Talk:Persian Gulf/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Semi-protected edit request on 27 November 2021

the lede contains a big error. the Arabic transliteration/translation is wrong.

1) The Persian Gulf (Persian: خلیج فارس‎, romanized: xalij-e fârs, lit. 'Gulf of Fars', pronounced [xæliːdʒe fɒːɾs]; Arabic: الخليج العربي‎, romanized: al-ḵalīj al-ʿarabiyy, lit. 'the Arabian Gulf')

it should be removed or corrected. because Arabian Gulf is in the 2nd paragraph:

2) Arab governments refer to it as the "Arabian Gulf" (Arabic: اَلْخَلِيْجُ ٱلْعَرَبِيُّ‎, romanized: Al-Khalīj al-ˁArabī) or "The Gulf".

you should merge or clarify two paragraphs. please fix the intro because it's misleading. the Arabic translation is not same thing as English and Persian ones. 188.158.110.122 (talk) 08:09, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

 Done---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:42, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Persian Gulf

The information you have provided is wrong. The Gulf has always been known as "Persian Gulf" and it is part of the Iranian territory. Saudi Arabia has tried for many years to give it a name that is not legal and wrong. You will not name Gulf of Mexico U.S. Gulf would you? Although I am not fond of the Iranian Regime, I believe producing misinformation to satisfy a certain group of individuals is morally and ethically wrong. Refer to the Bible and check the name given to the Gulf you will not see "Arab Gulf". Take a look at all the maps since the beginning, you will not see "Arab Gulf" It has always been know as "Persian Gulf". That is why I never allow my students to use Wikipedia as a legitimate source. Free speech both written and verbal is protected by our constitution, however, misinformation and lies are not. Like, few years ago they tried to teach kids in Texas that Moses was one of the founding fathers of the United States. They went as far as wanting to change history books in favor of their religious ideologies. Do not become a source of misinformation. https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2014/11/was-moses-a-founding-father/383153/ 47.183.192.182 (talk) 16:30, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

The article doesn’t dispute that it’s commonly referred to as the “Persian Gulf” but states that it’s also called the “Arabian Gulf” by Arab nations especially those that border the Gulf (the Gulf states) which is a fact. So the information provided is not wrong making your premise incorrect. In other words, it’s neither misinformation nor “lies”. As for renaming the Gulf of Mexico I’m pretty certain no one calls it the “U.S. Gulf” so that’s a False equivalence at best. The Texas affair is also irrelevant here, and I’m not sure what those examples are trying to illustrate? If your issue is with the inclusion of the Arabian Gulf name then please refer to the RfC and try to base your arguments on the points raised there. LockeCol (talk) 03:30, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

PERSIAN GULF FOREVER

Stop diverting the history it’s disgusting! Persian Gulf has always been Persian gulf and will always be Persian Gulf! Stop diverting the history stop manipulating people’s mind with your lies stop this disgusting game. 149.7.35.186 (talk) 06:30, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

The truth name

This gulf true name is PERSIAN GULF خلیج فارس Never say that name" Arab gulf" it is lie and wrong in all time This gulf historical name is PERSIAN GULF 151.246.162.54 (talk) 11:57, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

PERSIAN GULF

You SHOULD make correction as it’s only PERSIAN GULF! Stop enforcing your personal prejudice! 2607:FEA8:579F:D1E0:91C5:D5B5:C04F:7900 (talk) 21:48, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

The night light picture

That night light picture; the area where it says "Zagros Mountains" is no where close to where the Zagros actually are. They are no where near the Persian Gulf coast. The Zagros are quite a bit further up north and to the west. 2601:5C0:C280:63A0:DC15:FDD0:EEFF:3FC4 (talk) 23:42, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Agreed that image is awful. There is an alternative image available that doesn't have the captions. I suggest using that one instead //Lollipoplollipoplollipop::talk 14:01, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

If "Arabian Gulf", why not..

In Bahrain, Oman, Qatar and the UAE, the majority of the population comprises foreign laborers and in the latter two countries this number is as high as 80%. As of 2013, it was estimated that approximately 18 million legal migrants resided in the GCC region. Over the last few years the number of migrants residing in the GCC has increased considerably

So most of the people in these Arab countries on one side of the Gulf, speak Indo-Aryan languages, Dravidian, Austronesian, and Polynesian languages.

Of the almost 80% of Qatari residents are not Qatari citizens, there are, in order, Indians, Nepalis, Bangladeshis, Sri Lankans, Pakistanis, Filipinos, and Egyptians. That doesn't even count the Westerners.

On the Iranian side of the Gulf, there's some ancient, native languages that you might be surprised to hear about. There's also a small, but long-established Brahui (a Dravidian-language) people that are permanently settled on the Iranian coasts and on islands like Kish.

Also, many of millions of Iranians who officially identify as Fars are actually of Tork stock themselves, it would be impossible to estimate how many of them - let alone how many of all those"Torks" actually speak their language South Azeris. Plus there's the nomadic Turks, the Qashqai and others are frequent visitors to the Gulf's shores. Daytripping Lurs and Laks are also ever-present.

And wouldn't ya know it, there's actually a "Gulf Language" that is neither Iranian or Arabic. They and their language rea literally called Khalaji. It's a very old Turkic language, preserving some words only now found back in Siberia and Central Asia. It's generally not mutually intelligible with the South Azeri hybrid tongue that most modern Iranian "Torks" speak, let alone that of Istanbul Turkish or Turkmen (Iraqi). Sadly it will likely be extinct soon, as there's though to be only around 20,000 left.

But your biggest concern would be the long established and typically mutually unintelligable dialevtd that stretch along the southern coasts of the Iranian side, and in the largest island of Gheshm in particular. They are Iranic languages, but they're not Persian or Kurdish - and certainly not Arabic. Many of them are of noticeable African descent too, through the thousands of years of relationhips between them and the various peoples of the Horn of Africa.

Speaking of which, there's been a permanent Somali population on the Iranian side of the Gulf for many centuries. Nowadays their numbers fluctuate from around 4,000-13,5000 depending on the condition of the economy, but those born and raised there are every as bit Iranian as everyone else. Their language and mannerisms mark them out as foreigners immediately to Somalis proper. And you'd be hard pressed to find two more different cultures. The Persian+ Gulf anyone? EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 09:54, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 24 March 2022

173.178.144.244 (talk) 04:24, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Historically and by no means, there is no definition or other name for Persian Gulf. Arabian Gulf is just a stupid manupulation. It is so sad that resource like wikipedia has many blunder mistakes

 Not done: arabian countries call it the Arabian Gulf, see Persian Gulf naming dispute 💜  melecie  talk - 04:37, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:04, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

If you call your father "Daddy" at home won't change his name on his ID! Plus, Arab countries and their leaders are actually quite aware of the history of the region and the reality. Also, it was named Persian Gulf before the dissociation of some of those Arab countries from the great Persia. Arab citizens and leaders themselves have had Persian Gulf written on their IDs as the region of birth in 1950s and earlier. Try to acknowledge the history and not to be manipulated by political flows. Wikipedia is still a research source for students. You owe them and the future world honesty about the history. 84.215.105.157 (talk) 14:41, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

*PERSIAN* GULF . REPEAT FOR THOUSAND TIMES

persian gulf always is persian gulf in the world 113.203.126.18 (talk) 17:40, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Disinformation by adding the invented and contested names

promoting an politically invented, ethnophobic and racist name is not in wikipedia policies and must be in disputed section,not in lead

The name Arabian gulf is totally instrumented by pan arabs and arabian Nationalists in response to iranian aiding to the state of Israel and other geo political intentions of arab states (not scientific )

There is also photos (even in this article) that show how UAE governments vandalized their own historical maps in order to delete the word "Persian" This invented name and political efforts behind it must be introduced as an example of racism and Historical negationism like holocaust denial

not to be promoted and legitimize and treat with it like a normal disputed name or a normal and natural alternative name (like gulf of basra etc)

I hope anyone care about the professionalism and honesty in wikipedia hear me and take an decisive action against this heartbreaking campaign of manipulating the truth 5.209.10.30 (talk) 04:55, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

RfC improperly closed, should be redone

Firefangledfeathers, who has been pushing for inclusion of "Arabian Gulf" in the lead for quite awhile, should not have closed the RfC that they started. For such a controversial topic and extremely controversial move, they should have allowed the RfC to continue (instead of borderline canvassing other editors preferring "Arabian Gulf") and allowed an uninvolved and neutral editor to close. The previous RfC should be declared illegitimate, "Arabian Gulf" should be removed from the lead in the meantime, and a new, proper RfC opened and moderated by neutral editors. Khorshid (talk) 10:50, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

And further, just by observation of the RfC plus additional comments throughout this talk to this day, there is no clear or obvious consensus for inclusion of "Arabian Gulf" in the lead. Why anyone allowed Firetangledfeathers to get away with this and push this POV is beyond me. This is yet a resurrection of the racist anti-Iran and anti-Persian bias that plagued certain articles back in the mid-to-late 2000s and which I thought had long ago dissipated. All academic sources clearly agree that "Arabian Gulf" is not a legitimate alternative name, and thus it does not belong in the lead. It is a political issue which is dealt with in the appropriate section. Again, we need a new RfC and neutral moderators. Khorshid (talk) 10:56, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

There was not move. This was about the addition of a well attested alternative name. Go read WP:IDONTLIKEITUnbh (talk) 11:43, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 December 2021

Please remove anti-Iran sentiment from the lead of the page. Arabic translation doesn't match English name. This should be address later in the page or later in the lead. 85.185.57.87 (talk) 20:04, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. PianoDan (talk) 18:37, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Persian name of the Gulf

Native Persian word for "gulf" is 'var' not the manufactured "shakhab". The Sasanian geographical codex, the Shahristanha-yi Eranshahr, records the name as Var-i Pars

persian Gulf is true Majid Alavi (talk) 11:53, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Stupid discussion

I think this discussion is stupid because no one can add a comment or vote anymore! It is a one-sided talk to put the word of Arab states of the Persian Gulf to the chair because they need to use the people of the world's attention, which will be on the region due to the upcoming FIFA World Cup. Agriculturalengineer96 (talk) 16:18, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Agriculturalengineer96, thanks for starting this discussion. Since there was consensus to include the alt name, can you please self-revert? Consensus can change, and we can use this space to have a fresh conversation about whether the alt name still merits inclusion in the first sentence. Since we did have a major discussion, it would help to know what has changed, or what arguments weren't already considered. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:33, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

If you object to the previous RfC consensus you can always appeal the closure by requesting a review at WP:AN. However, that's if you have an issue with the closure procedure itself, as in, not using it as an opportunity to re-open the discussion just because you don't agree with the community consensus. Calling the process stupid is not productive, and I would also like to point out that contrary to the common misconceptions, RfC's are not a vote. Ideally it should be a process to reach a consensus while trying to be as neutral and practical as possible.

