Talk:Persian Gulf/Archive 2

UN stuff

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

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

– Kaveh ^(talk)[[]] 22:54, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Fair enough. But why don't YOU demonstrate that they DO exist. (After all isn't it easier to prove something DOES exist than it DOESN'T?) The only bodies of the UN that pass resolutions are the General Assembly and the Security Council. And since they didn't pass such resolutions it does cut it for me! So here is the bit I removed, and you can put it back when you show us they are real:

However, the Iranian government led two resolutions in the United Nations to officially recognize that body of water as the Persian Gulf. The first announcement was made through the document UNAD, 311/Qen on March 5, 1971 and the second was UNLA 45.8.2 (C) on August 10, 1984.

I don't need to do that. It's an existing reference in the text. If you care enough you can take time to demonstrate that such claims are not true. You can contact the original person who put that bit of info in the article to help you. But you don’t just go around removing facts you deem suspicious from articles. You obviously don't much about how the UN functions. There are many other forums within the UN that hold meetings and pass resolutions. I quite frankly don’t know what your grudge is, as you seem have devoted yourself to this one particular article. I restore the text for now. – Kaveh ^(talk)[[]] 02:23, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

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

My grudge as you aptly put it is with racist Iranians that in the name of nationalism which is the worst form of racism you could have, spew hate and malign the rest of us.

What National Geographic did was correct and until you guys get that into your heads this discussion is not going anywhere! You all need to spend time in a library and see how reference books, maps, and Atlases work.

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

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

Listen BrainMafia, I respect your opinion. But I fail to see the relevance of your points to this debate. I explain in simple terms. You have noted that you could not find the aforementioned resolutions in a UN website that contains the major General Assembly and the Security Council resolutions. I debunked by answering that that website DOES NOT contain every single declaration and resolution passed by very many forums of the United Nations. Now, the procedure in Wiki is when you doubt the validity of a point in an article, you note that part here in the talk section. The Persian Gulf resolutions were added more than a year ago. Since then, many active and respected members of Wikipedia have edited this article. You are welcome to follow this discussion to the bottom of things here in the talk section. But until you have managed to form a general conciseness, I ask you to refrain from removing facts from the article. This is not a pissing contest.

For the benefit of public discourse, I explain my understanding of the situation. First of all, I am aware of specific directives by the secretariat of the UN that make direct demands as to only use Persian Gulf when referring to that body of water. However, they add when materials provided by governments are circulated, the terminology should be kept intact. Thus, it is no surprise that some UN documents exist with those references. The specific example you gave was the declaration of candidacy for a Bahraini delegate and was only stating his previous appointments to the "Federation of the Arabian Gulf States." The UN does not change official documents provided by its member states. It does however, use Persian Gulf in every document that it produces itself. Including the maps produced by its cartographic department. Furthermore, I don't believe "if Google cannot cache it then it doesn't exist!" I suggest you follow your own advice and spend some time in your local UN authorized library, where they archive most of what is circulates by the UN (and not just major resolutions, but daily declarations by EVERY dept. of the organization).

– Kaveh ^(talk)[[]] 06:00, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

OK, Kaveh. I took your advice. I spend about a day and a half in the library and found NO reference to these resolutions you mentioned. I am now convinced that they were made up. AND, I also noticed the IP address of the original poster was somewhere in your neck of the woods! Is it possible that you yourself made up and put these in and are now so vehemently (and without proof) defending them? If this is the case, it is immaterial now, but should give you pause to think twice before making up or supporting made up facts. That does nothing but detract from your argument. --BrainMafia 06:25, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Please specify which library and detail your method of research. I wish to enact it for myself. Do elaborate how you reached that conclusion about the original poster, I don't take slander lightly. – Kaveh ^(talk)[[]] 13:39, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Naming Issues

I've added some info and the current version has the most detailed report on the Persian Gulf you can get anywhere. I made sure to follow a format similar to the Jerusalem article to include the Arabic term at the beginning. I should remind everyone that not everyone speaking Arabic uses "Arabian Gulf." People over at the Arabic Wiki can confirm this. I don't expect anymore edits over the format of page. – Kaveh ^(talk)[[]] 14:25, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It is really funny how Iranian care for the name!! It is and it will reamain forever Arabian Gulf... (I'm just trying to tease those nationalist).

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

Well I have just edited as someone had vandalised eveything. Kaveh I am here with Roozbeh - the naming is clearly important and it evokes powerful feelings in many. It is too simple to say some form is faked and the other is correct. In Farsi the gulf will always be the Khalij-e Fars, in Arabic countries other versions will be more popular for whatever reason - ignorance, ambition, historicity whatever. But the English use - the one we will have to document here - whether we like it or not - will be one dependent on whatever circumstances the speaker finds him/herself in - and all common forms must be visibly documented. Refdoc 21:20, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Fine, I hope the naming issue is now sufficiently debated. I suggest that further subchapters get added re ecology, nature, history etc Refdoc 23:47, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Still Naming

Please refrain from using Google as an absolute authority on matters. Your International Court of Justice example is not helpful, as their terminology varies depending on sides of a case. Here, dealing with the documents provided by the US Navy, they have used that particular term. They don't have a fixed term for geographical places; this is supposed to be an impartial court after all. [1]

Also, when there is a whole section dedicated to naming issues, I don’t see the point to go out of your way in the opening paragraph to be all-inclusive. This has been debated in the past in the talk section.

I appreciate your attention and have in the past followed your edits with interest. – Kaveh ^(talk)[[]] 07:43, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Kaveh, I do not use google as an authority, but as a tool. If it shows plenty of use of a term then it shows a need for the term in Wikipedia,. Not everyone is read up about correct naming, not everyone is interested and many people are geographically ignorant. An encycolpedia caters for them by allowing them to find what they are looking for. Which will be "Arabic"/"Arabian" Gulf for many. Now I do believe the correctness is done justice by having the article under "Persian Gulf", having "Arabic Gulf" and "Arabian Gulf" acting as a redirect, but mention the other terms in use directly in the first line so that those who come through the wrong door still know they are in the right house. So I propose to re-insert the terms in the top. This has nothing to do with over-inclusiveness Refdoc 09:35, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Inclusion of "Arabic Gulf" has no merit [2]. "Arabian Gulf" however, is already mentioned in the opening paragraph. There are so many ways to achieve something, and I think the current version does a good job of informing any lost soul. I compromise by modifying it a bit.

