why Iranians are against it: Because Arabian Gulf was created out of racist nationalism. This has nothing to do with ownership of the Gulf.--Persan en Japon (talk) 17:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

With respect, my arguments are pretty spot-on. Unfortunately, I think you are making original research-type arguments. We aren't supposed to make those connections unless meticulously cited, and even then it belongs in the naming controversy article. As for your examples, we don't hear about conflicts between the English and the French regarding the Channel because they have had hundreds of years and far superior means of transportation-assisted communication to put the matter to rest. Unfortunately, the folkof the Middle east haven't had nearly as long, or as effective means of communication. And even my explanation is OR, though based on a pretty good education and easily cited. The point is, we cannot use OR to draw conclusions. Does the info exist in cited form? Yes. Is there a naming controversy? Also yes. Does the controversy appear in the article? As well, yes. Is the term used by a significant number of people? Yeppity-yep-yep. That is why the matter is rather cut and dried to me. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but your arguments are not "spot on". You were the one who made original research-type arguments: "the Persian perception of 'ownership'". Mine are not, because I have already shown you a source from a Turkish newspaper that uses the term the Persian Gulf rather than the local name for the Gulf in English. Why isn't there a "Gulf of Basra/Persian Gulf" naming dispute between Iran and Turkey? Regarding the English Channel: There is no naming controversy today so how is it relevant if there was one in the past? I checked both on the web and on Wikipedia and could not find a naming controversy regarding the British/French usage for that body of water. I even checked on the French-government funded France 24 channel and found the term English Channel being used in their English News site. (example source) What I'm trying to get across is that why do some Arabs insist on using the term Arabian Gulf in English/French/Japanese/Italian when there is already a name for it in those languages? Why don't they do the same for the Caspian Sea for example even though they call it the Sea of Qazvin in Arabic? --Persan en Japon (talk) 02:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Persan en Japon has managed to describe the situation fairly accurately and clearly. This article has been stable since late July for the first time in years. One reason for this relative stability is that the current version of the article is neutral. The current lock and possible future instability is caused by a single editor unilaterally deciding to change the lead citing WP:lead and declaring the compromise reached in July as invalid.

I remain unconvinced that WP:Undue weight does not apply here specifically related to the additional prominence being granted to the controversial name of Arabian Gulf in the proposed changes. It is contended here that name The Gulf is used by an "insignificant" minority and therefore it should not be referenced in the lead. The same reasoning can be used for Arabian Gulf. It is a matter of determining that the very small minority of the world’s population who use Arabian Gulf to refer to the Persian Gulf are in fact not a very small minority. This has not been established. WP:lead allows for exceptions, and I believe an exception is warranted here because WP:Undue weight should be given priority and the stability of the article will be negatively impacted as in the past. As the current version of the article’s lead is neutral, it should remain. Regards ObserverToSee (talk) 20:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

With respect, did Observer just say that if we don't leave the article as is, that he and others will de-stabilize it?

As well, this observation that Arabs are a very tiny portion of the world's population is a slippery slope. Are we to judge the term Persian Gulf by how many Iranians there are in the world? Attempting to marginalize a people is a piss-poor way to edit. Seriously, now - a notable group of people uniformly refer to the Persian Gulf by another name. It's cited, noted int he article and publicly known. We aren't going to marginalize Arabs simply because other folk from the region don't like the term. Its seems so petty. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

With further respect, it is not just "Iranians" who call this body of water the Persian Gulf. The entire world population does with exception of Turkey and most Arab countries. I've asked for clarification many times and no one has come up with verified numbers. What is the number of Arabs in the world and how many actually call the Persian Gulf as Arabian Gulf? This is not an attempt to be "petty" as suggested. It is a legitimate question and has important ramifications with respect to undue weight and prominence. ObserverToSee (talk) 20:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, maybe I could go for some education here. What countries specifically are you considering to be 'Arab' countries? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The article Arab might be worth reading. According to the unverified and un-sourced figure there, 300-350 mill of the world population are considered Arabs. If this disputed figure is verified as accurate, we need to determine how many of this total of 300-350 mill actually do refer to the Persian Gulf as Arabian Gulf. As I've asked before, where I never received a response, what percentage relative to the entire world's population is considered a very small minority with respect to WP:Undue weight and prominence? Regards ObserverToSee (talk) 17:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I see; thank you for pointing that out. I think the reason you haven't received a response to that is that there might not be readily accessible information for info that specific. As far as the argument itself, I believe it is a false assumption to think that population is the most important criteria in determining undue weight. I believe I have already mention (a number of times) that notability counteracts undue weight. If something is notable, then it is not undue weight to mention it. There is a notable dispute regarding the name.

In the future, could you be imposed upon to put your comments at the end of the discussion? I only discovered your comment here because I look at the history; not a lot of people do that, and thus a lot of commentary thus 'hidden' in older text tends to get overlooked. If you are responding to a specific comment, preface your rebuttal by identifying who you are responding to. I hope that helps. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

It appears some news organizations, such as the BBC, use the term "The Gulf". ObserverToSee, do you think this term should be included in the lead? CloudNine (talk) 10:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

As with Arabian Gulf I do not agree that The Gulf should be given prominence in the Lead for the same reasons with respect to WP:Undue weight. It is referenced in Persian Gulf Naming Dispute and I'm not opposed to mentioning it in the Naming Dispute section of the article where Arabian Gulf is already mentioned in the Persian Gulf article. Regards ObserverToSee (talk) 17:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