Editors shouldn't take it personally. Nationalistic-fueled rhetoric is not helpful nor is it the way to go about 'advocating' for your cause. To be 100% honest it was unpleasant seeing the recent updates coming from this article with the chauvinistic influx. I have not participated in the previous RfC but reviewing it now I do see its conclusion as reasonable. The alternative term is used in official capacity by neighboring countries and in some English sources as well. Wikipedia is not taking a side by mentioning the fact that the alternative name exists and relevant to the geopolitical region as explained down further in the article. You can't censor things just because you JDL. — ♾️ Contemporary Nomad ^{(💬 Talk)} 17:49, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Gulf of Basra

Copied from Firefangledfeathers' user talk page:

Please use Google Translate and translate Persian gulf into Turkish. Some Ottoman mapmakers indeed called it "Gulf of Basra" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gym Gordon (talk • contribs) 22:46, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi Gym Gordon. I know 'Gulf of Basra' is occasionally used, but not enough for the first sentence. If you disagree, your argument is most likely to succeed if you find more sources that describe how often 'Gulf of Basra' is used. Translated or not, Wikipedias of any language are not reliable sources; see WP:UGC. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:52, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Pan arabism needs to end

Please remove "also known as Arabian gulf" It is only known as Arabian gulf by pan Arabists and any educated person would agree it's Persian gulf. 2406:3400:313:B310:794B:AA2B:B2D:C521 (talk) 05:15, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Khobar skyscrapers.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:37, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Adding the name Arabian Gulf in Lead

The name, Arabian Gulf, should be placed in the lead. This is because this Gulf is referred to as the “Arabian Gulf” by Arab countries.

Take for example, the Shatt Al-Arab river. In the lead of the Shatt Al-Arab article, there is also the mention of Iran calling it “Arvand Rud”.

So, why isnt this article treated equally as the Shatt Al-Arab River? If one is going to do such with another article, then the same should be done here. WatanWatan2020 (talk) 04:03, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

For example see Arabian Sea. Arabian Sea is called as Indian Sea in India (a country with 1.3 billion population) but Indian Sea is not placed in the lead. Naming dispute is covered in the lead of Persian Gulf naming dispute and also a later section in this page with appropriate context including mention of Pan-Arabism. There are other proposed names for Persian Gulf but they don't fit in the lead. Persian Gulf is the common name in English and is used with much more frequency than other names. Also please don't remove references to Persian Gulf as you did in Saudi Arabia page.Premitive (talk) 09:19, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

It's never been Arabian Gulf ever. You can never find even a single historical source that mentions the Arabian Gulf. And the fact is that we never can change our history.

By a simple search, it's clear that "Historically and commonly known as the Persian Gulf, this body of water is sometimes controversially referred to as the Arabian Gulf by certain Arab countries or simply The Gulf, although neither of the latter two terms is recognized internationally." (https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Persian_Gulf). Also, in the following paragraphs, it's been clearly indicated why it's always the Persian Gulf. Source: http://www.persiangulfstudies.com/en/index.asp?P=NEWSVIEW&ID=149

According to the book “Documents on the Persian Gulf's name”by Dr.Ajam As of 1800 to 1970, at least in 45 contracts concluded among the tribal leader(Emirates) or countries such as Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Ottoman, Oman, Emirs of Motesalehe ( now United Emirates), compiled in English and Arabic, the name of Persian Gulf(khaleej fars) has been used. In a book published in UAE 1989 by Rashed Ali Mohammad titled : ((Economic and political agreement between the Arabs Emirs and Britain 1806-1971)) he had included original of around 22 contracts in all of them in both Arabic and English text the name of Persian gulf had been mentioned. The earliest known world maps date to classical antiquity, the oldest examples of the 6th to 5th centuries BCE still based on the flat Earth paradigm. World maps assuming a spherical Earth first appear in the Hellenistic period. The developments of Greek geography during this time, notably by Eratosthenes and Posidonius culminated in the Roman era, with Ptolemy's world map (2nd century CE), which would remain authoritative throughout the Middle Ages.

With the Age of Discovery, during the 15th to 18th centuries, world maps became increasingly accurate; exploration of Antarctica, Australia, and the interior of Africa by western mapmakers was left to the 19th and early 20th century.

In all maps, documents and correspondence until 1960, the name of the Persian Gulf and its equivalents were used for body of water between Iran and Arabia.

According to the book “Documents on the Persian Gulf's name”by Dr.Ajam .

A number of these maps and documents are introduced and published in the following Atlases:

1.Atlas of Maps Of the Persian Gulf , Alqasimi, Sultan bin Mohammad, “The Gulf in Historical Maps” 1478- 1861,Leicester, 1996. 2th edition in 1999.

2. Atlas of geographical maps and historical documents about the Persian Gulf from prehistoric times to the present Published by Sahab Institute of Geography and Cartography in 1971 in Tehran.This atlas consists of eight chapters, and 80 maps. The maps collected in this atlas are the work of great geographers and historians of Iranian, Arab, European, Indian, Roman, Egyptian, central Asia, African and American.

3. " Atlas of "Description of the Persian Gulf in Historical Maps" was published in 2008 by the Iranology Foundation, in Iran which presents 40 maps of the Islamic Middle East cartographer and 120 European

maps of colonial era .

4. The Arabian Peninsula in Old European Maps (253 maps) by Khaled Al Ankary, Institute du Monde Arabe,Paris and Tunisia University,2001 .

5. ATLAS OF OLD& HISTORICAL MAPS THE PERSIAN GULF 300BC 2000AD BY Mohammad Reza Sehab . tehran 2005

583 page 2 volum almost 500 maps.

In all the important historical maps and Atlas whether modern or belonging to previous centuries, the water artery located at south ofIranhas been registered asPersian Gulf. In the Arabian countries too, it has always been namedPersian Gulfup to the 70s. For instance, in the Atlas “Al araq fi Al khavaret Al ghadimeh” by Dr. Ahmad Souseh (Baghdad 1959) including 40 maps among the Arabian sources of the Middle Ages all have the Arabic term for the Persian gulf.

In the maps presented by Arabian countries to the International Court of the justice for settlements of border claims, the name ofPERSIAN GULFhas been mentioned in their documents.

– Atlas of La Péninsule Arabique dans les cartes Européennes Anciennes (The Arabian Peninsula in Old European Maps).Paris, Monde Arabs institute and Tunisia university IMA & Khaled. Al Ankary, 2001. ۴۲۴ pp. contains ۲۶۰ maps with details about each map in 3 languages: Arabic, English and French. Almost all of these 260 maps have the correct name of Persian Gulf.

Moreover, 10 maps have used both Persian Gulf for the gulf and also persian Sea (for the current area of Seaof Oman and Arabian sea) •

The book: Roots of Kuwait. “Osoul Alkuwait Almanshour Alalam” (1991) published in theNetherlandsalso contains 15 maps where the name of PERSIAN GULFexists.

In the “Atlas of Alkuwaitfi Al kharaet Al Aalam” some maps have been used where there exists the name ofPERSIAN GULF.

In Atlas of “Alkuwaitfi Al kharaet Al tarikhieh” published by the efforts of Abdollah Yousef Al ghanim in 1994, there are about 200 maps mentioning the name ofPersian Gulf

In the ARABIC book: “Al khaleej al fars Aber Al tarikh va Al ghoroun” (written by Mohammad Mirza, 1976Cairo) there are 52 maps drawn out of Arabic sources, all have the name ofPersian Gulf.

In Atlas of “History of Islam” (1951-55AmericaandEgypt) the namePersian Gulf has been mentioned IN ۱۶ MAPS.

In the Atlas of “Khalij (Gulf) in the Historical Maps” published in UAE (۱۹۹۹) more than 600 maps have the term Persian gulf.

The Arabic Bank and Beyt Al quran inBahrainpublished a large wall calendar in 1996 containing the 11 historical map ofBahrainin which all the maps contain the name ofPersian Gulf

It is interesting that from among 6000 existing historical maps published up to 1890, there are only three maps mentioning the names of Basreh Gulf, Ghatif Gulf, and Arabic Gulf, this name in fact are the name of bays of the Persian gulf. in local language they call the bay also as the gulf like :gulf of Busher-ChahBahar Gulf,SirafGulf,BasrehGulf,Ghatif Gulf,Bahrain Gulf, Basre gulf …. but such names are not applied to the entirety of the Persian Gulf.

It is obvious that the promotional use by the Arabs of the three aforementioned maps, whose identity and originality are not clear, in comparison with 6000 maps and more than 300 historical and credible geographical books from ancient time to 20thcentury , shall lack any value.

In the Arabic Dictionaries like Al Monjed, and also in all (60)Qoranic Tafsires and religious Islamic books and in all treaties ( more than 30 Arabic treaties between the Arabs tribe leader with theUKand Othman and Iranians )Persian gulfhas been used .

In the many museums all over the world some can find maps or manuscript having the name Persian gulf some recorded as intangible world heritage (UNESCO) In Library of American Congress, Britain National Library (London), deeds at Ministry of India’s Affairs (London), Library of Faculty of Orientals Studies of London, there are more than 300 maps, containing the name Persian Gulf. In Eskandria Library of Egypt And National Musum Of Egypt alsoPersian gulfmap are preserved.

Furthermore, about 30 valid Atlas have registered the name ofPERSIAN GULFwithin the past 300 years, such as: Atlas of Thomas Herbert (1628).

– Atlas of Pars,LousajUniversity(1863). – Atlas ofGermany(1861), Pars Envile Atlas (1760).- Atlas of Modern Geography (1890).- Atlas of London (1873),- Atlas of Ernest Embrosius (1922),- Atlas of Bilefild (1899)- Atlas of Harmsorth (19th Century, London).

In 18th to 20th centuries when the UK expanded its dominance over the seas and appeared as protectorate of the Sheikhs on the south sectors of the PERSIAN GULF, the official maps and documents of the areas in all languages refers to the GULF as PERSIAN GULF.

Applications of the Name Persian Gulf by International Organizations

Not only the Persian Gulf had been used since ancient time in all languages but also in current time non Arabs countries had never recognized a new tribal name and UN and all international Organizations and affiliated foundations have applied the correct name of PERSIAN GULF.

In the Arabic text of the UN some time had appeared wrong term but as soon AS the secretariat have considered it the correction have been done.