BTW, your BBC comment is incorrect. They have a policy of using "The Gulf". Those results that you have referred to are just editorial slip-ups. – Kaveh ^(talk)[[]] 11:48, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, which means (I quote your comment above in adapted form) [we] don't have a fixed term for geographical places; this is supposed to be an impartial [article] after all.. So this is not about historical rights and wrongs, but about common use and ease to find. The political/historical correctness is served by having the article actually under "Persian Gulf" and all other 'names' as redirects. But it must be clear in the first line that the redirect was with a good purpose. You do have clearly a lot more time available than many others and will 'win' any edit war at the moment, but please remember this is a Wiki, you will leave eventually, but the article will remain - any old "Arabian Gulf" mafia can then take over and simply change the article into a form neither you nor I nor anyone else currently debating will like. I personally have never in my life said "Arabian Gulf", nor have apparently Roozbeh or Pouya. My clear personal preference is Persian Gulf but I will occasionally say "Gulf" when I want to avoid offense or simply to be short in a fast moving discussion , but will always write "Persian Gulf".

If there is clear consensus amongst all current contributors (all clearly preferring 'Persian Gulf') though it is easy to defend the article against unwarranted changes at a much later stage. Refdoc 13:01, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I had a second look at the current first line and must say this is probably acceptable and the best possible solution, though I would alter italics into bold - without changing the sentence anymore. What do the others think? Re roots - the first sentence is clumsy. I do not propose to kick it out, but it needs to be seriously re-written - what exactly do you mean with "borrowed" - this does nt make sense in English. (This was also the reason I took it out the first time, not dt content. Refdoc 14:38, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I disagree. What preference the ICJ takes could affect the outcome of its judgement. I don't see a parallel between Wiki and that institution. At the end of the day this article at its current version has done more than necessary to accommodate minority views. I don’t think we need positive discrimination on top of that as well.

Just saw your second comment, borrowed, as in dervied, transcribed. I haven't written that part anyways, but to outright delete it was a bit extreme. – Kaveh ^(talk)[[]] 14:57, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"a bit extreme" - fair enough. Only as it stands it remains poor language, sounds defensive, while being very unclear. Refdoc 15:29, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I rewrote that first sentence in the roots section, by adding actual sources (Herodot, Strabo etc) I think it reads now better Refdoc 18:00, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Actually Herodotus is talking about the Red Sea:

"Psammetichos had a son called Nekos, who was king of Egypt. He began building a canal to the Sea of Erythrias, which was finished by the Persian Darius. It takes four days to travel along it, and its width is such that two triremes could be rowed in it side by side."

He often uses "Arabian Gulf" to refer to the Gulf of Suez. That is where other Greeks pick up the name of Arabian Sea. Later, likes of Straban and Ptolemy call the Red Sea, "Arabicus Sinus".

Look at this map[3], you'll understand why Herodotus is often misunderstood. He doesn’t call Persian Gulf, the "Red Sea". He mistakes the Persian Gulf and the Red Sea as one body of water.

But people after him clearly understood the boundaries of the Arabian Peninsula and distinguished from what they called the Arabian Sea and the Persian Gulf. – Kaveh ^(talk)[[]] 19:56, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This bit from Straban's Geography pretty much clears the picture:

"The northern side of Arabia Felix (Peninsula) is formed by the above-mentioned desert, the eastern by the Persian Gulf, the western by the Arabian Gulf, and the southern by the great sea that lies outside both gulfs, which as a whole is called Erythra." (Book XVI, Chapter 3)

Note that Erythra is used to refer to what today forms the Indian Ocean and the Arabian Sea around the Arabian Peninsula. Arabian Gulf is clearly used to refer to Gulf of Suez and most of the Red Sea. – Kaveh ^(talk)[[]] 21:05, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Even Saddam Hussein called iranian province "Khuzestan" as arabic province. The different between Arabic and iranian nationalism is: Arabs are one nation and have different countries who are not agree with each other and Iranian nationalism is: different ethnic groups under one nation called "Iran" and all are agree that the name of Persian Gulf will not changed by an rich arabian sheikh.

First paragraph

May I ask that people do not remove the term Arabian Gulf and the Gulf from the first paragraph and restrict the debate to the paragraph on the Naming Issue? I really believe that people should be able to find this page when they do a search on "Arabian Gulf", which will be helpful for everybody, specially those who are pro-"Persian Gulf", since it results in more people finding about the reasons it should be named the "Persian Gulf". Having a term at the top of a page helps its Google rank. roozbeh 16:49, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)

I actually don't think “Arabian Gulf” needs to be mentioned in the opening paragraph at all. There are more substantial things than Google ranking of a page. Especially for a term that is mostly common in Arabic. If anything, “Arabian Gulf” has to be mentioned in the Red Sea page. Nevertheless, in good spirit I agreed to a compromise with Refdoc on the formatting of the opening paragraph. There is no need for a “totally disputed” message, I invite Mani1 to practice self-restraint and participate in the debate. – Kaveh ^(talk)[[]] 18:12, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

?? i dont see why you Kaveh Ignoring the name Arabian Gulf ? ok you think its wrong and not the correct one, fine we belive you But this name is USED by some COUNTRIES as the Official name of that Gulf, so mentioning it in the front page is the correct thing to do , its Called Arabian Gulf by many Arabs and believe me they dont care how much that means to you ! its called that way and putting it in the front page just as a reference that it also "reacently" called Arabian by some Arabs is not Wrong and its the right thing to do.

you think its wrong and incorrect does not mean that it dont exist, it is used and will still be used by Arabs and what history called it is not that big deal to them, check the new Arabic school books and maps all says Arabian Gulf.

dont ignore whats happening just you dont like it.