However, "The Gulf" is used by several major news organizations and other media, such as the Hutchinson Encyclopedia (with no other quantifier). Surely it's not a minority viewpoint.
As mediator, I'd like to clarify policy: WP:UNDUE refers to a viewpoint's inclusion in an article, rather than said viewpoint's inclusion in the lead. WP:LEAD refers to the components of a well-written lead, which includes summarising the whole article. CloudNine (talk) 17:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Is the Hutchinson Encyclopedia, a UK based source? It seems to me that in the UK, an attempt has been made to remove the term "Persian" Gulf from all media. Why is this? --210.2.198.2 (talk) 11:19, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the different media outlets in the UK have decided together to use the term "The Gulf". It may be an attempt to remain neutral in the "Persian" v. "Arabian" gulf debate. (It's worth noting that a name is not "right" or "wrong" as such.) CloudNine (talk) 15:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Might it be possible for editors to put their comments in chronological order (ie, at the bottom)? If you are responding to something that came up earlier, it is less likely to be responded to if it is located in the middle of other conversation that has already passed. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Arcayne, point taken about chronological order and prefacing who the response is to. Might I respectfully ask (again) to follow indentation as in the current state, it's hard to follow as well. My reason for responses as I did was to respond to the indentation of your response and then CloudNine's.

CloudNine, are we to ignore additional prominence? I'm unable to ignore or look past this issue with respect to neutrality. Regards ObserverToSee (talk) 17:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe that refers to the inclusion in the lead; however, I'll seek the wider community's view at Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view. CloudNine (talk) 09:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Left a message at Wikipedia_talk:Neutral point of view#Prominence and undue weight. CloudNine (talk) 18:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The main issue

Let us not stray from the main issue here. The main argument here is not whether the term Arabian Gulf should be in bold or italics or whatever, it is whether the fringe name Arabian Gulf should be included in the lead. Months ago a compromise was reached in which it was agreed that the term Arabian Gulf should not be in the lead, but should be discussed elsewhere. So far none of these proposed solutions reflect this issue and I see no solution to this main issue here.

Putting a fringe name in the lead is giving it undue weight and undue prominence. The name is discussed in the article in a proper section where the history and context of the name is also discussed. Thanks.PashaGol (talk) 19:07, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

But, according to WP:LEAD, the lead must be a summary of the article. I don't think "Arabian Gulf" is a fringe name; I've been researching the term, and "Arabian Gulf" appears in completely independent academic papers, the asset reports of British Petroleum and the official literature of several Arabian countries, including Qatar (news article explaining the names). A fringe name isn't mentioned in mainstream literature. CloudNine (talk) 19:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree, it is by all standards a fringe name. Just because a handful of Arab connected/linked/sponsored papers, cooperations,etc... use the term does not mean its not a fringe name. Infact, the name is used when there is a connection/sponsorship with an Arab Persian Gulf country, this alone goes to show that it is a fringe name. The term Arabian Gulf is not used in main stream literature. For example, all corporations that do business with the Arab Persian Gulf countries have to use the term Arabian Gulf because the laws in these Arab countries force them too, not because they want to. This also again goes to show that it is a fringe name. It is not widely used in mainstream academic circles.PashaGol (talk) 21:44, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence for your assertion that the Arabian Gulf "is by all standards a fringe name?" Without evidence your assertion is weak and only reflects your personal views. This is especially true, when your assertion is confronted with overwhelming evidence that the "'Arabian Gulf' appears in completely independent academic papers."--Agha Nader (talk) 22:00, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify PashaGol, what do you mean by fringe name? CloudNine (talk) 23:16, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello. Fringe as in its not a widely accepted or used term in the English Speaking (and non-English speaking for that matter) and when it is used it is due to outside pressure (usually through funding). For example, the United States has declared that the only term for the body of water between the Arabian peninsula and Iran is the Persian Gulf, however, due to the laws of Persian Gulf Arab nations, United States bases and universities and corporations that operate in these countries must use the term Arabian Gulf (as you can see, this is not a matter of choice, the term Arabian Gulf is forced).[2]
As you can see, the term Arabian Gulf is not a widely accepted term, and when it is used, it is used due to pressure. The only reason that the term Arabian Gulf appears on some corporations' websites and other organizations documents is mostly and usually because of their links to Arab Governments which only tolerate the term Arabian Gulf.
If Arabian Gulf was not a fringe term this wouldn't be the case. Its pretty obvious that the term Arabian Gulf does not belong in the lead as an alternate name, but rather it belongs in the naming section.
Arabian Gulf is precisely a fringe name because A) its origins are recent and politically motivated, as the United States even acknowledges, B) it is usually forced into usage, and C) if it was not a fringe name, countries such as the UAE would not have to outlaw the usage of the term Persian Gulf.
Once again, I would like to stress that this issue should be included in the article (as it is already), however, not in the lead paragraph as an alternate name. Thanks.PashaGol (talk) 01:34, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I would counter PashaGol's assertions that the term Arabian Gulf is a 'fringe' term are not necessarily accurate. While the term 'Arabian Gulf' is not utilized in the international community, the idea that the dispute is only of recent origin and motivated solely by politics is incorrect. As well, while I cannot confirm that the term Arabian gulf is "forced into usage", I don't recall seeing any laws that "outlaw the usage or mentioning of the term Persian Gulf." I would invite PashaGol to submit the codification of UAE law that lists this as a violation of the law. I'd also be keen to know the punishments for using it in conversation or in print.