For the first time in 1971 in a UN text wrong term was used and then was corrected by a UN instruction and Note No. AD311/1GEN dated March 5, 1971. Irajdh (talk) 04:48, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Where is a source that mentions the Indians call it the Indian Sea?

By your measure, the name “Arvand Rud” should be removed from the lead in the Shatt Al Arab article, which could be then placed in a section at the bottom under “alternative name”. WatanWatan2020 (talk) 16:31, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

"sindhu saagar" is the Indian name for Arabian Sea which translates into "Indus Sea" or "Indian Sea". According to here: "In Indian folklore, it is referred to as Daria, Sindhu Sagar, and Arabbi Samudra". Almost ten names are listed for Arabian Sea in Alternative names section. Furthermore Hindi Wikipedia starts like "Arabian Sea, which it's Indian name is Indus Sea,". There are other issues as well such as providing the necessary context for the alternative name(Pan-Arabism vs. historical and International name) and how many of proposed alternative names are supposed to be placed in the lead.

"Shatt al-Arab" is the common name in English. Alternative names in Iraq("Dijla al-Awara") and Iran("Arvand Rud") are different than the common name in English so I believe an Alternative names section is a better place for them. However per WP:CIRCULAR you can't use articles in Wikipedia as a basis to change another article in Wikipedia. So using Persian Gulf page and Arabian Sea page to change Shatt al-Arab page shouldn't be allowed until reaching a consensus there with it's editors.

As you can see this issue has already been discussed in this page many times. The content of this page is disputed and it's best to be edited by experienced editors.Premitive (talk) 19:31, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

The WP:Circular claim that is made has nothing to do with what you have mentioned; in reality it states not to use its sources. I recommend that you read again what it means.

The common name in Arabic for this Gulf is “Arabian Gulf”, and never anything else. Therefore it should be specified in the lead as to how the Arabs call it, just like in the Shatt Al-Arab article where the description of how Iranians call it- is implemented.

Although, It will make more sense to create a alternative name section in the Shatt Al Arab article as more logical move. WatanWatan2020 (talk) 21:14, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

I already showed you this is also the case for Arabian Sea and not only for Persian Gulf article which have more quality than shat al-Arab. "The common name in Arabic for this Gulf is “Arabian Gulf”, and never anything else" exactly shows why this discussion never leads to any result. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Premitive (talk • contribs) 06:31, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

We should add 'Arabian Gulf' in the lead per WP:ALTNAME and the Alternative names section of WP:PLACE. 'Arabian Gulf' is a significant alternate name in Arabic and English sources. The test in WP:PLACE, mention in over 10% of English-language sources, is easily passed by 'Arabian Gulf'. I'm seeing it in about 18% of Google Scholar sources and 24% of Google News sources. The name gets a mention in the intro of high-quality tertiary sources like Encylopedia Britannica and Columbia Encyclopedia. Firefangledfeathers 04:12, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Britannica is not a reliable source in Wikipedia. Columbia Encyclopedia says its called "Arabian Gulf in Arab world" only at the end of paragraph and doesn't start like "Persian Gulf sometimes called as Arabian Gulf". Not to mention other proposed names such as "Gulf" that is used more that "Arabian Gulf" that you didn't mention and they need to be in a separate paragraph. Almost all of those "Arabian Gulf" that you refer to is written by Arabs themselves to promote the name not by native speakers of English Language and Wikipedia is not a promotion platform. Some of them do not refer to body water and do not include Iran. And also the context should be mentioned. As far as I know this page has never been like this before (unless for short time till it gets reverted).Premitive (talk) 23:30, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Most of reliable sources only use "Persian Gulf", those who mention "Arabian Gulf" simply say that "it is known to Arabs as Arabian Gulf" or something similar. most of news source that you refer to are government propaganda(Al-Arabiya, Gulf News, etc.). "Arabian Gulf" lacks internationality and is a proposed name that is not even the most used alternative name. your edit has ignored all the factors and context and is undue at best.Premitive (talk) 23:58, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Also I'm not sure about your statistic but they don't seem to be correct. more specifically when computing percentage you should consider all proposed alternative names not only one of them. I can almost certainly say that you didn't count "Gulf". also other names such as "Islamic Gulf" brings many results in google scholar as some Muslim scholars prefer that. You must also make sure that result you are getting refers to body water not a tower or a football League or some Arab countries. there are also other proposed names who bring many result in google scholar/news. however none of these name are not historically or internationally comparable to "Persian Gulf" and are not closely as common in English nor they are used by reliable sources.Premitive (talk) 00:52, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

@Premitive: thank you for responding. I encourage you to use edit summaries when reverting. I was close to re-reverting your summary-less reversion before I saw that you had posted here. Something like "reasons given at talk" would be sufficient. My responses:

• Britannica: I am not proposing we use it (or Columbia) as a source, but it's helpful to see how other quality tertiary sources are covering the subject.
• Other proposed names: 'Gulf' is challenging to find in sources, and it's trivially true that places will shorten the name of nearby geographical features (e.g. 'the lake', 'the ocean'). I wouldn't favor adding 'The Gulf' unless someone does the tough work of showing that it's commonly used.
• known to Arabs: I would be fine with adding "is sometimes referred to, mostly by Arabs,as the Arabian Gulf"
• computing percentage: it's true that these kinds of search results-based arguments are imperfect. That said, I think there's room enough for error that it's clear 'Arabian Gulf' meets the threshold for inclusion. For the record, there are no Google Scholar results for "Arabian Gulf Tower", only 18 for "Arabian Gulf League", and there's every reason to suspect that the count would similarly go down for "Persian Gulf" if we worked to eliminate false results.

Overall, there's much that I agree with you on. 'Arabian Gulf' is not historically or internationally comparable to 'Persian Gulf'. It's clear that 'Arabian Gulf' has caught on in some contexts because of the activism of Arab states and their allies. But none of that is reason enough to exclude this common minority usage. Firefangledfeathers 02:09, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Britannica isn't a reliable source in Wikipedia because it lacks quality; if it had quality it was reliable. "Gulf" is clearly used more than "Arabian Gulf". For "Arabian Gulf Tower" and "Arabian Gulf Cup" I meant news not Google Scholar. And mentions of "Arabian Gulf" in google scholar or news in many cases don't include Iran (maybe even Iraq) and don't refer to body water while when sources refer to "Persian Gulf" it includes all countries or refer to body water. And I don't know how you calculated those percentage at the first place specially when you didn't search for "Gulf". also the context of the names should be mentioned they are not from same value. Most reliable sources only use "Persian Gulf" and Most references to "Arabian Gulf"s that you refer to are simply created by Arab Governments themselves not reliable sources nor native speakers of English. Thus as I said your edit is clearly undue and promotion(at best) and puts them at same level and not considering any context. context should be covered like it has done in Persian Gulf naming dispute. As far as I know this page has never been like this except for a very short time until someone reverts. still if you want to re-revert, I won't be the first one to revert back this time.Premitive (talk) 05:49, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Premitive, nothing in your responses has addressed the WP:ALTNAME case at the center of my argument. Even use in Arabic qualifies, as we should be including "relevant foreign-language names". I appreciate your commitment not to re-revert. It's possible we'll have more editors chime in, but for now, there is rough consensus for including the alt name. Firefangledfeathers 16:40, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I won't but make sure you read MOS:LEADALT carefully as you are including it in the lead: "If there are three or more alternative names – including alternative spellings, longer or shorter forms, historic names, and significant names in other languages – or there is something notable about the names themselves, a separate name section is recommended." and a separate name section is exactly what we have here. For Persian Gulf there are many alternative name and there is something notable about them, that is Persian Gulf naming dispute (All alternative names are listed in that page). Thus although only one condition is required for a separate name section both are satisfied. So there is no consensus but as I said I won't re-revert.Premitive (talk) 17:50, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

This naming dispute is already discussed in the relevant section, how does it belong to the lead ?---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:37, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

We should use only the original name to avoid conflicts and misapprehensions 151.240.146.135 (talk) 10:40, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

@Wikaviani: it belongs per WP:ALTNAME and the Alternative names section of WP:PLACE. Is there any reason this article should be an exception to the guideline?

Either way, I think there's a good reason to believe that this dispute will continue. Regardless of where consensus lands, I think it will help to have a clear articulation of that consensus. Maybe an RfC is in order? I propose something like

Should 'Arabian Gulf' be included as an alternative name in the first sentence, and if so how?

• Option A: sometimes called the Arabian Gulf (Arabic: اَلْخَلِيْجُ ٱلْعَرَبِيُّ, romanized: Al-Khalīj al-ˁArabī)
• Option B: referred to in Arab countries as the Arabian Gulf (Arabic: اَلْخَلِيْجُ ٱلْعَرَبِيُّ, romanized: Al-Khalīj al-ˁArabī)
• Option C: Exclude from the lead

Does this proposed dispute resolution method work for others? Should the options be changed? Is the question acceptably neutral? Firefangledfeathers 21:41, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Adding "Arabian Gulf" in the head will not be compatible with our guidelines, it is rather the opposite. "Persian Gulf" is the internationally recognized name of this body of water and its common name, but there are many other local names, like "The Gulf", "Arabian Gulf", "Gulf of Ajam", "Gulf of Basra", etc ... If you read alternative names carefully, you'll see "Nevertheless, other names, especially those used significantly often (say, 10% of the time or more) in the available English literature on a place, past or present, should be mentioned in the article, as encyclopedic information. Two or three alternative names can be mentioned in the first line of the article; it is general Wikipedia practice to bold them so they stand out. If there are more names than this, or the lead section is cluttered, a separate paragraph on the names of the place is often a good idea." This is the case for this article, there is a whole section about the other names. In addition, you must be able to prove that the name "Arabian Gulf" is used more than 10% of the times or more, the Arabian countries all together represent only about 5% of the world population. If you're not convinced and still want to go for a RfC, i have no problem with that. Best.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:53, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

For usage in English sources, see the discussion above. Are the other names you mention similarly prominent in English sources? Firefangledfeathers 13:30, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Well, there are dozens of names that are used for that body of water, i just mentioned a few of them, not necessarily the most prominent. Some of them are similarly prominent in English sources, If we consider Google hits (which is not the best threshold, i confess that, but it may give some perspective, however, feel free to propose another one if you want) :

• "Persian Gulf" : 60 700 000 hits
• "Gulf of Iran" : 62 500 000 hits
• "Arabian Gulf" : 52 100 000 hits
• "Gulf of arabia" : 128 000 000 hits
• "Iranian Gulf" : 121 000 000 hits
• "Gulf of Persia" : 43 600 000 hits

The name "Persian Gulf" is the one used in almost all international organizations, thus i suggest to leave the lead as it is and discuss the other names in the relevant section, as per our guidelines.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:06, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm getting distinctly different results from regular Google searches:

• "Persian Gulf" : 14,500,000
• "Arabian Gulf" : 5,880,000
• "Gulf of Iran" : 539,000
• "Gulf of Persia": 334,000
• "Gulf of Arabia" : 281,000
• "Iranian Gulf" : 51,100

As with the Google News and Google Scholar results above, this supports "Arabian Gulf" as a significant alt name. I checked the other possible names in News/Scholar, and they similarly are an order of magnitude (or more) reduction in hits compared to the top two names. Firefangledfeathers 15:42, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

That's not what Google Chrome returns for me ... ---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:19, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Sorry Wikaviani, but I can't duplicate those results. I tried geo-hopping using a VPN, and the numbers change, but not the approximate ratios. Do you get similar ratios of results when doing News or Scholar searches? Firefangledfeathers 21:11, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Here are my results with Google scholar :

• "Persian Gulf" : 502 000 hits
• "Arabian Gulf" : 668 000 hits
• "Gulf of Iran" : 498 000 hits
• "Gulf of Persia" : 35 000 hits
• "Gulf of Arabia" : 464 000 hits
• "Iranian Gulf" : 152 000 hits.