Neutrality dispute

I believe the article is not neutral (see NPOV). I provide only a few reasons, but there are others that I will raise later if I feel the need:

1. That certain gulf is called both Arabian Gulf and Persian Gulf by different people. We need to have both names mentioned in the opening paragraph. I recommend people objecting to this point of mine reading the NPOV page before going into any technicality of the naming issue. (Also, please compare with Sea of Japan, which has a similiar dispute about it and all the alternate names are mentioned in the first paragraph. Also see Dispute over the name of the Sea of Japan.) Please note that I personally prefer to use the term "Persian Gulf" to name the area, but this is not about personal preferences.
2. The article does not represent all views fairly: The article does not explain the Arab view on the naming of the region at all, and/or why do they prefer to use that name.

roozbeh 15:44, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)

Do you care to check out the edit history? The opening paragraph did mention "Arabian Gulf", before an unregistered user changed it. You could just revert back that edit, like other admins have in the past. As for the Arab view, lack of it doesn't make the article biased. The current version does not represent the Iranian view; it's a summary of facts. – Kaveh ^(talk)[[]] 19:12, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ok then, I didn't know that it's only anonymous users and non-talkers that remove information from the article. Sorry for that. So, is there a consensus here that the term "Arabian Gulf" should be mentioned in the first paragraph as an alternate name for the area and that everyone who removes it does it against the majority opinion?

But I'm still worried about the first paragraph in the "Naming Issues" section. The wording prefers the Persian view. How hot is this issue now? May I try rewording? Let me just give you an example. This [4] article in Salt Lake Tribune says that "Iran [...] believes that there has been a pan-Arabist campaign since the 1950s - led by late Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser and followed by deposed Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein - to call the sea the "Arabian Gulf."" This mentions that the Arab nationalism thing is something Iranians are claiming, not something that everybody agrees with.

roozbeh 14:17, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

Well it just happens that the Iranian view overlapses the presented facts. This renaming did coincide with the rise of Arab nationalism; this isn't a biased statement at all. Now correlation doesn't necessary mean connection, that's why the Wiki article remains ambiguous about it. It reads “by the late 1960's and with the rise of Arab nationalism", notice "with" that indicates a weak relationship or a mere concurrence. – Kaveh ^(talk)[[]] 22:13, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Accuracy dispute

I believe the article is not accurate (see Accuracy dispute). I provide only a few reasons, but there are others that I will raise later if I feel the need. Since these are five, this counts as a accuracy problem:

1. The current version of the article claims that "In most modern international treaties, documents and maps this [...] is almost universally known under the name "Persian Gulf"". This is an information "which is particularly difficult to verify", according to accuracy dispute terms, since we cannot easily check all modern international treaties, documents, and maps.
2. The article claims that there are two UN editorial directives on the naming issue, but neither mentions the name or the text of the directives. I have only seen the text and the name/number of the directives on pro-"Persian Gulf" websites. If a neutral source could not be found on the issue, like a link to a UN-related website, there is not enough proof that such sources actually exist. In other words, this information could not be verified.
3. The article refers to a certain decision by the US Board of Geographical Names and claims that it is still valid, but provides a link to a page (http://www.nga.mil/portal/site/nga01/) with no mention of the word "gulf". This information could not be verified.
4. The Encyclopedia Brittanica claims that the gulf is named "Bahr Faris" (or possibly "Bahr Farsi") in the Arabic language [5]. This is in contradiction with what the article is claiming in the first line (Al-Khalij Al-Farsi).
5. MSN Encarta [6] and the Columbia Encyclopedia ([7], [8]) claim that this gulf is "an arm of the Arabian Sea", while the current article mentions that it is an extension of the Gulf of Oman.

roozbeh 15:44, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)

1. Actually it should be ALL such documents. The Persian Gulf was the ONLY name used for that waterway before mid 20th century. Arabs used it, western countries used it, and Iranians used it. So it only follows that most modern - if not all - treaties, documents and maps used Persian Gulf. It's an extrapolation and a valid one.
2. Would an International Maritime Organization report on a Korean website qualify as "neutral"? Find a reference to ST/CS/SER.A/29/Rev.1 here [9]. The actual directive is here [10].
3. That decision is cited in this Baltimore Sun story [11].
4. So? How does that make the article biased?
5. That's a mere technicality, Persian Gulf is an extension of Gulf of Oman which is an extension of the Arabian Sea. That sea is itself an extension of Indian Ocean.

– Kaveh ^(talk)[[]] 19:42, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

For item number 4 and as a matter of accuracy, Arabs call it both a gulf and a sea. But those who call it a sea are geographically ignorant. Notice that the newly invented term, "Arabian Gulf", doesn't hint to a sea (Bahr) anymore. – Kaveh ^(talk)[[]] 20:11, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

First of all, please note that this is not a bias claim: it's an accuracy claim, completely unrelated to the other neutrality claim. Then, may I ask that the references be put inside the article in the way you feel appropriate? If that gets done, and since I'm taking back my claims about the bahr thing and the extension, I guess my only remaining accuracy claim would be the part about "most documents", which I will get to later. I'm so sorry I'm a little short of time now. roozbeh 13:28, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

Arabo-Persian Gulf

The International Court of Justice actually uses Persian Gulf unless it is given documents that mention an "Arabian Gulf". It then uses various terms to deal with the dual name issue. I've discussed it before with Refdoc. Please read up before an edit. – Kaveh ^(talk) 12:18, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Would you please give me a link to what I should read up? You have not provided a pointer. BTW, there are also other people using the term "Arabo-Persian Gulf", and it even appears in the title of a book. It's "Oil, dollars and politics : 7000 years at the Arabo-Persian Gulf", by Burchard Brentjes, ISBN 0965962334. roozbeh 16:43, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)

Compare [12] with this one [13]. I wonder where you got the idea about the ICJ preferring to use "Arabo-Persian Gulf". From that single link? If true, is it unfair to suggest you made a uniformed claim and as such your belated book evidence is inappropriate for a proper judgment? A bit dogmatic, no?