With respect, this isn't about politics. the term is used. It is cited by sources outside of the Arabian peninsula. It is cited by sources outside the Arabian peninsula as being controversial. Does anyone disagree with that? If not, then the term is notable. If it is notable, then it needs to be included, and all we are debating is how and where that usage is to be noted outside the Lead- Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:14, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

It's beside the point whether laws are passed or pressure is forced on using the name. (You've made a lot of assertions without providing evidence by the way.) The point is alternate names for the Persian Gulf are widely and prominently enough, by companies, independent academic papers, government literature and media, to be included in the lead of the article.
Your definition of "fringe" doesn't occur in any dicitionary I've looked at; could you provide a definition from a commonly-used dictionary? CloudNine (talk) 11:07, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

PashaGol is right, "Arabian Gulf" is indeed a fringe name by defintion. In most cases, the fringe name is only used as a result of financial or political associations and relations of certain individuals and entities with Arab states. This is even acknowledged by many neutral organizations such as the the United States Board on Geographic names, wich states that "For political reasons, Arabs often refer to it as the Arab or Arabian Gulf". And with all due respect CloudNine, I don't think you're doing much of mediating on this topic, you seem strongly opinionated and suuprotive of one side's point of view, which is not what one would expect from a neutral mediator--Sia34 (talk) 11:41, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

If you believe I'm not an impartial meditator, you're welcome to take this to a higher authority. I suggest the mediation commitee or the arbitration comittee. I'm just asking for sources, definitions and the like, and providing my own evidence. I haven't received any sources of any kind supporting the side that says the Arabian Gulf is a "fringe name", so, in the interests of WP:V, I've concentrated on the views with sources behind them. Again, you're welcome to take this to another authority; I don't think mediation will help here. CloudNine (talk) 11:47, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I have proposed a compormise solution that's not in line with my own point of view, but I think maybe good enough for both sides , so I do think that mediation will help, as long as both sides closely study the history of the topic, and are willing to listen to the other side's argument with an open mind. As for sources, many citations have been provided about the history and the usage of the fringe name "Arabian Gulf". ( see AliDoustzadeh's post for example) As explained already by several editors, the sources that do use the fringe name, are in most cases, beneficiaries of Arab states and organizations, and sometimes forced to use the term. For example, University of Aberdeen, which you cited, has a campus in UAE which has a law against using the trm Persian Gulf. Mainstream media and acadamic sources with no connection to Arab entities, do not use the term "Arabian Gulf", that's what makes it a fringe name in English.--Sia34 (talk) 12:11, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

 :As far as that goes, it is pretty unfair (not to mention uncivil) to claim that Cloudnine is being non-neutral here, Sia34. Maybe a tad more respect would be better, considering that this isn't Cloudnine's first rodeo, and that they have conducted mediations before. As in any mediation, the mediator starts from a core set of rules - in this case, Wikipedia's rules. The mediator has to find a solution that satisfies both parties within the scope of those rules. Sometimes, it also means educating one of the parties as to the presence and interpretation of those rules. Cloudenine has been contributing to Wikipedia for over three years, so i think it's fair to say that the admin knows there way around neutrality. So perhaps a little more respect is due. okey-doke? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell})

I think that is part of the problem here, and I think it comes from a basic lack of understanding of what Wikipedia is, and a misperception as to its impact in real world international disputes. We are not here to argue the dispute. I repeat: we are not here to argue the dispute. There is an article on that called the Persian Gulf Naming Dispute, and your points of history are better suited there (with better sourcing, of course).

We do not have a mandate (or the right) to determine the validity of the terms 'Arabian Gulf' or 'The Gulf'. Our mandate is to determine the verifiability of statements made about a subject. As per WP:V, a core policy within Wikipedia:

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth"

it doesn't matter whether certain users feel this matter was dreamed up in an afternoon by former Egyptian President Nasser after eating some bad Mahshi Koronb. It doesn't matter whether UAE member states ban the usage of the more-widely accepted term. it also doesn't matter if certain folks feel this affects their national identity or cultural personhood (and frankly, if it does, then might I suggest that it was a bit on the fragile side to begin with).

What Wikipedia mandate does is to look at the cited sources, check to make sure they are neutral, verifiable and notable. In this case, The term appears outside of UAE member states in academic studies (also not funded by UAE member states), so the perceived neutrality is not in the usage of the term, but the mere existence of the term. The presence of alternate names isn't contested by anyone, and is is in fact verifiable. Lastly, that the term is hotly contested by persons on both sides of the debate makes it notable. What part of Wikipedia's rules are we violating by noting the alternative name of the article in the Lead summary, when cited statements discussing the dispute appear in the same article?

It's unfortunate that Cloudnine thinks this isn't going to be resolved via MedCab. Taking shots at the mediator is pretty rude, and a pretty sure sign that this matter will eventually be going to ArbCom for acknowledging the decision that seems only disputed by those more interested in discussing the background of the issue and not the rules of Wikipedia that provide for mentioning the issue. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:26, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from "lecturing" other people with such rude tone, we're not kids here. You have been making a lot of claims with no supporting sources, the history of the name and the fact that it's almost never used by organizations unrelated to Arab states, is well documented and sourced (see the University of Aberdeen example). I am sorry, but you do not set the "Wikipedia mandate", giving undue prominence and weight to such terms without the proper context, is contrary to Wikipedia's academic nature. --Sia34 (talk) 02:52, 24 December 2007 (UTC))

The fantastic claim has been made by some editors (or rather discussers since some have never contributed to the project except discussing this issue) that the Arabian Gulf is a fringe name which is not even predominately used among Arabs. It has been sufficiently shown that these claims are false and originate from something other than the truth (perhaps zeal?). I would like to draw attention to the article for the Persian Gulf in the Arabic Wikipedia: [3]. It ought to be noted that the name of that article is "Arabian Gulf." Although this is an ancillary argument, it should persuade such editors/discussers to reconsider their position. Cheers--Agha Nader (talk) 22:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Historical maps

I think there is a big mistake in this issue, that is denying the fact and true, this gulf is Persian Gulf and doesn't have any other names!

The Persian Gulf (Persian: خليج فارس khalīj-e-Fārs; in arabic: الخليج الفارسي al-khalīj al-fārisī), in the southwest asian region, is an extension of the Gulf of Oman located between IRAN (PERSIA) and the arabian peninsula.