The ratios seem to be similar, with the notable exception of "Gulf of Persia" that is significantly lower than the others when compared with Chrome hits. The results with News are not representative (i get very few hits for all names).---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:39, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

I've started an RfC below. Pinging recent participants in this dispute: @Wikaviani, Premitive, and WatanWatan2020. Apologies to Premitive, who clearly stated that they were done with this conversation, but I really want to avoid a potential WP:CANVASS issue. Firefangledfeathers 15:49, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Request for comments: Arabian Gulf

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should 'Arabian Gulf' be included as an alternative name in the first sentence, and if so how?

• Option A: sometimes called the Arabian Gulf (Arabic: اَلْخَلِيْجُ ٱلْعَرَبِيُّ, romanized: Al-Khalīj al-ˁArabī)
• Option B: referred to in Arab countries as the Arabian Gulf (Arabic: اَلْخَلِيْجُ ٱلْعَرَبِيُّ, romanized: Al-Khalīj al-ˁArabī)
• Option C: Exclude from the lead
• Option D: The Persian Gulf (Persian: خلیج فارس, romanized: xalij-e fârs, lit. 'Gulf of Fars', pronounced [xæliːdʒe fɒːɾs]) (Arabic: الخَلِيِجُ العَرَبِيّ, romanized: Al-Khalīj al-ʿArabi, lit. 'The Arabian Gulf')

This article has experienced over a decade of slow back-and-forth editing to add/remove 'Arabian Gulf' in the lead. There have been numerous discussions, usually short, and one RfC in 2007, which was not formally closed, and it's not readily apparent what the consensus was. Whichever way this RfC lands, it would be helpful to have a solid consensus to point to when editors add or remove 'Arabian Gulf' from the lead. Firefangledfeathers 15:49, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

• Option A, with Option B as a distant second choice, based on WP:ALTNAME and the alternative names section of WP:PLACE. 'Arabian Gulf' is a significant alt name in English, being used in more than 10% of sources, and a relevant foreign language name, extremely common in Arabic. See the pre-RfC discussion for evidence that 'Arabian Gulf' is common in sources and placed prominently in the lead sections of other high-quality tertiary sources. Some of the Google results evidence is subject to to fluctuation based on your geo-location. So I encourage RfC participants to check for themselves. Firefangledfeathers 15:49, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
  • If I'm understanding nableezy's Option D proposal correctly, then I'd say that Option D is a tie for my first choice. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 16:15, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
• Option A, provided that the alternative name can be sourced and explained in the text. Dimadick (talk) 16:08, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
• Option A. Google Trends shows significant use of the term "Arabian Gulf" beyond Arab countries, while reliable sources like the BBC that typically use "Persian Gulf" occasionally use "Arabian Gulf". BilledMammal (talk) 17:49, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
• Option C: As per naming conventions on Wikipedia, when there are more than 3 names, they should not be mentioned in the lead but in a specific paragraph, this should be dealt with in the relevant section of the article (there are 5 names of similar prominence here, thus i see no legit reason to favor one of the 4 alternative names over the others ...). Additionally the name "Arabian Gulf" is not the official name nor the common name of that body of water.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:46, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

  Comment: They are not of similar prominence. Google Ngrams shows that "Arabian Gulf" is about 23 to 230 times more prominent than the other alternative names. Fuller explanation in my !vote below. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 22:33, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

  You say that the occurrence of the name "Arabian Gulf" is equal to 11% of that of the name "Persian Gulf", this implies that the total occurrence of the name "Arabian Gulf" is less than 10% of the total occurrences, a simple calculation of percentages allows to see this easily. Your below comment disqualifies the inclusion of "Arabian Gulf" in the lead, just because its occurrence is below 10% of the times ... ---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:24, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

  That's only true if the sources Ngram finds all have only one term each, which we know is untrue. Even if we made that false assumption, 'Arabian Gulf' comes in at 9.9% of the total hits. Accounting for overlap, it's an absolute certainty that the term appears in more than 10% of the sources Ngram covers. Firefangledfeathers 02:58, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, 100 / [(122109.3 + 13522.9 + 584.9 + 220.5 + 61.4 + 57.7) / 13522.9] = 9.902754946. But surely this comment is meant in jest, because taking the say, 10% of the time or more in the guideline so literally (it's 0.1 percentiles short!) would be a rather bad case of Wikilawyering. I don't believe that's the intention. But yeah, even if it were, the total amount of sources is probably a lot less than (122109.3 + 13522.9 + 584.9 + 220.5 + 61.4 + 57.7) because every source that mentions two or more names is counted double or triple that way, so the real tally for "Arabian Gulf" would doubtlessly jump over 10% of the total. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 09:28, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

  @Apaugasma: This RfC will probably end up with the inclusion of "Arabian Gulf" in the lead, even if that name is not the official one, nor the common one and not even used (or barely ...) 10% of times, but the fun fact is that you say that i'm Wikilawyering because i say that the occurrence of "Arabian Gulf" is slightly below 10% while you are not Wikilawyering with supposed 11% occurrence ... @Firefangledfeathers: Since the community consensus seems to support inclusion, feel free to close this RfC before it turns into a joke and add "Arabian Gulf" in the lead according to your option A.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:18, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

• Option A: I would also choose the second option, and is the way I had it originally. @Premitive should understand that the name ‘Arabian Gulf’ is indeed used widely in Arab countries to refer to this body of water. I already mentioned to him that a similar situation occurs on the “Shatt-Al Arab” page. Although, he went back and added the name of “Arvand Rud” used by Iranians in the top lead again. So, it is very hypocritical, at least in my opinion, that he will implement such over there, but not do the same here. But, it is important to add the mention of “Arabian Gulf” in the lead because it is widely used by the Arabs. WatanWatan2020 (talk) 21:28, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

  Comment: In my revert edit summary, I explained why I reverted your edits; because your removed sources and wikilinks in this edit. Besides when I reverted your edits, "Arvand Rud" was already added to the lead so I didn't revert that part. I also told you if you want to do it, you have to do it without removing citations and wikilinks. You understand that everything is being recorded in Wikipedia right? so I wonder who is "hypocritical" here. But anyways your talk page is self-explanatory.Premitive (talk) 21:50, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

• Option C, I have already explained my reasons in the relevant thread.Premitive (talk) 21:52, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
• Option A seems helpful to readers and as long as reliable sources support it. What benefits our audience should lord over rules and fine points. As far as rules go, I'm not sure what ours are, but I care more about usage, and in many of our pages alternative names frequently follow the most accepted one. An explanation later on may or may not be called for; its inclusion depends on importance as well as on interest, but I don't think one is mandatory. Allreet (talk) 22:41, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
• Option A – Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) says that other names, especially those used significantly often (say, 10% of the time or more) in the available English literature on a place, past or present, should be mentioned in the article, that two or three alternative names can be mentioned in the first line of the article, and that if there are more names than this, or the lead section is cluttered, a separate paragraph on the names of the place is often a good idea. The argument above that based on this guideline, we should keep "Arabian Gulf" out of the lead because there are 5 names supposedly of similar prominence, does not hold water. Google Ngrams (a metric charting the frequency of search strings in Google's very large text corpora, expressed in the percentage of texts the string was found in) clearly shows that the term "Arabian Gulf" (at 13522.9 n%) occurs 23 times as often as the next contender, "Gulf of Persia" (584.9 n%), with "Gulf of Arabia" at 220.5 n%, "Gulf of Iran" at 61.4 n%, and "Iranian Gulf" at 57.7 n%. For comparison, the most common name "Persian Gulf" comes in at 122109.3 n%, so the occurrence of "Arabian Gulf" lies at about 11% of the occurrence of "Persian Gulf" in English-language sources, while the others lie between 0.05% and 0.5% of the common name. Being 23 to 230 times more common than other alternative names, "Arabian Gulf" is doubtlessly not of similar prominence as the others, and definitely deserves a place in the lead. Incidentally, the first Ngram here nicely illustrates what our article is already saying about the name "Arabian Gulf" having become more prevalent since the naming dispute in the 1960s. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 22:33, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

  Comment: Surely I'm not the only one who is aware of the absurdity of using the results of a Google Search to determine the appropriate name/s of an anciently-attested geographical feature? If Google returned lots of results of Paris Hilton when I typed in Paris, should we then create a disambiguation page for the city's Wiki article? Given that most native English-speakers probably know more about that vacuous nothing than they do about la ville lumière, it's not even that far fetched... - EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 09:31, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

  Google Ngram Viewer does not search the World Wide Web like a regular Google search, but a large corpus of printed texts, apparently with a bias for scientific literature. A search string like "Persian Gulf" or "Arabian Gulf" is not like "Paris", in the sense that no other entities can be formed by putting a word before or behind them. Google Ngram Viewer can indeed not be used to find out the frequency of search strings like "Paris", or, e.g., "Michael" (Jackson? Jordan? Caine? Schumacher?). However, in many other cases (like this one) it can and indeed is used on Wikipedia for deciding how common proper names are. It's very indicative, especially for how common a term is in the long term. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 14:43, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

• Option C: I cannot believe this is a real discussion. This is... absolutely unconscionable. "Arabian Gulf" is a completely ahistorical, artificial, politically-motivated neologism younger than my Dad. It has been the Persian Gulf for thousands of years - centuries before there was even such a thing as an Arab or an Arabic word. And it still is, the Persian Gulf, in almost every single extant language in the world, except Arabic post-1960s (but I'm not sure about Maghrebi Arabic... I've not been to Morocco, but, I'm not sure the new name would've caught on all the way over there) and occasionally American English, originally for the sole purpose sticking it to the post-1979 anti-American Iranian regime while doing a solid for their GCC "allies".