In addition, The gulf is and has been also called Persian/Arabian, Persian (Arabian), Arabian (Persian), Arabic Gulf, Islamic Gulf and many other variations by "other people" including published figures. I'd include terms based on their substantial recognition, not scattered hits I could get on Google. Finally, please refrain from making substantial changes while we are still discussing the issue here in the talk page. – Kaveh ^(talk) 01:45, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm taking back my claim about ICJ. I was fooled by that single instance. But I would appreciate if all of the names are mentioned somewhere in the article. For example, it seems that while Ayatollah Khomeini has suggested to call the area "Islamic Gulf", Osama Bin Laden has actually used the term [14] to refer to the area. As for slashed or parenthesized forms, I guess they were trying to be too neutral, and made that up. As for "Arabic Gulf", I couldn't find any source on Google calling it that: all of them seemed to be mistakes, and the athors really wanted to say "Arabian Gulf". So from the list, the names that are actually worth the mention in the article (not necessarily in the opening paragraph) are "Arabo-Persian Gulf" (used in one occasion by ICJ, used in a book title), and the "Islamic Gulf" (that we should mention is suggested by whom and used by whom). There also remains that issue of whether or not "the Gulf" should be mentioned in the opening paragraph. roozbeh 16:04, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)

I think "The Gulf" and "Islamic Gulf" are worth mentioning in the proper section. I don't understand the reason behind your persistence to add "Arabo-Persian Gulf" to the article. It is no different from "Persian/Arabian Gulf" or "Persian (Arabian) Gulf". None of these terms add anything worthy to the article. They just serve to confuse the average reader.

BTW, is “Islamic Gulf” correctly attributed? I’ve never seen a quote from Khomeini to confirm that. – Kaveh ^(talk) 00:39, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

About Khomeini and the Islamic Gulf, well I couldn't confirm it either, but this page claims that Hamad bin Khalifa attributes the suggestion to Khomeini, and so does this page. About Arabo-Persian Gulf, I consider it different from your two examples, because it uses lower level English grammar than the other two, which had made it suitable even for a book title and an ICJ document. Also, it is not generated automatically from name parts of the two main alternates. roozbeh 08:48, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

I also heard some people call England, the Arabland. This fact should be mentioned in the page about England. Don't you agree?

What about adding this sentence to the Los Angeles page: : "Los Angeles, Irangeles or Tehrangeles. Also some people call it Geles in order to be unbiased".

--Mani1 12:13, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Did you really hear those people call England "Arabland" or are you joking? This is becoming very interesting for me. Who are those people? Have they used the term in newspapers? What about published books? What about titles of published books? If yes, where they serious or where they joking? Anyway, please discuss that matter on the England's talk page or the Los Angeles's, or you can leave me a note with the references on my user talk page. That issue is not about the Persian Gulf. roozbeh 15:42, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

Mani1 is right. Even if someone decided to publish a book and make up fake geographical names it does not mean that we have to use them as alternative names. If we follow your way we should then add Irangeles as an alternative name for Los Angeles to its article because there is a book published called:

Irangeles, Ron Kelley and Jonathan Friedlander, editors. University of California Press, 1993.

link And even if you insist that those joke names should be mentioned (in a supposedly serious encyclopaedia!), there is no logical reason why they should be mentioned on top of the page too! --212.238.143.99 15:17, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The "vandalism" is unfortunately entirely caused by yourself 212.238.143.99. "Tehrangeles" etc. would be a worthwhile naming if one would idscuss the importantce of Los Angeles on IRanian expatriate culture etc, but not in the main article. "Arabian Gulf" is the legal name of the entitity in a few countries at the southcoast and is increasingly internationally used, rightly or wrongly ( in my opinion wrongly, but this is irrelevant if I want to write an NPOV article. You are trying to pushe your POV and this is not on. Refdoc 23:00, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

""Arabian Gulf" is the legal name of the entitity in a few countries at the southcoast" in the ARABIC LANGUAGE not English. Since this is the ENGLISH Wikipedia we don't have to mention the name of the Persian Gulf in Chinese, Arabic, Ethiopian etc. --212.238.143.99 09:15, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, we do have to as it is commonly used (albeit wrongly). It is also the consensus of the majority of contributors that it should be mentioned. Incidetally several of these contributors are Iranians or agree with the Iranian point of view in the matter. But this does not mean that one deletes alternative, contested namings. And yes it is also the legal name in English inside these countries and is commonly used in teh West when dealing with these countries. Refdoc 12:39, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Reverting and vandalism

The repeated silent deletions of "Arabian Gulf" entries by the anonymous users are increasingly annoying and vandalism. I would suggest that those who feel they have something to add should make use of the talk page (and maybe also log in, it would be a lot more polite) Refdoc 22:56, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I wanted to add something to the arguments in favor of deleting the superfluous naming of the fake names on top of the page but I saw the convincing and good arguments are already mentioned here.

Persian Gulf is the only official name and the forgeries who are mentioned in the article should not be written on top as the legal or legitimate alternatives. --82.161.35.227 14:58, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Dear User 82.161.35.227, adding of these names at the top does not make them either legal nor legitimate, but is appropriate in all such controversies. You do not actually gain anything with this behaviour, certainly neither in stature, nor in respect by fellow editors. Refdoc 18:18, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Protection

I decided to protect the page after all, to keep it safe from anoymous POV-pushers. Please note that I have not protected my own version, but the version that (I guess) Kaveh and Refdoc had some consensus on. This means that neither "Arabo-Persian Gulf" nor "the Gulf" are mentioned in the opening paragraph. I would appreciate it if Kaveh and Refdoc tell me if that has been their intention, to not have either of those two terms in the opening paragraph.