• http://www.un.org/Depts/Cartographic/map/profile/mideastr.pdf
  
• http://www.un.org/Depts/Cartographic/english/htmain.htm

so please be advised that the history and the correct facts can not be changed. Pejman.azadi (talk) 06:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

the Persian Gulf on the Historical Maps Part (1)
Please have a look at the following link, it could be useful!!!

• http://www.ngo-iran.ir/PGulf/index.htm
  

To be continued... Pejman.azadi (talk) 07:05, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

the Persian Gulf on the Historical Maps Part (2)
Dear all friends! Please take a look at the following link. It will show you the famous historical maps regarding Persian Gulf's name!

• http://www.persiangulfonline.org/maps.htm

Thanks for taking the time.Pejman.azadi (talk) 07:16, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is doubting the validity of "Persian Gulf". What we're discussing here is whether the terms "Arabian Gulf" and "The Gulf" are used widely enough to be included in the lead. What do you think? CloudNine (talk) 11:11, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd say that this gulf is refering as the Persian Gulf in arabian countries also in many arabian maps it is mentioned as the Persian Gulf. So it is only Persian Gulf and doesn't have any alternative name! By the way no one isn't entitle to change this historical name

www.persiangulfonline.org

Pejman.azadi (talk) 11:02, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Possible solutions

Discuss specific article changes here

[edit] 1

[edit] 2

Can we just fix the geographical matter as well? Not Indian Ocean, but Arabian Sea? But anyway, I think CloudNine's suggestion is a good start. However, I still think that it should be stated that the term is controversial. I propose:

I think it deals with people's concerns more - Note that Arabian Gulf and The Gulf are not bold but rather italicized. --Persan en Japon (talk) 17:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

That's a better version for stating that the term is controversial (I found it harder to work the controversy into the last section.) Perhaps wikilink "both terms are controversial" to Persian Gulf naming dispute or the section in the article? CloudNine (talk) 18:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The possible solution lead suggested by [[User:|Persan en Japon]] includes the naming controversy (it looks like you both agree on its inclusion in the lead, which is a good thing with respect to resolving this dispute). What do you think of his version? CloudNine (talk) 18:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the other choices, this one seems to be the most neutral of the choices. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 3

Sorry, I posted below while you were posting up here. I actually parts of both versions. this is what I would propose:

This seems much more succinct to me. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I moved the above two paragraphs back down here from the previous section. --Persan en Japon (talk) 02:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I had not heard of the usage of the term 'the Gulf.' I know the naming controversy article notes how some want to call it the 'Islamic Gulf' (which I personally find to be metaphorically apt), but the latter term is less noted and used by a statistically insignificant minority. I don't think 'the Gulf' should be int he lead at all. I don;t mind wikilinking the term, even though such is already done within the body of the article. And I think we who have chosen to make use of this medCab are in agreement that the term Arabian Gulf is controversial. let;s consider that a given. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The term The Gulf is also controversial. The Economist magazine was temporarily banned in Iran for having that term. (source) It should be included in the lead as well.

--Persan en Japon (talk) 02:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Persan that "The Gulf" should also be included in the lead. After all, it is called the Gulf War in addition to the Persian Gulf War.--Agha Nader (talk) 20:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 4

I didn't think "not recognized by the international community" is clear enough. For example, which community? --Persan en Japon (talk) 02:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I understand what you mean, but since the people who use it are both international and part of the international community, I would opt for something that instead notes that the term is controversial. Another question, can you note other instances when the Gulf was used as well? It something that would never, ever come up in the States, as there are a few Gulfs here, and the UK has none (more's the pity, as every kid knows that gulfs are a boat's best friend :) ). If I recall correctly, the Economist took the stance that, due to the naming controversy, they chose not to take sides. And the Economist seems hardly significant. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Try a search on The Times of London, The Telegraph or the BBC and you'll only see The Gulf being used. --Persan en Japon (talk) 02:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The BBC uses the term "The Gulf". CloudNine (talk) 10:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The alternative solution sounds reasonable .If the consensus came out to use any other name than the Persian Gulf in the lead, the best way will be the one that is mentioned.--Alborz Fallah (talk) 12:21, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Persian Gulf is the true name. The other name is undo weight. If the other name is to be mentioned in the second or third sentence of the lead, the following facts must come before it. As recognized by the United States Board on Geographic names, the name of the body of water that lies between Iran and the Arab states of the Gulf Cooperation Council is the Persian Gulf. For political reasons, Arabs often refer to it as the Arab or Arabian Gulf (The Persian Gulf at the Millennium: Essays in Politics, Economy, Security, and Religion edited by Gary G. Sick, Lawrence G. Potter, pg 8). The Arab-Iranian nomenclatural controversy over the Gulf, which was so bitter in the late 50s and early 60s, was a by-product of the late President Nasser of Egypt's brand of Arab nationalism ... 'Arabian Gulf' is in fact a recent Arab appellation for that body of water..." ( Eilts, Hermann F. "Security Considerations in the Persian Gulf." International Security :Vol. 5, No. 2. (Autumn, 1980), pp. 79-113. ). If A-Gulf is to be mentioned then it should be mentioned like it is in these two sentences. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 15:31, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

With respect, the argument pre-dates that by over a 150 years, dating back to formalized 'modern' contact with the European powers, wherein bitter rivalries ensued over the "ownership" of the body of water. I've read Sick before, and while he gets some things right, He is considered pretty much of a joke in the field of academia for some of his, shall we say, more vivid imaginings. Sick was a noted opponent to Nasser's policies (which were pro-Soviet), so of course, all of the region's woes would be lain at his feet. (Sorry for the history lesson, but this used to be my field, so I know from whence I speak). - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:45, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter, as the statement is sourced. There is another statement by Elits Hermann as well. The fact that arabs used Persian Gulf before Nasser, the overwhelming majority of Arabic sources have Persian Gulf, and the fact that Arabian Gulf has been coined for geopolitical reason needs to mentioned, if the current intro is to be changed. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 00:17, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Names are not "right" or "wrong", they're words assigned to places by people. They're just used by a different number of people; the main issue is here is whether "The Gulf" and "Arabian Gulf" are used by enough people to include in the lead. No-one here doubts that "Persian Gulf" is the generally accepted name for the body of water. CloudNine (talk) 15:36, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