In history (and I'm sure linguistics there's an equivalent) we call this "doing violence to history". A name - especially as one as cultural and historically significant as this - is not just a signifier. It is a cultural artefact in and of itself. All one need to is look at the Wiki article itself, and read the UN's reasoning:

According to the book Documents on the Persian Gulf's name (pp 92–98), the United Nations Secretariat and its specialized agencies have requested its staff to use only "Persian Gulf" as a standard geographical designation.

The United Nations Group of Experts on Geographical Names discussed the naming issue during its 23rd session, held in Vienna from 28 March to 4 April 2006. According to the report of the meeting, "It is interesting that from among 6000 existing historical maps published up to 1890, there are only three maps mentioning the names of Basreh Gulf, Ghatif Gulf, and Arabic Gulf, in addition to which the name of small gulfs located at the coast with local utilization can be also named such as Chah Bahar Gulf, Siraf Gulf, Basreh Gulf, Ghatif Gulf, Bahrain Gulf,…. but such names are not applied to the entirety of the Persian Gulf. It is obvious that the promotional use by the Arabs of the three aforementioned maps, whose identity and originality are not clear, in comparison with 6000 maps and more than 200 historical and tourism books from Irastus to Herodotus to Estakhri and Ibn Houghal, who have all called the water body, Persian Gulf, shall lack any value."[37]

The report further notes that "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," and finally concludes "...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. - EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 09:17, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Comment: Just to be clear: this is not a move discussion: the question is not whether we should rename the article, but rather whether we should introduce the article called Persian Gulf with something like The Persian Gulf, sometimes also called the Arabian Gulf, ... It is recognized by all that "Persian Gulf" is by far the most common name. Google Ngrams even allows us to be quite precise about it: "Persian Gulf" is 10 times more common than "Arabian Gulf", a term which by the way was already in wide use in the early 19th century (in 1800 "Persian Gulf" was only about double as common as "Arabian Gulf"), and which has remained in continuous use since.

The Google Ngrams results also show that there was a sharp rise in the use of "Arabian Gulf" between c. 1955–1985, after which its usage declined again. This period coincides with the period in which Arab nationalism was at its height. If in 2019 one in ten sources still mention the term "Arabian Gulf", it is undoubtedly related to that nationalist push. We as an encyclopedia should cover this and explain it, not fight back against it because of a perceived 'violence to history'. It would also be better not to follow primary sources in their hyperbole about these things: Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes. A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone (from WP:IMPARTIAL). It seems that our article Persian Gulf naming dispute falls short of this, and needs a thorough clean-up: it should not be based so closely on primary sources like Documents on the Persian Gulf's name: the eternal heritage of ancient time or the anonymous 'experts' of that UN report. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 14:43, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

So if you recognize that Persian Gulf is about 10 times more common than Arabian Gulf, you also recognize that you are the one who is Wikilawyering here, since the threshold is precisely 10%. The inclusion of "Arabian gulf" in the lead will by no means improve the article for our readers, since there is already a whole section dealing with that.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:48, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

• Option D - it should not be presented as a common English name as Persian Gulf is the name in a huge preponderance of sources, and the "Arabian Gulf" usage in typically reflect a strong anti-Iranian or pro-GCCish perspective by that source. But we should be including the Arabic name as a significant foreign language name, given that the seven Arabic speaking states border the gulf. So simply, following the Persion script, translation, and transliteration do the same with the Arabic. nableezy - 21:48, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

  Oh, careful now Nableezy, you know they're not like 10% of the Arabs but there's still a good number of people in live on - in - the Persian Gulf that aren't Arabs or Persians. - EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 09:54, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

  Every country on the shoreline of the Persian Gulf either has Persian or Arabic as its official language. Not sure what else you are referring to, but that is why the Arabic should be included. nableezy - 19:51, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

  nableezy, that sounds reasonable to me. Would you mind drafting what this option would look like and adding it as Option D in the opening statement? Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 16:15, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

  I tried, not sure how well it worked and have no idea the IPAization of the Arabic. nableezy - 22:11, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

• Option A. I dislike Option B, because the purpose of the lead is to assure readers they're in the right place, not to prefigure the naming dispute.

My !vote is pragmatic. As a DABfixer, I see several instances a year of editors changing links from Persian Gulf to Arabian Gulf; because the latter is a DAB page, the change gets flagged as an error. I cannot be the only DABfixer who notices this. These edits are typically one-off drive-by edits, and I treat them as well-meaning attempts to improve the encyclopedia. They are evidence that some English-speakers do believe the alternate name to be the correct one. Also, I have no difficulty in imagining that English-language sources based in the Arab world may use the alternate name. I therefore prefer Option A because it reflects the real world and helps readers. Narky Blert (talk) 06:25, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

• Option A Not exactly my area of expertise, my !vote is based on my reading of Persian Gulf naming dispute and assumes that the content there is an accurate description of the situation.Selfstudier (talk) 10:50, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

• Option A It's clearly useful to include what is a widespread name, even is not the dominant one in use. Would also go someway to alleviateing th endless naming dispute on wikipedia.Unbh (talk) 09:25, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support A or B, Oppose C We should mention the different names even if not used by everyone. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:28, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

@Premitive - I did not remove any links. I only shifted them down into the naming section as I mentioned that I would do in our conversation we had. Everything is indeed recorded, therefore you should see that for yourself. And, you placed everything that was shifted into the naming section below, back up into the lead. WatanWatan2020 (talk) 22:39, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Then, what is this. Isn't that you removing citations and wikilinks? If you know everything is recorded then why do you keep denying the truth.Premitive (talk) 03:59, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

@Premitive - If I am not mistaken, the edit you are referring to shows that I shifted the Sources & citations into the naming section. It even says it in the edit summary. Also, I made consecutive edits; so if you look at them all, you will see that I did what I said I was doing. You have to look at them all in that same time frame to get the full picture. You are focusing on one of the edits which you think will benefit your argument. WatanWatan2020 (talk) 06:47, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

So you are saying that citations and wikilinks just decided to disappear in your edit which has a diff size of -266? And later they decided to reappear in my revert? And "Arvand Rud" wasn't in the lead when I reverted? your argument is very convincing.Premitive (talk) 10:53, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Total diff size of your 4 consecutive edits(those I reverted) is -511. One of the reasons for this total diff size is citations and wikilinks that you removed. I suggest you: 1)to be more honest and 2)accept what you did and 3)do not attack other editors by calling them hypocrite.Premitive (talk) 11:37, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

• With regard to some of the comments in the RfC above, what I consider Wiki-lawyering is pointing to a guideline to support an argument ('there are many other names of equal prominence') and then, when that argument is thoroughly refuted, pointing to some other element of that guideline which barely applies ('it says 10% and we've only got 9.9%'). This avoids the substance of the question, which is that there is a fairly notable naming dispute (notable enough for us to have an article on it), as a result of which an alternative name ("Arabian Gulf") has gotten some currency.

Is this alternative name only mentioned in 10% of the sources in order to make it clear that it's a misnomer pushed by Arab nationalists? That seems very well possible to me, and I would find it a convincing argument to reject option A (I find B unencyclopedic to start with). Perhaps in that case we should only mention "Arabian Gulf" in the lead within a separate paragraph that gives context on the naming dispute and the term's nationalist background? But no one has actually made the argument that the sources only mention the term to refute it, and this could only be established by a thorough review of non-partisan secondary sources. Instead, I've mainly seen (in our articles on the subject) the usage of primary sources, often with an anti-Arab-nationalist slant. This slant may come from Iranian nationalists like 'Dr. M. Ajam', but equally well from Arab Islamists: there are enough stakes here to insist on non-partisan sources describing the dispute rather than participating in it.

Just to give one example of what effect bad sourcing may have: our Persian Gulf naming dispute article states in the lead that the term was invented in the 1960s, but Google Ngrams clearly shows that the term was in quite broad use until at least 1900, having a serious dip only c. 1900-1955. That it was 'invented' in the 1960s is simply not a fact, and just the kind of thing one would expect in a partisan argument, rather than in an encyclopedic article. Long story short, our articles just are in a really bad state, and as long as that is the case, it seems prudent to allow the lead sentence to include sometimes also called Arabian Gulf. This may turn out to be misleading (again, the argument still needs to be made), but at least it is factual. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 19:51, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

• @Apaugasma: You did not just really say "anonymous UN "experts" in sarcastic square quotes???

Why don't you actually bother to spend a few minutes to read the ruddy sources before making blind judgements? Why are all the most trigger-happy editors the ones least inclined to actually learn anything? Wikipedia can be so backwards on that score.

Would you like me to point you to some links that show the lists? Each one of those UN proceedings involved anywhere between 40-60 experts - plus more diplomatic officials - from a nearly vast such number of countries?