I would consider this a good opportunity to end the revert war and see people talk, instead of just removing information from the article. Specially, I recommend that anonymous users get a username, so we can see how many people we are really talking to, and who they are. roozbeh 16:14, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)

When the page is unblocked, the following interwiki links should be added: fr:Golfe Persique pt:Golfo Pérsico — Ливай | ☺ 04:00, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

done --Pouya 19:24, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"Arabo-Persian Gulf " or "the Gulf" are IMHO largely ways of avoiding getting into the fireline by those who want to have nothing to do with the debate but to get on with life - see the ICJ judgement earlier reffered to. The debate is really about whether "Arabian Gulf" is a valid name or not and if this debate would stop and teh claim for Arabian Gulf would be dropped teh other versions would vanish too, silently. Hence I do not think other versiosn need to be mentioned in the headline.

Incidentally this raises anotehr issue - now having stopped a revert war essentially over the initial line of the article there are people who want to get on wth life - i.e. Ливай above who wants to add links, There should be a way of protecting only the portions of the text, those whioch produce the ire and revert wars, while allowing others to contiunue to edit on e.g. environmental issues and biology of the Persian Gulf, Refdoc 10:24, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Objections to the NGS

The common motive behind the objection to that publisher is the view that Persian Gulf is the correct name for that body of water. It is not possible to judge and explore EVERY reason why this view is shared by different people. To highlight one and ignore others is simply a POV. – Kaveh ^(talk) 03:56, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There have been protests, and people have had different reasons for being for or against the protests. So please add information on reasons people state for both sides, instead of removing information. NPOV is not about not listing points of view, it's about listing every point of view. Also, we shouldn't worry about temporary pointedness, since it's already pointed (see the dispute above). To quote the Neutral point of view article, The policy doesn't assume that it's possible to write an article from just a single unbiased, "objective" point of view. The policy says that we should fairly represent all sides of a dispute, and not make an article state, imply, or insinuate that any one side is correct. The reason I added the view of people who consider the protests racist is that they their point of view was not mentioned anywhere in the article. Feel free to expand on it, and explain what other people are saying against that. Actually, the link I provided lists many opinions against that in the comments section. roozbeh 10:53, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)

Again, I consider that a biased statement. Furthermore, I feel it is insignificant, unnecessary and offensive. This article isn't about why people have objected to the NGS, if you feel that should be explored create a separate article. – Kaveh ^(talk) 19:49, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

As long as some users have not put forward a logical reason why some illegal names (Cf. the UN resolutions) should be repeated several times in an articles and also in the headline, the headline should mention only the leagl and correct name. So please do not revert the headline again, before having brought convincing arguments.

--Mani1 22:35, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think, Mani1, these arguments were brought and you did not look at them. The consensus or the active contributers to this article was to mentuion Arabic Gulf in teh headline - not because it is right or "legal" - it is not - but because it is commonly used and it is teh right way to write a Wipipedia article. Refdoc 23:23, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Is "Ar. Gulf" commonly used? You know, Iranian govenrment officially and commonly uses the name Great Satan instead of U.S.A. in its publications and media. Let see if you can get that "alternative name" established in the U.S.A. article of Wikipedia, then we talk further about this Arab "alternative" to the name of Persian Gulf. (The same is true of the "alternative name" "infidels" or "pigs" used very commonly in Muslem world for "Westerners", or "dumb" instead of "blond" in the West etc.) Good Luck. --Mani1 00:55, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The Great Satan link actually exists. This is a subject perfectly worthwhile to write about, as iot aids understanding of Mid Eastern political speech. 'infidels' might probably fall into a similar category and there might be scope for an article on its use historically, while 'pigs' and 'dumb' is plain offensive and meant to be offensive. 'Arabian Gulf' though is not meant to be offensive, though it might feel offensive, but is the legal term in a number of Gulf states, expresses political and territorial ambitions and needs to be treated seriosuly - even if eventually dismissed (as the article does quite ablely) Refdoc 10:51, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I haven't seen the "Great Satan" written as an alternative name for the United States of America in the article. We have already an article A. Gulf which explains that it is the older name of the Red Sea and a new racist fake forgery of some Arabs. Putting that offensive forgery inside the Persian Gulf article is exactly the same as puting the name "Great Satan" next to the name USA in the USA article. As I said before, if you succed to put that as an alternative name in the USA article then we can discuss further. About the usage of A.Gulf by Arabs not being ment offensive! how do you know what goes on in the minds of the Arab Shayks? The people of Middle-East know exactly that this racist move of the Arabs was ment as offensive as the Saddam Hussein's military offensive on Iran itself.

Take care. --Mani1 09:24, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Have another look....If well crafted the weirdest things survive heavy editing Refdoc 02:33, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The current compromise

A couple of points. First, I wanted to thank you guys for all the thought you have put into this article. I had come to this article from research related to ancient history and geography, and not geo-politics. So I would ask that you keep in mind that the political angle may not be that important to some of us. I have always heard the term Persian Gulf used to describe this area; if it were listed under something else I probably would not have found the article. Also, I don’t really have a horse in this race, i.e., the naming convention, and though it seems somewhat interesting, it does not seem germane to the topic, outside of a reference/note for balance. I think the whole naming question, plus the history around it would make a worthy article in itself, and could be linked to this page for those who wish to pursue it. Finally, it is not so much objectivity that needs to be the focus, but rather a pruning of either emotionally charged words/phrases, or unnecessarily ambiguous words or phrases. If the name thing is that important, create a link.

Persian Gulf (also referred to as . . (link))

Once again, thanks for the hard work.

Erthona

Dear Erthona, you made a very good suggestion and following your suggestion I moved the naming issue part, (which had overshadowed the more important and real information about the Persian Gulf) to a new article called Recent naming issues related to the Persian Gulf.