If a name is coined due to racist and pan-nationalist reasons, it is morally wrong. Besides that, it is not just about it being morally wrong. The sentence after mentioning Persian Gulf, if it is too mention the other name, must go hand in hand with the fact that it was coined for political reasons in the last century and ancient Arab sources (and I have 30 of them available right now) have called it Persian Gulf. All these are sourced. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 03:46, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

With respect, the number of people who use the term is not the sole criteria for inclusion. As a notably cited argument exists (as well as other citations) posing an alternative name, that is a significant part of the notability. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:45, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, I forgot to mention that point. CloudNine (talk) 19:00, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I think my take on this issue is generally known since I rekindled the debate after inserting Arabian Gulf into the lead. I did so because the previous compromise that was reached was in violation of WP:LEAD, and thus it was not consensus. However, I shall provide some input in this discussion on specific subjects. At this point, it seems established (by other editors and myself) that Arabian Gulf must be mentioned in the lead. Some editors, such as User:Ali doostzadeh, have suggested that if we include the Arabian Gulf in the lead, detailed material on the controversy "must come before it." I agree with him that the controvery should be explained in the lead, but I think that the Arabian Gulf should "be mentioned in the second or third sentence of the lead." Obviously, if the material he has written above 'comes before it' then "Arabian Gulf" will not be "in the second or third sentence of the lead." Despite this, I shall defer to the wisdom of the grand editor User:Ali doostzadeh. It is better to arrive at a solution that all involved parties accept. For the day may come when editors who have not participated, such as pejman.azadi, will object. Our solution will stand strong against the criticism of those editors if it rests on a foundation built by all involved parties. I shall now proceed to discuss the inclusion of "The Gulf." It has been eloquently shown by other editors that "The Gulf" is also a notable name used to discuss this body of water that separates the Arabian Peninsula and the Iranian Plateau. Thus, it ought to be included.--Agha Nader (talk) 16:57, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe going into such detail with the naming controversy would be suitable for the first paragraph (mainly due to the length of the quotes you've provided). My suggestion would be to merge the first and third paras (as well as adding the alternate names) and go into more detail in a new third para. CloudNine (talk) 19:00, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I do not think that Mr. Arcayne is very familiar with this topic. The history of the fringe name Arabian Gulf, both in Arabic and English, only goes back to the 1950's/60's and is a legacy of pan Arab nationalism. It was coined by Nasser and is a legacy of pan Arabism. There is no prior history for this name and this is an accepted fact in all the major academic circles. For those of you who argue that the name should be mentioned in the lead just because of the controversy, the controversy is not due to the name itself, its there due to the creation of the fringe name. The controversy exists because of some political and nationalist reasons behind the creation of the term Arabian, not with the term itself or with the ownership of the Persian Gulf, since it is an international body of water. I respect Ali Doostzadehs and Agha Naders proposal and think its a step in the right direction but I am strongly opposed to any mention of any fringe name Arabian Gulf in the lead. The term only belongs in the naming section with its proper context and history. Thanks.PashaGol (talk) 21:53, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that most of it is acceptable, with the small, mostly semantic alteration being: 'although neither terms are utilized internationally'. Thoughts? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:26, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

As well, I've already addressed the mistakes with PashaGol regarding his misinterpretation of historical events. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 5

• Here is my version of the proposal:

Regards. --Sia34 (talk) 10:31, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Um, no. That isn't even in the same postal code of either accuracy or neutral. As it is both incorrect and biased, I could not support such a statement. The one that Cloudnine for the most part addressed the controversial nature of the terms.- Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:04, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, every bit of it is suuported by reliable sources (National Geographic, United States Board on Geographic names, Gary G. Sick, Lawrence G. Potter) and therefore both accurate and neutral. If you claim otherwise, provide sources.--Sia34 (talk) 02:31, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't like the solution too much , but it might be compromised. The political reason of the name must be mentioned. It is is well known fact and well sourced. No ifs or buts on the issue. At the same time, I still believe it is undo weight. I'll await other comments. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 05:36, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate Sia34's effort to resolve this issue. I support his proposal while having some suggestions. Basically, his proposal does not violate WP:LEAD. However, I would caution that it should not violate WP:V. There must be evidence for every assertion made in the lead, just like the rest of the article (correct me if I am wrong). The statement "Historically and commonly known as the Persian Gulf, this body of water, for political reasons, is sometimes controversially referred to as the Arabian Gulf by Arab countries or The Gulf, although neither terms are recognized internationally or commonly used in English" makes some assertions. For example, that it is called the Arabian Gulf for political reasons. I understand that it is only proposal, but the final version should have citations. Obviously, if reliable sources cannot be provided that it is called the Arabian Gulf for political reasons, then that should not be included in the lead.--Agha Nader (talk) 06:04, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Agha Nader. As I said before, every bit of my proposal is backed by reliable sources. The statement "Historically and commonly known as the Persian Gulf" is directly from National Geographic [4], and "for political reasons, is sometimes controversially referred to as the Arabian Gulf by Arab countries" is supported by many sources such as The Persian Gulf at the Millennium: Essays in Politics, Economy, Security, and Religion edited by Gary G. Sick, Lawrence G. Potter, pg 8, so the entire text can be cited and is in line with WP:V. I hope your concerns have been answered.--Sia34 (talk) 07:26, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree with Sia34's solution only if the part about GULF OF OMAN is changed to the Arabian Sea - The correct geographical reference point (a gulf is never an extension of another gulf but rather a sea). --Persan en Japon (talk) 13:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Just a side note, but here is a source (Asia Times) which states amongst other things that the term Persian Gulf is banned in the UAE, American universities in the region have dropped references to "Persian Gulf" in their teaching materials and finally historical maps of the Gulf are vandalized to erase the "Persian" word. Why else would a country do this other than for political reasons? --Persan en Japon (talk) 13:38, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a topic best addressed in the article on the naming debate, and not here. Similar situations arose over discussion of Japanese atrocities in China and the Pacific Rim during WWII; it wasn't until recently that school texts even addressed the matter (or addressedit factually). Does the fact that the Japanese wanted to sweep under the rug something like the Rape of Nanking mean it shouldn't be mentioned? Of course not, any more than a debate regarding the nomenclature of a body of water should be. To be frank, I am finding any effort to exclude the alternate name to be distasteful, petty and smacking of partisanship. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