extended comment
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The initial United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS, 1982) (spurred on by ownership and nameing disputes in the Persian Gulf, the Baltic Sea, the Black Sea, and between the Koreas, China, and Japan....) took decades of delicate research and compromise to finalize. And decades more for all the polities involve to sign and ratify it (Iran and the UAE are the last two hold-outs on that score). But it resulted in agreed upon names, by consent, through decades of consultation, research, and argument, that became binding upon the FAO, IAEA, IHO, IMO, IOC, UNDP, UNEP, WMO and the World Bank. Yes, all those UN and international bodies (and many, many more) have to use the terms "Persian Gulf" and "Baltic Sea", for example, in official documents and parlance - not the Arabian Gulf or the Basra'h Sea or the White Sea or East Sea or Big Sea for the latter. This of course also is binding on the International Cartography Association and the International Association of Physical Oceanography who must use the rightful nomenclature as outlined in the UN's Standardization of Geographical Names. Now, shall we just perhaps look at one I just downloaded (they're endless so this is a completely and arbritraty selection). The late 2000s Nairobi session of the United Nations Group Of Experts On Geographical Names, that producing Working Paper No. 68. (the first sessions and the first working papers wstarted in the 1950s).... I'm not going to list all the papers presented, such as A.B. Murphy's 1999 monograph “The Use of National Names for International Bodies of Water: Critical Perspectives”, which arose from the "Fifth International Seminar on the Naming of Seas: Special Emphasis Concerning the East Sea." (Murphy was Australian or Kiwi I believe). And neither will I list all the pariticipants, because there's too many and life's too short. But there's about 60 and the vast majority of them are experts in their field. So there was: Mr. Helmut DESOYE, Head of the Board on Geographical Names of the Austrian Cartographic Commission, Austrian Geographic Society; Mr. Adyl SULTANOV, Head of Azerbaijan's State Committee on Geodesy [?] and Cartography; the unfortunately altaemid'd Muhammad Ahmed ABDULLA, Assistant Professor of Geography at the University of Bahrain; the much better named B. B. H. MOREBODI, Director of thr Department of Surveys and Lands and Chairman of Botswana's Place Names Commission; Ms. Sonia Luiza TERRON, Head, Division of Territorial Registry, Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics Canada was kind enough to bring along three experts: Ms. Helen KERFOOT, Executive Secretary, Canadian Permanent Committee on Geographical Names; Mr. M. André LAPIERRE, Associate Professor, Department of Linguistics, University of Ottawa; and Mme. Jocelyne REVIE, Senior Toponymist of the Canadian Permanent Committee on Geographical Names Secretariat. There was Ms. Birte Laulund Hjorth PEDERSEN, Assistant Professor, Institute of Onomastics, University of Copenhagen; From the PRC, Laoshi DU Xiangming, Director, Research Institute of Toponymy, National Bureau of Surveying and Mapping; Mr. KIM Jae Song, of National Group on the Standardization of Geographical Names, DPRK. Ms. Eeva-Maria NARHI, Head of the Onomastic Division, Finnish Research Centre for Domestic Languages Mme. Sylvie LEJEUNE, Secrétaire pour le Commission de toponymie, Institut géographique national (France) Mr. Michel BACCHUS, Ingénieur en chef géographe, Institut géographique national (France again) From Guinea, Mme. Aminatou DIALLO, la Directrice de l'Institut géographique national Mr. Art O’MAOLFABHAIL, Chief Placenames Officer, Ordnance Survey Office (Ireland); Mr. Naftali KADMON, Professor of Cartography at the Geography Department of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem (Mars); Mr. Lee Roy BULGIN, Director of Surveys, in the Jamaican government's Survey Department Mr. Jun’ichi KANEKO, Head of Japan's Map Source Material Division, Map Management Department, Geographical Survey Institute From Jordan, Mr. Hussam MADANAT.... an... engineer... (?) Mr. Abdul Majid MOHAMAD, Director-General of Survey and Mapping in Malaysia Sr. Cristobal Morales BEJAR, Jefe Departamento de Clasificación de Campo, Instituto Nacional de Estadística, Geografía e Informática (Mexico) du Maroc, le Professeur-Monsieur Abdellatif BELBACHIR, Directeur de la Conservation Foncière et des Travaux Topographiques. Mr. Yousuf EBRAHIM, from Qatar, who was, a, umm... engineer. A Civil Engineer though... From Roumania, le Chef de délégation was Gen. Maj. Marian ROTARU, Chef de la Direction Topographique Militaire, Ministère de la Défense Nationale; as well as the country's highest-ranked scientific academician, Professeur-Monsieur Serban DRAGOMIRESCU, Secrétaire Scientifique de l'Académie Roumaine. Turkey sent a certain Metin TUNCEL, Professor of Geography, at University of Stambouli as did Portugal, but a Senhora, the lovely Maria de Graca Varela de Sena Magalhaes CALDEIRA, de L'Institut géographique et cadastral; From the Saudis, Dr Haji Assad Soliman ABDO, Chair of the Department of Geography, King Saud University, Riyadh; Sweden sent Ms. Ann-Christin MATTISSON, Head of the Toponymic Section of the National Land Survey; et les Suisses, Monsieur Ernst SPIESS, Professeur de cartographie, Ecole polytechnique fédérale de Zurich; You shouldn't be surprised to learn, that Iran sent 7 delegates, only two of whom were diplomat, the chief Foreign Minister and his second in command: Agha Javad SHAHMIRI, Minister of Foreign Affairs; Agha Mehrdad Mohammed MOHSENEIN, First Secretary, Ministry of Foreign Affairs; Ostad Hamed MALMIRIAN, Director General, National Geographical Organization; Osd. Mohammed Esmaeil NOURIAN, Director, Department of Frontiers’ Affairs and Acquisition; Osd. Mehdi Modiri KHALILABADI, Deputy Director, National Geographic Association; Osd. Nosyr MOHAMMADI, Director, Geographic Information Department, National Geographic Organization and Osd. Soleyman ROSHANGHIAS, also of the National Geographic Organization.

Now, still feel like scoffing at these "anonymous experts"? - EnlightenmentNow1792

• @Apaugasma: - You really need to go away and do some reading before you make such didactic, simplistic evaluations. How can you be sitting here engaging in "disputes" yourself (with your Google searches) when you couldn't even begin to "describe" the dispute yourself, because you stubbornly refuse to read up on it. You right "Arabian Gulf", , a term which by the way was already in wide use in the early 19th century (in 1800 "Persian Gulf" was only about double as common as "Arabian Gulf"), and which has remained in continuous use since. Oh. My. God. What is your source for that? Really, please tell me? What's your source for the name "Arabian Gulf" being as half as common as "Persian Gulf" in 1800? And "has remained in continuous use since"? Really, a source, please. Nah, don't stress, you don't have one, because it's absolute nonsense. Since you apparently have decided against conducting any research into the issue itself in order to understand it (why are you even commenting?), let me trying and do it for you.

As I try and compact and simply everything as quickly as I can, please consider these few simple points while I gather my sources/thoughts/memories.

1. The "Persian Gulf" may be the oldest extant toponym for a body of water on the planet. (Munro 1988)

2. J.B Harley touches upon the social impact of cartography, where she says maps act as mirrors of reality, containing within them rhetoric. Harley points us towards critical geography, linking knowledge, power, and politics. Maps are a kind of story, an action that can be followed and retraced. To map a land, to name or rather rename a region is to map a community of people. Maps are a form of language, “reciprocal images used to mediate different views of the world…” A map often times reflects the political sentiments of a region, a symbolic vehicle for not only events, but also cultures and belief systems. The censorship and control of information and knowledge is inseparable from cartography, a common phenomenon when we research any historical period, a universal phenomenon surrounding the extension and greed for power and control. (Harley, J.B. The New nature of Maps: Essays in the History of Cartography. (Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press, 2001), p 53.)

3. Consider the damage that can be done when names, even toponyms, are misused and abused. The Macedonian naming mess. The result of which, most people with no close connection to the region of the culture, are utterly confused by it all, couldn't tell you what all the fuss was/is about, but remain none the wiser - most couldn't tell you the difference between Alexander being a Macedonian and the footballer Vucic being a "Macedonian" (or "North Macedonian" now). And the confusion all dates back to imposing an artificial, inauthentic term upon a culture and polity that had no right to it in the first place. Real cultural appropriation, with very real consequences. Thousands lost their lives. And yes, there had to be an "official" fix that everyone could live with, "North Macedonia" isn't ideal, but it couldn't stay "FYROM" forever.

4. We're dealing with several different languages over several thousands of years, and it appears you're not particuarly familiar with either, so keep that in mind. The term in Latin Sinus Arabicus (equiv. to the English "Arabian Gulf") was used several hundreds years ago, to refer to what we call the Red Sea. Because that's what peninsular ("Jazira") Arabs, Arabian Arabs (not Arabic speaking "Egyptians" all the way over in Africa) called the Red Sea, our Gulf, the Arabian/Arabic one (that distinction doesn't exist in Arabic). They also called it the Gulf of Mecca, or the Sea of Snot. What's more, there was already yet another Arab Gulf, still is, we render it as "Arab's Gulf" in English to avoid confusion. But what we would call, if we would call it anything, would be the Egyptian Gulf (or the "slight Alexandrian inlet in the Levantine Sea"). But sure enough, there it is: the second Arab/Arabic/Arabian Gulf - have a look for yourself, in Arabic the name is identical: خليج العرب https://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D8%AE%D9%84%D9%8A%D8%AC_%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B9%D8%B1%D8%A8 EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 19:31, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Given the message just left on my talk page by Apaugasma and the absolutely ludicrous challenge (and conditional promise) he just dared me to do, there's obviously no point continuing. If you don't interested in the issue, if you won't even her bother to spent 30, maybe even 60mins reading about it so so you can get to grips with what it's all about, then why are you even here? That's what I don't get. Why spend so much time posting and arguing about something you don't even care to spend 15mins reading on it? Like I said, so many Wikipedians seem to have this all perfectly backward. Surely the point is to be able to differentiate what a RS is - which requires a bit of research on complex topics such as this, especially if you have no prior knowledge - before you start taking positions, arguing, and editing in the serve of a position that you knowingly took in ignorance in the first place? Why would anyone do that? Well, I'm not gonna encourage it any longer. I'm just treating it as trolling from now on. EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 20:21, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Im going to collapse most of the above, it makes the RFC completely unreadable. nableezy - 21:40, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• All major buildings in kuwait in one shot by irvin calicut.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:26, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Ice age in gulf sea

Facts related to the seas and oceans 2405:201:400F:8841:D0E5:80BB:4A75:9200 (talk) 14:48, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 December 2022

Historically there are disputes about the name "PERSIAN GULF".