If I go to an article about the Chine Sea to get some geographical information, it would be strange to sea 2/3 of the article stuffed with some naming issue. If someone is interested in the naming issue can go the related article dedicated to it. Thanks for your suggestion. Take care. --Mani1 09:40, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

New edit war looming? How sad!

We had a version which was stable for a number of days. It had the right name at the top, mentioned shortly the Arabian Gulf (not in the first line, not as an alternative) and left the rest to the Naming Controversy article. And now we are slowly creeping back again into having the whole problem here! Please think carefully before you edit and probably do consult form time to time ! Refdoc 11:54, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Another attempt at explaining why some people would call it other than PERSIAN GULF

There is certainly no doubt about the fact that the first nation populating the shores of the Gulf were Persians. The Arab nation had at the days of the nascending Persian empire, some 2500 years ago, not yet migrated to the Gulf shores of the Arab peninsula, their cradle being Yemen, from where migrations to modern areas of residence commenced much later. In fact, the Arabian side of the Persian Gulf has been hardly populated at all, until some 300 years ago, when nominal Arab settlements concentrated in Bahrain and present day Kuwait. The number of Arabs dwelling along the shore, which is now divided by Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Qatar has been sparse up to the second quarter of the 20th century. People on the Arabian side commonly referred to it simply as "The Gulf". Lack of historical education and natural selfreflection on the part of the Arab gulf coast population led inadvertently to the conception of the Gulf as akin to their own heritage, in the modern Arab eyes. Growing sense of Arab national Identity became the breeding ground of vane contemplations, fostered by a few and readily embraced by many more. Growing apprehension with respect to the powerful Iranian neighbor on the opposite side encouraged further defiant sentiments of identity seeking Arabs in the small, newly arisen states.

The nomination conflict from Arab perspective ought to be considered not so much a matter of trying to rewrite history, but an attempt to gain more weight in a situation, which has been vastly unbalanced, in the favor of the Iranian side for millennia.

These fanciful views of the issue, on part of the Arab gulf population and some of their brethren to the North and East, will of course not alter the course of history and reverse the prominent role of the Persian nation during two and a half millennia.

The Persian Gulf has been the Persian Gulf for 2500 years, and cannot be seriously considered the Arabian by anybody, in lack of Arab connotation with it, until very recent days. left unsigned by User:Pantherarosa

---

And we have put this discussion into another article. We have described shortly the dispute, showed in a single sentence where historical use and majority use are and then link to another article. There is no need to keep this controversy on this article brewing. Refdoc 12:29, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

---

I deleted one of the redundant links to the Dispute over the name of the Persian Gulf which was repeated twice in the article. I see no reason why the information about the fake names has to be mentioned in the upper paragraphs and not somewhere else in the article as is the case with many other articles in Wikipedia. --Mani1 20:59, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What do the Persian and Arabic names mean?

I don't read the Arabic alphabet but would be interested to know how the Persian and Arabic names of the Gulf are pronounced and what they mean. Would it be possible to include this information? Bathrobe 4 April 2005

I added the pronunciation of the Persian name, it's meaning is the same as in English. – Kaveh ^(talk) 09:31, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Also known as Arabian Gulf or just The Gulf

I have added "The Persian Gulf...and by some Arab Countries Arabian Gulf or just The Gulf". Although I think historically wrong, it should be at least mentioned and the readers should get the whole picture. Since this name is used in the Arabian side of the gulf and in many Arabian Countries.

... And I reverted your edit, because it was redundant. The intro already mentions "Arabian Gulf" as a disputed alternate name, with a link to an in-depth analysis. As for "The Gulf", I don't think this is worth noting; I'm sure people living in and around any particular gulf will have a habit of referring to it in such an informal way. -- Hadal 03:34, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

I have just added "and by some Arab Countries its called Arabian Gulf or just The Gulf. This is just a line, if you go to an Arabian Country in the Gulf you will never hear "Persian Gulf". I think the readers have the right to know this.

And how can this be redundant when "Arabian Gulf" is not mentioned anywhere in that page. Its also interesting how you swapped the places of "Arabian Gulf" and "The Gulf" and changed the word "countries" (which represnt Nations and Governments) by "some". And "The Gulf" is not just an informal way. Consider the following example, when you say South Africa you mean the whole region of South Africa, that is Nambia, Bitswana, etc..but you could also mean the country South Africa. Exactly the same thing with the term The Gulf.

May I point out that the geographical term is southern Africa, which cannot be confused with South Africa. (81.86.142.140 14:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC))

Red See and Arabian Gulf

I have deleted the phrase which says that the Arabian Gulf was the name used widely until the end of the 19th century for the Red Sea. Because its simply not true. The Arabs have Always called it the Red See. And among the European Nations were some that called it Red See and some Arabian Gulf because the name was not official.

Foreigners please have understanding.

Id like to give me two-cents regarding this "Arabian Gulf" issue, wether or not it should be on the page, i dont think foreigners or in particular Westerners have an idea about how sensitive this subject is to Iranians. We find this page and other sources are Ideal to re-correct the geographical name for the Persian Gulf, i think the majority agrees that it is Persian Gulf, and due to certain Pan Arab states and their doctrine it has been named Arabian Gulf by a minority. This making the Iranian community furious. This is simply not the correct name, it has no geographical relevance to be names and is incorrect all together, not only that, it brings confusion to the reader wether or not to call it Persian Gulf. It has always been Persian Gulf and will remain so, The iranians here want to take this oppertunity to give the gulf its correct name and eradicate any further inconsistencies.

I hope people therefore understand why we would like the page Persian Gulf free from anything along the lines of "Arab Gulf" or just "The Gulf" since these are not the correct names nor have any basis whatsoever.