This is the page that talks about the "Arabian Gulf" (note the article's author is a guest writer and is Iranian). With Sia34's proposed solution, "Historically and commonly known as the Persian Gulf" is implied by the bolding of "Persian Gulf" (it sounds awkward to mention the gulf's common name twice in two sentences). What do people think? CloudNine (talk) 15:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

He's actually an Amercian of Iranian origin. Nonetheless, he's an academic and he has a bulk of citations. I do not think that we should evaluate or judge sources based on the writer's race-ethnicity. Anyway, this is all beside the point--the paharse "Historically and commonly known as the Persian Gulf" is directly from National Geographic's description of Persian Gulf, so I do think that it's a necessary detail of the context, and not awkward at all. --Sia34 (talk) 15:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Taken out of context as it is, it is awkward. And evaluating sources is what we do, and unfortunately, some writers do tend to let their ethnicity get in the way, especially when its tied to issues of cultural personhood. That aside. The structuring of the proposed lead is misleading and in fact, incorrect. 'Arabian Gulf' is not "sometimes" controversial, it always is. And, as part of the nomenclature debate concerns the historicity of the naming, its misleading to imply that it has always been called the Persian Gulf. Again, I am not taking sides in who's right in this issue, but we aren't here to decide that; we are here to make note that an alternative name exists. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

If it is going to be mentioned on the lead , then the Sia's proposal is the best. --Alborz Fallah (talk) 12:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

If we are going to ignore WP:Undue weight and its precedence over WP:Lead and include the Arabian Gulf in the lead, then I agree that Sia's proposal is the most appropriate. Regarding "the Gulf of Oman" vs "Arabian Sea", I believe "the Gulf of Oman" is correct as the Gulf of Oman as it stands is an extension of the Arabian Sea and it lies between the Arabian Sea and the Persian Gulf. It should be acceptable in this relatively rare occurrence of one gulf extending another (why the Gulf of Oman is called a "Gulf" is another story :)). ObserverToSee (talk) 15:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree on two facets of Sia's proposal: First, the "Gulf of Oman" bit - In geographical terms, a gulf is never described as an extension of another gulf. It's not done! It's always described as an extension of the next larger body of water which is the Arabian Sea. My second problem is what Arcayne mentioned - The term Arabian Gulf is never "sometimes" controversial. It always is! The world "sometimes" should be dropped. --Persan en Japon (talk) 16:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

!, as far as I can deduce, "sometimes" in that sentence refers to the frequency of its usage. and the fact that Gamal Abdel Nasser was the one who introduced this name first, must also be mentioned in the text only If the other name is going be in the lead--Pejman47 (talk) 16:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, Person is right about that gulf to gulf thing. It's an extension of the Arabian Sea, not the Gulf of Oman. As well, the naming controversy is not merely of political origin; it has been called differently by people for hundreds of years, so personhood and cultural identity are tied up into the quandary. The commentary about Nasser being to blame is both tedious and incorrect. The conflict over the name existed long before nasser wasa babe in swaddling clothes, and will likely still be long after we are dust. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the Persian Gulf has had other names in the past: Mare Elcatif, Mare di Mesendin and Baye du Basra etc... However, if you look at maps with those names, you always see olim Persicus sinus (or equivalent) under the alternate name. In Latin, Sinus Persicus means Persian Bay/Gulf while Olim means "at that time, formerly, once, for a long time now". This (in my opinion) means that there was an attempt to change the name sometime in the past, but the new name did not take hold as the "Persian Gulf" is in use in most languages once again in modern times. --Persan en Japon (talk) 01:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

you have not even read the article and its sister: Persian Gulf naming dispute, really why you are here?--Pejman47 (talk) 20:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course I have read the articles, Pejman. You might want to tone down your failure to AGF, as an editor not as concerned with protecting your point of view might up and respond rather harshly. I understand how you feel your point of view is not being accepted by others readily enough, but becoming impolite about it is just going to foster the sorts of negative responses which send you off weeping into a corner. Assume good faith, please. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Arcayne, you make a lot of claims with no sources to back them up with. Nasser coined the term "Arabian Gulf", this is well sourced. If you claim otherwise, you need to cite sources of your own that rebuttal this assertion. Your word and opinion alone has no value here, especially since everyone here can see that you are not familiar with this topic at all, and you even once claimed that "Red Sea is another name for Persian Gulf". So far, you're the only person here who is opposing this proposal, so if you want to be taken seriously... ... How about addressing the other users' points by sources and citations that support your assertions?--Sia34 (talk) 17:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for being All The Charming with your response, sia. Perhaps you are one of those rare folk who never make mistakes, Sia. In that case, congratulations; you are to be included in a very small group of individuals - of which I have never claimed to be a part of. If you want to use my mistake of geography into a condemnation of my historical and political observations, then you have every right in the world to do so - incorrect as it would be.