It's a proven historic fact, documented and available to all ... The "PERSIAN GULF" was, is and will remain so based on its original name ever since its existence. 79.66.220.63 (talk) 17:09, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:13, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 January 2023

It’s doesn’t called Arabic gulf. If you went to school and got educated then you know it is called Persian gulf. Just Persian gulf nothing else 2601:192:4000:BE0:0:0:0:1A1A (talk) 01:07, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Sufficient sourcing to document use of the name "Arabian Gulf" as an alternate name for what is commonly called the Persian Gulf. —C.Fred (talk) 01:09, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

It's name just"Persian Gulf"

it's not Arabic Gulf 5.74.222.131 (talk) 16:53, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

The name is Persian Gulf and has never named Arabian Gulf. Rose9877 (talk) 21:35, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

If you mean that the most common name, by far, is the Persian Gulf, then I agree with you. If you're denying that a significant minority of people call it the Arabian Gulf, then I'd like to know how you'd counter all the evidence provided for that usage higher up on the talk page. Since the inclusion of this significant alt name was supported by RfC consensus (a higher level of consensus than regular talk page discussion), I plan to revert soon unless more voices join this discussion in support of your view. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:43, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi Amir.J002. You recently removed the alt name from the lead a couple times. Most of my message just above still applies, and I'm interested in your response. You also said in an edit summary that "The United Nations has officially informed all members to use the full term Persian Gulf in all documents and correspondence and to avoid fake expressions and even the use of the word (Gulf)." Could you please explain this further? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:38, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers

Hello Dear editor

As you can see, people's opinions are inclined towards the Persian Gulf. But here on Wikipedia, I am looking for the correct information. This is because many people take Wikipedia as their source And I don't want people and future generations to grow up with false information. Countless sources throughout history used the real name of the Persian Gulf, and the number of fake names of the Arabian Gulf is very small compared to the Persian Gulf.Please refer to the link below and even if you are not convinced and question it, respect the opinion of people and more importantly the old historical map books and whenever the name of the Persian Gulf It was wrongly mentioned with the fake name of Arabian Gulf, fix it and change it to Persian Gulf and you've done your job!

https://ibb.co/X4jNjrg

Read the story of some old books and reputable scientists about the Persian Gulf:

Masoudi, Biruni, Ibn Haqul, Moqdisi, Mostofi, Naser Khosro, Altahar bin Motahar Al-Maqdisi (Bashari), Abu al-Qasim bin Muhammad bin Haqul and others. who continued to study around this Persian sea until the 15th century, in their works and writings, they have mentioned the waters of southern Iran under the names of Persian Sea, Bahr al-Farsi, Bahr Makran, Al-Khalij al-Farsi and Persian Gulf. There are even maps from these geographers that named the Indian Ocean as the Farsi Sea. According to the Arab historian George Zidan, the "Persian Sea" is limited to the waters that surround the Arab world. George Zeidan says: "Persian Sea - we have all the seas in the Arab world, from the mouth of Maadjaleh in Iraq to Ileh Fidahl fieh, we express it today by the Persian Gulf, the Arabian Sea, the Gulf of Aden, the Red Sea, and the Gulf of Aqaba.""Persian Sea - according to them, the predecessors of all the seas that surround the Arab lands from the mouth of the Tigris to Ile, were interpreted as the Persian Sea, and it is one of those that we call the "Persian Gulf" and the Arabian Sea and the Gulf of Aden. And we interpret the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aqaba."

Mohammad Abdulkarim Sobhi also called the South Sea of ​​Iran "Al-Khalij-al-Farsi" and "Persian Sea" in the maps he quoted with Arabic translation in the book "Al-Kharitat". Many maps that are available from these centuries, in addition to emphasizing and confirming the name of the Persian Gulf, depict the change mentioned in changing the name of the Persian Sea and the change in the scope of these names.Persian Gulf in western sources

Most of those who wrote about the Pars Sea and the Makran Sea were foreigners, especially the English; Because due to their special position in this region, they have tried to keep the truth hidden and fake and incomplete names take the place of correct names. But there are some sources that rely on the clarity of the Persian Gulf name.

In 1892, Lord Curzon, the British foreign minister, repeatedly mentioned the Persian Gulf in his book "Iran and the Iranian Case". William Rodges, the Secretary of State of the United States of America at the time, used the name of the Persian Gulf in his 1971 report on the country's foreign policy. In cultures compiled and printed in different languages, including German, English, American, French, Turkish, etc. The Persian Gulf is also given the same name.Persian Gulf in legal documents

There are valid reasons and legal documents about the origin of the Persian Gulf name, which goes back to the 16th century. During the years 1507 to 1560, in all the agreements that Portugal, Spain, Great Britain, Holland, France, and Germany had with the Iranian government, even in Arabic texts, the term "Persian Gulf" was used, and in the English text, "Persian Gulf". Among these documents is the document of independence of Kuwait, which was concluded between the Emir of this country and British representatives. This document, which was also signed by Abd al-Salem al-Sabah, begins as follows: "Hazrat Saheb Al-Fakhama Al-Fakheem Al-Siyasi to His Eminence."

In addition, the United Nations has twice announced the historic and original name of this waterway as "Persian Gulf".The United Nations considers the Persian Gulf to be a new name that has replaced the old name of the Persian Sea since the beginning of the 20th century and has been used more than the Persian Sea. In a document dated March 5, 1971 and a note (AD311 / IGEN), the secretariat of this organization reminds the government of Iran that according to the current practice in the United Nations Secretariat in geographical documents and maps, the blue zone between Iran from the north and east and a number of Arab countries from the south and west are called the Persian Gulf, and this is based on the old custom of publishing atlases and geographical cultures. The second statement was recorded on August 10, 1984, and on both occasions, all 22 Arab countries signed the UN documents.This secretariat also apologized for the mistakes made by the United Nations in some documents in using the name of the Persian Gulf, considering it an inadvertent mistake (the document of June 26, 1991 in the United Nations) and asked the agents of the organization to always maintain this position of Iran in have an opinion In addition, the annual conference of the United Nations on the coordination of geographical names has emphasized the name of the Persian Gulf every year.

I hope you are convinced.

Whenever you saw the fake name of the Gulf, change it to the Persian Gulf.

thanks.

AmirAli Jalili Amir.J002 (talk) 19:02, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Amir Jalili, I don't dispute that "Persian Gulf" is by far the most common name. That said, we have evidence above that "Arabian Gulf" is used in a minority of English-language sources, and that this usage is common enough to justify mentioning the alternative name in the lead per MOS:ALTNAME. The historical sources you cite do not affect this at all, and the UN sources you cite do not justify a statement like "The United Nations has officially informed all members to use the full term Persian Gulf in all documents and correspondence and to avoid fake expressions and even the use of the word (Gulf)."

More importantly, a widely-advertised community discussion held above (this RfC) came to a consensus to include the alt name. You are edit warring against that consensus. If you feel confident in your arguments, and you feel ready to rebut the sorts of arguments that were successful in the last RfC, you might consider starting a new one. I'd be happy to help you with that process. There are other dispute resolution options available as well. Until you've pursued those options, and consensus can be demonstrated to have changed, your edit war against consensus is just disruptive, and I urge you to self-revert. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:14, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers

I request you to read the text carefully and search again and follow the majority of votes. However, whether you return the fake name of the Arabian Gulf or not, the name of the Persian Gulf is always the Persian Gulf.I proved my theory by presenting old documents, and I believe that it is not possible to use money to change the name of a place that has been called the Persian Gulf for more than two thousand years to another fake name.According to history, books, documents, and old maps by Arab, European, and American travellers, the name of the Gulf is the Persian Gulf.

I did my best to get the information right and I don't want people to grow up uninformed.

I thank you for your efforts and I hope you will accept the undeniable truth.

We're grateful for your edits.

Amir Jalili Amir.J002 (talk) 08:00, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

it's not Arabic Gulf Erfan r1 (talk) 07:50, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

For the Forever Persian Gulf…

It makes me concerned that there are unaware persons who are denying the truth because of the bribe Arabian governments offer them, I’m afraid one day it will become a usual thing to mask historical facts like this with lies and everyone changes history the way they like it to be, this gulf has been named Persian Gulf since ancient times and the fact “they” are now trying to mask this fact is completely unacceptable! They already have seas that they can rename them to what they want, but this was Persian Gulf and forever will be, maybe they are not yet fed up with stealing lands and culture of Persians and they turned to their history too! Their governments better keep their preferences secret. 151.242.114.173 (talk) 14:05, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

What do you want to be done about the article exactly ? please clarify as the article is already named "Persian Gulf".---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:45, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Only and just only Persian Gulf

Wikipedia is as a valuable information resource. So, please do not destroy your reputation by fake and disinformation. The truth in whole of the history has been "Persian Gulf". Any extra name is incorrect and according to political perspective. PLEASE CORRECT..... ×PERSIAN GULF× 80.120.42.170 (talk) 02:08, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

The Gulf is always Persian

Please, in the world of information, books, written documents and the Internet, never hide the truth and do not give false information to people. The name of the Persian Gulf is mentioned in all the documents and maps of the world. You cannot call it Arabian Gulf with some false claims. 185.42.225.241 (talk) 05:38, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

The "Persian Gulf" has been known as "Persian Gulf" in the oldest maps and books since 2400 years ago. All people who have a minimum level of education are familiar with the name of the Persian Gulf. At least those who have completed primary education. This name has been registered internationally, so it is right to call it by its registered name. The only reason that caused this disagreement on the name of the Persian Gulf, and some people are trying to change it after 2400 years (which is obviously a futile effort), is the political and financial reasons of Saudi Arabia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎ 96.48.235.221 (talk) 05:49, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Persian gulf is Persian gulf

EN

The Persian Gulf has been called by this name for thousands of years, and calling it the Arabian Gulf is the worst insult to the originality and civilization of Iran and Persia. I don't know why the countries around Iran have been stealing culture and civilization from this country for years. I say very clearly that it is true that the government of Iran does not deal with this, but you should know that we are Persians and we are the descendants of Cyrus. The new generation of Pars will prevent the destruction of the culture, antiquity, civilization and sanctuaries of Pars! Previous generations were sleeping, but this generation is awake be careful!! HamidTad (talk) 18:58, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi, the article is already named "Persian Gulf", not sure what you really want to be done here.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:03, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

They are objecting to any requests to change it. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:24, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 February 2023

change the line referring to it as the "arbian gulf". it is not sometimes referred to as the Arabian gulf, this is an unjustly claim by Arabians in recent years. check any map it is depicted as the Persian gulf as the Persians fairly have had this body of water for many centuries. Aagal11 (talk) 22:13, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. See the RfC above. We routinely include alternative names that are used a sizable minority of the time, even if some consider the use to be unjust. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:23, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Persian Gulf

The name of this bay has never been the Arabian Gulf. Hosseinhsm (talk) 13:30, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

We have a whole article about it: Persian Gulf naming dispute. Don't remove that again. DeCausa (talk) 16:01, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi

Do you use Sometimes Called when you want to addresses The PERSIAN GULF?

Why We don't see that in Arabic version? Gholaghabijan (talk) 16:03, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Why are you so upset about an alternate name. Names on this cite aren’t about “what is” its “what is more common” the fact that Arabian gulf is a name that appears means it is an alternative name 97.113.57.76 (talk) 22:47, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

WHAT DOES IT MEAN "sometimes Called..."

HELLO everyone, What does it mean "sometimes Called..." in ENCYCLOPEDIA When we have OFFICIAL NAME [PERSIAN GULF ] Gholaghabijan (talk) 15:57, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

If you read the rest of the article it will be explained to you. And please don't shout. It's unnecessary. DeCausa (talk) 17:19, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

I Asked about Lead of Article and what does it mean "Don't Shout" in discuss? Gholaghabijan (talk) 20:24, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

It means stop writing in capital letters. It's childish. And stop posting the same message multiple times on this page. It says "sometimes called" because in Arab countries it is called Arabian Gulf. It's not difficult to understand. It doesn't affect the name of the article or that it's main name is Persian Gulf. I'm sure you know that but you're just making a silly point disruptively because you don't like recognition of that. You're wasting your time. DeCausa (talk) 20:32, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Dear Editor

I Guess You must know that I just asking about Article and reliable-historical Source that is not personal view or Unknown sources Like Arab Countries(?).