Respectfully, --Paradoxic 15:42, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The fact is that some people call it the Arabian Gulf and some people call it The Gulf. This is an encyclopaedia and it has to note those facts, whether Iranians are offended by them or not. Adam 15:56, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In the middle east Germany is refered to as "Alman"..But as there is no relevance in adding the name Alman just because Arabs and Iranians happen to call it differently. A sea, Gulf, Country can have many names in every different country or continent due to many reasons, it does not mean it is in need to be included on the Wiki page. This is a distortion of history and geography and has a pan arab sentiment. Regardless wether Iranians are insulted or not, the name is Persian Gulf, Not ARAB and there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to add it regardless wether a chinese, arab or australian person happens to call it differently or not. Respectfully --Paradoxic 20:34, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is an English-language encyclopaedia. It is required to comment on what things are called in English. The fact is that Arabs now choose to call it the Arabian Gulf. Whether they are right or wrong to do so is irrelevant. It is also a fact that there is an increasing tendency in English-language media to call it "The Gulf" to avoid this Iranian-Arab controversy (see for example The Economist, The Times Atlas of the World). These facts have to be noted. Adam 00:17, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Couple of points:

• "The Gulf" is not a neutral term, by virtue of the fact that these media organizations choose not to call the Persian Gulf by it's actual name. In effect this is an outright rejection of the rightful name and this issue is politically charged and sensitive, therefore nullifying any claims to neutrality.
• Until someone can provide sufficient evidence that English-language media "increasingly" use "The Gulf," I believe it should simply be stated that "some" media refer to the Persian Gulf as "The Gulf." Perhaps this is a trend in the United Kingdom, because here in the States I always read and hear Persian Gulf. SouthernComfort 4 July 2005 07:17 (UTC)

---

File:Gulfatlas.jpg

From The Times Atlas of the World

How's this for a source?

Google gives 1.4 million hits for "The Persian Gulf" and 157,000 for "The Arabian Gulf." But it gives 10.5 million for "The Gulf." Of course, not all these are related to the Gulf under discussion, but a high proportion of them are. "The Gulf War" gets 1.4 million hits, "The Persian Gulf War" gets 370,000. All shis shows that "The Gulf" is rapidly becoming the prefered usage in the English-language media, to avoid having to choose between Iranian nationalism and Arab nationalism. I understand that Iranians don't like this, but it cannot be denied that this is what's happening. Adam 4 July 2005 08:38 (UTC)

Having said that, I am happy with the current wording. Adam 4 July 2005 08:56 (UTC)

---

I disagree with using Google hits as constituting evidence of "increasing" usage amongst English-language media. Both images displayed above are British sources, and I realize that in the U.K. (don't know about Australia), some (but certainly not all) media organizations officially use "The Gulf." (I think the BBC uses both, depending on the context, e.g. Gulf state of Bahrain). But here in the States this is not the case, and I believe most English-language Canadian media also officially use Persian Gulf; for example, CBC apparently has a policy on this now [15].

Concerning "The Gulf" as a way to avoid both Iranian and Arab nationalism, my opinion is that this is a cop-out on the part of the media groups in question. They are attempting to eliminate the established and proper usage of "Persian Gulf" (the name of this body of water is historically and academically not in dispute) so as to not offend Arab nationalist sensibilities (and the Arab world is not exactly united on this issue either). It's entirely political. If Americans proclaimed the Gulf of Mexico the "American Gulf" and this eventually became a major controversy, would these media organizations begin referring to it as "The Gulf" as well in order to avoid this controversy? And if the Mexicans demanded that the media stick to the proper name "Gulf of Mexico" would they be called nationalists in turn? If Iranians defend the name Persian Gulf, why should they be derided as nationalists? It's ridiculous. The Persian Gulf is not the only gulf on this planet, and calling it "The Gulf" is, IMHO, absurd. Just my two cents on all that (don't take any of this as criticism of you personally, as I understand you are only trying to present what is actually happening, which can be difficult to ascertain).

At any rate, since we both agree with the current wording, this is a moot point. You stated your agreement as I was writing the above, and I figured I'd include it anyway for good measure. ;) SouthernComfort 4 July 2005 09:43 (UTC)

Controversy

Though I have to say, "To avoid this controversy ..." seems inaccurate, since one could argue usage of "The Gulf" actually furthers the "controversy." Are there any official statements from media groups which state that they use "The Gulf" specifically to avoid controversy? If not, I suggest we simply state the obvious fact that some English language-media use "The Gulf" - for whatever reason that only they know - but we don't have to mention this last part ;)(i.e. take out the controversy bit). SouthernComfort 4 July 2005 09:57 (UTC)

Southerncomfort jan Kheily mamnoon. Page looks just fine now. --Paradoxic 15:27, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't want to simply make an edition over something that has obviously been much debated but this article really has to mention that Arabs often refer to it as the Arab Gulf. The name may be "academically beyond dispute" but if 300 000 000 refer to it otherwise we can't just ignore it. In the U.A.E. the response I usually get is: Persian Gulf what? ie., it often hasn't occured to people that it might be called anything but the Arab/Arabic Gulf in English. Marskell 13:40, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I obviously jumped into this after the debate had run its course but I have inserted a note about the name used by Arabs given no argument not to. Marskell 14:34, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

The name issue

The issue of name must not be taken lightly at all. It is obvious that such platforms of opinion are purely political and must be resisted historically and if need be legally. My organization based in the UK is currently investigating whether Iranians/Persians may indeed be able to launch legal actions against publishers and the media for inaccurate naming of regions and countries. Historically this region/waterway has always been known as the Persian Gulf and referred to in written history as the Persian Gulf. My understanding is that this dates back, in European times, as far back as the exploits of Marco Polo and Vasco de Gamma and possibly even further. The arabs has always been synonymous with high jacking words, terms, historical accounts and even characters as being their own. They even refer to Egyptians and Syrians as arabs, a term that is not accurate and offensive. I have indeed followed the resolutions passes by the UN regarding this region and its name, and I can confirm that it declared it to be The Persian Gulf. The English and the French have a similar dispute over the English Channel but this does not occur in print of maps and literature. But as I have said, what this region is called is vitally important and it seems that the arabs and their young, inexperienced, petulant and history starved nations must be taught some history. I recall an arab once suggesting that Salahadin was an arab, when in fact he was Kurdish, the son of a famous Kurdish general. So as you can see the claim by arabs on history is very futile. The champions of Islam have rarely been arabs even. A statement that I am sure they will also contest. I do agree that the term 'arabian gulf' and 'gulf' should be removed from the title page as it serves no purpose. If we were discussing England we would not name it in Persian "Englestan'(which ironically suggests that it is a state within a country). Therefore, if you wish to remain true to the cause and name the title page should be amended to read, and read only as 'The Persian Gulf'

Dr. B.B.