I don't have to source where it was used earlier than Nasser (though even you could find at least 4 outside of a JSTOR search), as that is not the point of this mediation. Perhaps you have simply forgotten it in your fervor to find an alternative - any alternative - that excludes alternative terms to encroach upon your beloved name for a body of water shared by many, many peoples. Honestly, I could bring forth those sources, and you would attack them, calling them Zionist or pan-Arabist propaganda, despite the fact that they have connection to neither. It's a straw man side argument that distracts from the main topic. You need to prove that the term 'Arabian Gulf' is not notable, and somehow explain how we are should disregard WP:NEU, WP:NN and WP:FRINGE in order to exclude the alternative terms 'Arabian Gulf' and 'The Gulf' from the article. If that cannot be done, other arguments are simply noise. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

When there is an acadamic source that says "Nasser coined the term for political reasons", you can't just disregrd ir and dispute a sourced statement unless you have a valid source that says otherwise. Please read WP:NOR, your arguments have zero value here, when you can not back them up with even a single source. The burden of proof is on you, Wikipedia is not the place for original research. My proposal is a compromise that would not exclude anything, is supported by everyone here but you, and every bit of it is backed with relaible sources, so come back when you can provide credible sources that back your view, and justify your opposition . --Sia34 (talk) 18:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

(←dent) Perhaps you missed that part of my post that asked you to avoid straw man arguments, sia. Focus on the point of the mediation, please, not minor feeder arguments. My job here is to ensure that wiki policy is followed (see those nifty little wikilinks I graciously provided you above). the best version i have seen thus far - the most neutral - Option #2; your inclusion of the fallacy that the term 'Arabian Gulf' is only politically-driven displays a decided lack of neutrality.
And you might want to add a bit more civility into your arguments, as it is far more conducive to equanimous discussion. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

You're the one with straw man arguments, where are your sources that dispute the well-sourced fact that the term is politically-driven? We're still waiting. And your job is what? Who gave you that job? Who gave you that mandate? It's not up to you to interpret and enforce Wikipedia policy, your're not an admin, you're just a user and as it is apparent from your block log showcasing a history of disruption and abuse in Wikipedia, your standing in the community is far from great and you are not so familiar with Wikipedia policies afterall, so please refrain from lecturing others.--Sia34 (talk) 18:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

It is my job, as it is the job of every editor here, to make sure that Wiki policy is followed. It isn't solely the purview of admins, and if you think it is, you might want to ask one or two of them about that particular misconception. Additionally, while I strongly disagree with your cherry-picked sources pointing to Nasser as the instigator behind the term 'Arabian Gulf', that isn't the point here. No point = no need for subsequent debate best suited to the nomenclature dispute article. As you clearly support the inclusion of the term 'Arabian Gulf' in the lead (and presumably 'The Gulf'), maybe we can focus on the most neutral language.

I am going to say this one more time, sia. Focus on the article, and not the contributor. After all, i didn't point out that you are a single-purpose account with an interesting amount of wiki know-how for someone who's only been here since October 5th. A less polite person would wonder whether yours is a shell account for another, likely concealing a far more troubling block and incident log. I wouldn't make that accusation, as it would be impolite. However, my block log indicates that I have indeed made mistakes, and I tend to learn from them. My disagreement with your assertions - and your personal attacks on me utilized to highlight them - is not one of those mistakes. Indeed, continuance of them is going to land you in hot water, so I would ask that you stop them. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipeda policy shall be followed, but not your interpretations of it. I am focusd on the topic, that's why I have been asking you to back up your claims with sources, that's not a personal attack, that's a legitimate request. If you think my sources are "cherry-picked", then it shouldn't be hard for you to refute them with other sources, and yet you still have not provided a single source to support any of your views. Every part of my proposal is sourced, it is as neutral as possible and noone here but you has a problem with it. So if you disgree with a part of it, it is up to you to bring forward a source that refutes that part of my proposal. --Sia34 (talk) 19:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, that isn't the purpose of this mediation. Where the term came from is immaterial to this discussion. It's notability is. Us providing back-and-forth citations isn't really going to alter the fact that we are both in agreement that the term Arabian Gulf needs to be in the Lead. We simply disagree as to why. However, you should feel free to discuss the topic in the naming dispute article. And for the record, my interpretation of wiki policy pretty clearly dovetails with actual policy. You should feel free to confirm that it is with any one of a number of admins, if you wish. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Providing back-and-forth citations? Please provide one single citation first, you refute a sourced statement with another sourced statement, that's how Wiki works. We are not in agreement that the term Arabian Gulf needs to be in the lead, most of the users here have said that it should only be in the lead, if it is within the proper context that is reflected in my proposal. --Sia34 (talk) 20:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. So you are now saying that you don't want to have 'Arabian Gulf' in the Lead? As for citations, if you really want, I could find at least ten different citations wherein varying levels of hysterical polemic about how the usage of 'Arabian Gulf' is akin to a "spit in us [sic] Iranians face". If you don't mind me asking, are you specifically suggesting (via your proposed edit) that Nasser invented the term for political ends? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I do support the inclusion, but only as long as it is within the proper context, pointing out the political and controversial nature of the term. We are all still waiting for you to provide citations that refute my proposal, every part of which is backed by citations from reputable sources.--Sia34 (talk) 22:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

If you have any doubt about the political and reactionary nature od the term "Arabian Gulf", just read this comment by Arab Egyptian scholar Dr. Mostafa Alfaqi: "In the decade of the 1950s, the cabinet of Iran's then prime minister Dr. Mohammad Mosaddeq was overthrown and his foreign minister Dr Hossein Fatemi was killed. The Shah, with his tense relations with Iraq on the Arvand-Roud (Shatt-ul-Arab) assumed the role of the region's gendarme in opposition to the government of Jamal Abdel Nasser. Therefore, the Arabs asked for the change of the name of the Persian Gulf to the Arabian Gulf when they saw that the Shah of Iran was supporting Israel and was against Arab nationalism." --Sia34 (talk) 22:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for finally answering. As for the second part of my question, 'are you specifically suggesting (via your proposed edit) that Nasser invented the term for political ends?', how do you respond? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