I asking why we must use "sometimes called ... " when we have OFFICIAL NAME. It is so clear and easy in civil behaviour and Academic Discussion. Thank you.

THIS IS LAST WARNING ABOUT YOUR LANGUAGE. WP:BULLY Gholaghabijan (talk) 12:31, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

The New York Times is one of the sources cited in the article for the statement that it's sometimes called "Arabian Gulf". I think we're done here. DeCausa (talk) 13:24, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

It's not called Arabian gulf

Dear Editor: your research and article is written based on your personal opinions not based on historical sources.its called " distorted history" please edit it. And dont try to normalize changing the history.its absolutely unprofessional to use the (sometimes is called..)! It's/has been and will be "Persian gulf". Warmly Arta 5.91.141.96 (talk) 23:59, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 June 2023

The “sometimes the Arabian Gulf” is a wrong and very new term which is made by people who want to change a historical and national name of the “Persian Gulf”. The “Arabian Gulf” must be deleted. This new made term is against Persian people(Iranian people) history and believes. It’s offensive to their nationality.we can’t name a geographical place in a new name just because someones does it. 2001:569:5450:200:21A1:4C8A:E738:9B9F (talk) 11:39, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

No - see answers above in multiple threads. DeCausa (talk) 11:45, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Adding on to this, you may want to view this article in regards of the dispute between the two different names. NotAGenious (talk) 11:51, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

The hidden racism behind using the 'Arabian' name for Persian Gulf.

I wonder why is it this much normalized to consider a racist name as an alternative name for Persian Gulf. Persian Gulf is an international body of water and is not a part of Iranian territory. So, when it is called by its standard name, there is no racial meaning in this context. it's not even related to Iran. It's simply a name. But when you call it Arabian, it is no more a simple name. you are giving it a racial meaning. Let me make another example: Consider the Indian Ocean. While we call it the Indian Ocean, it's simply a name with no racial context. but what if we call it "Iranian Ocean"? Aren't we giving it racial meaning in this way? Doesn't it mean we are expressing hate against Indians? The ocean is right there as an international water and is not a part of Indian territory and its name presents no racial meaning, But if we call it Iranian, then it will be different.

So I am saying.. there is no middle ground here. You can not say I will respect both sides. You are either using a simple name that is not related to Iranians or any other race OR you are a racist and a pro Pan-Arabism who is expressing hate against Iranians. So, using 'argumentum ad temperantiam' here means you are the second. That's it. 5.215.218.250 (talk) 22:20, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Using a racist alternative for the name of Persian Gulf would be against the neutral view policy of Wikipedia. The only neutral name here is Persian Gulf. Please remove the 'Arabian' as an alternative name, and leave the description of the history of this name to 'Modern naming dispute' section only.

 Not done: see above Cannolis (talk) 00:37, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

The 'Arabian' name is not simply incorrect. It's not neutral. Are you saying that if some people call black people by n-word, then n-word should be added as an alternative name to the article for black people?!

Please remove the racist name as an alternative, as you wouldn't use n-word as alternative for black although its use is prevalent. The modern naming dispute can be instead described in a separate section. 5.215.218.250 (talk) 00:45, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. Tollens (talk) 01:19, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 August 2023

Please remove reference to Arabian Gulf. This is incorrect reference. Persian Gulf always have always will be Persian Gulf . Thank You! 114.73.73.20 (talk) 09:42, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done. As explained in the article there is usage of the alternative name by Arab countries, even if Persian Gulf is more internationally recognised. DeCausa (talk) 10:21, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 August 2023

Arabian Gulf Hnno2020 (talk) 10:31, 12 August 2023 (UTC) Hani alaseeri

No apparent request. DeCausa (talk) 10:46, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

That should called Arabian Gulf Hnno2020 (talk) 04:24, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done. Persian Gulf is the main internationally recognised name. That Arab countries call it Arabian Gulf is already in the article. DeCausa (talk) 07:14, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

There is no internationally recognition recognised and the Arabian countries own each island inside their Territorial waters.

so you are wrong about that. Hnno2020 (talk) 16:54, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

See sourced content in this article and in Persian Gulf naming dispute. DeCausa (talk) 16:58, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 July 2023

203.198.87.233 (talk) 04:42, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

The title should change to Persian Gulf it is not Arabian Gulf! As far as history goes it has always been Persian Gulf and will always be so please reconsider!

 Not done: The article is already Persian Gulf so no idea what you're complaining about Cannolis (talk) 05:01, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 July 2023

Arabian Gulf is official name 71.169.164.156 (talk) 11:45, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 12:40, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 February 2023

Change Persian to Arabian Khalifa.wikipedia (talk) 09:12, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: the term Persian Gulf is, overwhelmingly, the common name used in English sources to refer to this body of water (WP:COMMONNAME). Moreover, the term Arabian Gulf is already mentioned in the lead as another popular regional term to refer to the same gulf, and I don't think the article gloss over the fact that this is a contentious issue, we even have a separate article for that. However Wikipedia only represent facts as they are, it does not "pick sides" nor is it a place to fix 'great wrongs' even if said nationalists might be dismayed that their grievances is not accounted for. To explain it in plain English, we're not here to say use X and not Y... --— ♾️ Contemporary Nomad ^{(💬 Talk)} 09:37, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello,

So What does it mean "sometimes Calling ... " When we must using the Commonname With reliable sources? Gholaghabijan (talk) 20:17, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

The article clearly state that it's sometimes called the 'Arabian Gulf' because it is, in fact, also called the 'Arabian Gulf' by Arab nations, most notably those that overlook this body of water, and some other English sources. This is not at odds with the WP:COMMONNAME, we're using the common English name in the article title "Persian Gulf" while also stating in the article introduction that some English sources and some nations use the alternative term "Arabian Gulf". Which is also relevant to assist readers accessing this article. Wikipedia is not here to say: term X is wrong while term Y is right and the only correct term to use. Wikipedia doesn't take a stance on this, it's simply an Encyclopedia that aims to deliver sourced up-to-date knowledge in a concise way. I don't think Iranian ultra-nationalists and Arab ultra-nationalists understand this point. (RE: WP:RGW) — ♾️ Contemporary Nomad ^{(💬 Talk)} 15:40, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

I made a request to change and edit the name in English to Arabian Gulf so please your feedback to me request is important. Hnno2020 (talk) 04:16, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Wrong

the Persian golf is never called Arabian golf 185.212.201.109 (talk) 00:03, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

We have a whole article on the naming dispute. The article explains the both names equally. Arabian Gulf is also widely used. NotAGenious (talk) 13:15, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

@185.212.201.109 yeah you're right , Persian golf for ever 💝 83.120.110.71 (talk) 21:46, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

The hidden racism behind using the 'Arabian' name for Persian Gulf.

I wonder why is it this much normalized to consider a racist name as an alternative name for Persian Gulf. Persian Gulf is an international body of water and is not a part of Iranian territory. So, when it is called by its standard name, there is no racial meaning in this context. it's not even related to Iran. It's simply a name. But when you call it Arabian, it is no more a simple name. you are giving it a racial meaning. Let me make another example: Consider the Indian Ocean. While we call it the Indian Ocean, it's simply a name with no racial context. but what if we call it "Iranian Ocean"? Aren't we giving it racial meaning in this way? Doesn't it mean we are expressing hate against Indians? The ocean is right there as an international water and is not a part of Indian territory and its name presents no racial meaning, But if we call it Iranian, then it will be different.

So I am saying.. there is no middle ground here. You can not say I will respect both sides. You are either using a simple name that is not related to Iranians or any other race OR you are a racist and a pro Pan-Arabism who is expressing hate against Iranians. So, using 'argumentum ad temperantiam' here means you are the latter. That's it. 5.215.218.250 (talk) 22:20, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Using a racist alternative for the name of Persian Gulf would be against the neutral view policy of Wikipedia. The only neutral name here is Persian Gulf. Please remove the 'Arabian' as an alternative name, and leave the description of the history of this name to 'Modern naming dispute' section only.

 Not done: see above Cannolis (talk) 00:37, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

The 'Arabian' name is not simply incorrect. It's not neutral. Are you saying that if some people call black people by n-word, then n-word should be added as an alternative name to the article for black people?!

Please remove the racist name as an alternative, as you wouldn't use n-word as alternative for black although its use is prevalent. The modern naming dispute can be instead described in a separate section. 5.215.218.250 (talk) 00:45, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. Tollens (talk) 01:19, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

RFC - Should the 'Arabian' as an alternative name be removed?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A summary of the debate may be found at the bottom of the discussion.

---

Referring to the arguments in the above section, should 'Arabian' as alternative name be removed for it not being neutral? The modern naming dispute can be instead described in a separate section inside the article.Amirmm0 (talk) 13:10, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

• No. If it's an alternative name, then it should be mentioned. I don't understand the problem. Edward-Woodrow • talk 20:12, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
• No. Fairly obviously. It's not in dispute that Arab countries call it "Arabian Gulf" but those that advocate its removal somehow think that this does not warrant it being reflected as an ALTNAME. It's hard to find any NPOV reason to justify that. Here's some reliable sources that clealrly evidence it as an alt name: New York Times 2016, Britannica, The Economist, The Guardian 2010 etc. Although there is ample evidence of the use of the term by Arab countries — which in itself should be enough — there is clearly use (according to these sources) outside of that e.g. United States Fifth Fleet and Google maps! There is no argument that it should supplant "Persian Gulf" as the primary name but its removal as an altname is clearly about Iranian v Arab geopolitics and nothing else. The nonsense in the above WP:NOTFORUM thread ("The hidden racism behind using the 'Arabian' name for Persian Gulf") is just that: nonsense and gross POV nonsense at that . The motivation is purely about nuking any recognition that anyone anywhere calls it "Arabian" Gulf. DeCausa (talk) 20:42, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

  There is no doubt in its use as a result of pan-Arabism. The argument here is not about its prevalence, But it is about what this naming signifies. Words are simple signs by themselves, but they can signify different meanings. Here these two names are not about Iranian v Arab geopolitics. Persian Gulf is a neutral name that simply points to a body of water, but recent change of it to 'Arabian' by some Arab governments as a result of pan-Arabism is not simply pointing to a body of water. In this context, this naming is signifying the hate toward Iranians based on race. Amirmm0 (talk) 21:06, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Please close. OP's argument is both hollow and offensive, and the RFC statement is not neutral. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:52, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Support immediate closure DeCausa (talk) 20:56, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Closed. Edward-Woodrow • talk 21:08, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.