My proposal makes no mention of Nasser the individual, please stay on topic. --Sia34 (talk) 23:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

My apologies, you are correct. It does not specifically say that. Allow me to rephrase my question: are you specifically suggesting (via your proposed edit) that the term 'Arabian Gulf' is solely a political invention? If I may ask - since you introduce the concept of political origins, who do you feel introduced this political invention? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I will answer you with a citation from a reliable source "As recognized by the United States Board on Geographic names, the name of the body of water that lies between Iran and the Arab states of the Gulf Cooperation Council is the Persian Gulf. For political reasons, Arabs often refer to it as the Arab or Arabian Gulf" (The Persian Gulf at the Millennium: Essays in Politics, Economy, Security, and Religion edited by Gary G. Sick, Lawrence G. Potter, pg 8). Please feel free to refute that, with another reliable source. --Sia34 (talk) 23:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I will be happy to, after the weekend (real world matters such as work and fun, always take precedence). And seriously, Gary Sick? Isn't he same conspiracy theorist oddball who proposed the shadowy October Surprise Conspiracy? From his Wikipedia article it appears that his expertise is on Iran - hardly a neutral source of news about the origins of the term, 'Arabian Gulf'. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Gary Sick is an American analyst, a published author, a former US official, and a professor of International Affairs at Columbia University, you can't just dismiss acadamic sources you don't like. Gary Sick is a reliable source, in line with WP:RS. But feel free to find a source that refutes him on this topic. --Sia34 (talk) 00:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, after the weekend. I didn't say I dislike Sick; I think he's a nice guy, and a pretty good lecturer (plus I hear he's a fabulous Scrabble player). I didn't say he wasn't reliable; I am just suggesting that he isn't the cat's ass of reliability, what with the conspiracy theories and the clear bias towards iran and whatnot. Still, version #2 is still better-written and more neutral. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Jeeez, "clear bias towards Iran"? Plaese, how did you come up with that assertion? Gary Sick is a former US official, and a retired captain of the U.S. Navy, who served on the U.S. National Security Council under three Amercian presidents...how can he be biased toward Iran and serve in such sensitive positions within the US government?--Sia34 (talk) 00:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Er, from his own books? As far as I know, military appointment doesn't preclude having a personal opinion, and he was chosen to work in the positions he did precisely because he could identify with and interpret the Iranian point of view and afford the people he advised a birds-eye view into how Iranian cultural and political behavior and, more specifically, how American actions would be perceived through that lens. Understanding how a people or government behaves is not the same as preferring them to one's own country or culture. Sick wasn't the first, and certainly wasn't the last (though he is the only one spouting crackpot theories about the October Surprise). The number of naval officers who are experts on say, former Soviet Russia and China and North Korea still hold sensitive positions specifically because of their unique and qualified perspectives, but that doesn't make them experts on their 'enemies'. Therefore, Sick might well be an expert on Iranian politics and culture, but that wouldn't translate into an expertise in Arabian affairs. Like i said, I'm fairly off for the weekend.

And on another note,if you feel I've been unduly snippy with you, consider that I don't usually react well to people who provide uncivil commentary. In fact, I admit that I usually respond to it a bit too harshly. So, as far as my snippiness goes, I apologize. try to be more polite and pursue behavior that's likely to be taken in a bad light, and you will find a very different response. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Accoding to whom? Do you have a source that says "Gary Siick is biased"? Being an expert on a particular subject, does not make one biased toward that subject automatically. If you wish to refute Gary Sick or question him as a neutral source, please cite some authoritative sources to that effect.--Sia34 (talk) 05:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Sia here: Aracayne, picking and choosing sources shows a bias. However, I also would like to mention that Nasser was NOT the first man to propose the term "Arabian Gulf". Sir Charles Belgrave, the British adviser to the rulers of Bahrain in the early 1930s, first made the proposal to London, but both the Colonial and Foreign Offices rejected it outright. The next attempt was made by another Briton, Roderick Owen. After the nationalization of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Co (AIOC) by Iran in 1951, AIOC was desperate to sabotage Iranian interests in the region to avenge its losses. The task of reviving the "Arabian Gulf" project was entrusted to Roderick Owen. The primary product of Owen's campaign was a book called The Golden Bubble of the Arabian Gulf. This book constituted the first literary work of any significance to popularize the term "Arabian Gulf". Nasser however was the main figure who popularized changing the name of the Persian Gulf to accommodate Arab chauvinism. Nasser's Egyptian regime, using the financial resources of the small Arab sheikhdoms on the western shores of the Persian Gulf, started the global campaign to change the name of the Persian Gulf. (Abridged from the article All at sea over 'the Gulf' [5]) Lest Arcayne does not like the previous source, I have another source which mentions that Nasser and Saddam Hussain both tried to change the name to the Arabian Gulf, and this one is from the Associate Press. [6] --Persan en Japon (talk) 13:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 6

[edit] 7

[edit] Waiting for resumption of mediation

When is this going to begin again? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I had the same question. Meanwhile, the mediator and the other interested parties, may follow the latest discussions at Talk:Persian_Gulf#Next_step.3F. --Sia34 (talk) 02:45, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to suggest and comment on any proposal. We did seem to be moving towards a solution before; clear and continious discussion is the lifeblood of this mediation. I may {{hide}} some proposals that have not received much support. CloudNine (talk) 12:06, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Working solution

This is the solution with the most agreement. Of course, it is open to change; such discussion should be placed in "Discussion" or "Possible solutions":

Just a comment from an uninvolved editor - grammar would say that the proposed wording should end "neither term is recognized internationally." --Dweller (talk) 12:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)