"...may indeed be able to launch legal actions against publishers and the media for inaccurate naming of regions and countries." LOL. Seriously, if all you can contribute to Wiki is bogus and meaningless veiled legal threats: leave. Perhaps your bigotry will go over well in some court, somewhere, but here it just appears childish.

As for the article, it makes absolutely clear that "Arabian Gulf" is not attested to English. We mention, it and we observe it's not in common usage in English. There is no need to drop the reference completely. Gulf Arabs refer to the water body as the "Arab Gulf." That is a fact. I heard it two days ago from one of my students. That's what they call it. That's worthy of inclusion here. Thanks doc. Marskell 23:33, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

A reply to "Dr." B.B.

"The arabs has always been synonymous with high jacking words, terms, historical accounts and even characters as being their own. They even refer to Egyptians and Syrians as arabs, a term that is not accurate and offensive"

First of all, all arabs were native to Yemen Or areas in Higaz from there they migrated across the Arabian penisuala and later into North Africa, now if your racism sees us calling Arabs as Arabs offensive, then you could just suck...nevermind.I wouldn't degrade myself to your level of retardation, we don't "hijack" words, terms, histoirical accounts, or characters "doctor" if we do, you should give factual evidence on it. Those "explorers" you spoke about would've died of hunger and fear at sea had Ahmad Bin Majid not been there to give De Gamma parchments and maps detailing him how to reach India and the Arabian Gulf and the surrounding penisuala, but of course we "hijacked" your "explorer's" discovery, right? Arabs had established trade routes to India long before Europeans were there, and lots of English words were taken from Arab origins, racist comments like these make me laugh at you calling yourself, "doctor".

Also, Salah-el-Din is viewed as an Arab because, he spoke the language, lived according to our culture, what we refer to as Arab isn't neccessarily genetic exclusive, Arabs are a nation not a race, research your facts. Finally, what's this trash about Arabs not having any contributions to Islam? WTF? Khalid Ibn Walid, Abu Baker, Omar Bin Al-Khatab, Amr Bin Al-Aas, Tariq Bin Zyad, Othman Ibn Affan, Ibn Sina, Al-Jaheth, Ibn Battuta, Al-Razi...I could go on and on, please before you publicize your hate messages, at least do your research properly, and next time, "doctor", get some morsel of courage and log-in at least, cowardice doesn't help your argument in the least. MB 23:05, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Reply to you

I have researched your 'culture' & 'language'. In fact I published a paper titled "The Origin of Arabic Text" in 2001. Let me assure you that prior to the involvement of the British in the Middle-east there was never a mention of the arab nation. I suggest you research Your facts. After islam you will note that the larger contribution to islam has always stemed from those nations that were already established through out history. When I say that arabs have had little contribution to islam I am in fact correct. Philisophical challenges of islam have always come from societies that have been in conflict with islam. Iran, the birth of Shiat islam for example. Conforming to an idea does not give rise to its challenge. If a scholar adheres to a norm then he is a follower of that idea and will not challenge it. As for arab contribution to islam I am again correct. Nationals such as the Asyrians, the Persians, the Egyptians have by in large contributed far more than arabs, and I said I do not regard a national to be arab simply because they speak arabic. I live in the west and speak english, but I am not English. And because I abey the rule of the land where I reside does not make me a national of that society. You must not merge definitions in order to derive at a satisfactory result. That is called selective and bias info gathering. As for Salahedin, he spoke arabic and Kurdish, but he was nevertheless, Kurdish and no time did he give the impression that he was arab. It seems confusing and very uneducated for anyone to suggest that simply because one speaks a language one is of that origin. At no time in my text have i refered to arabs as a 'race' i exclude racial matters from these discussions.

Dear Bee-Bee,

Your reply reeks of ignorance and blind hatred, now Bee-Bee how can you call yourself an 'Arab researcher' if you hold nothing but loathing to our culture? I feel nothing towards you but sadness and lots, lots of pity. I mean seriously most of your claims were historically completely incorrect and the others were merely opinions fueled by hatred and loathing, your disgusting racism reared its ugly head in your reply, let me show you how your claims are all wrong and prepostorous:

"I have researched your 'culture' & 'language'"

why the " ' " around culture and language, surely your hatred didn't reach a point where you claim neither exist for the Arabs. Seriously, if that's it then it's just sad.

"In fact I published a paper titled "The Origin of Arabic Text" in 2001. Let me assure you that prior to the involvement of the British in the Middle-east there was never a mention of the arab nation."

No, Bee-Bee, The arab nation was united since the beginning of the Islamic faith,From the Prophet Mohammad, to the Caliphs: Abu-Baker, Omar, Othman, and Ali;through the Ommayad Dynasty, and the Abassid Dynasty. The Arabs were united under one country under an Arab leadership for almost seven to eight centuries...you need to seriously consider your title as 'researcher', the world didn't start after WWI, you know!

"I suggest you research Your facts. After islam you will note that the larger contribution to islam has always stemed from those nations that were already established through out history. When I say that arabs have had little contribution to islam I am in fact correct. Philisophical challenges of islam have always come from societies that have been in conflict with islam. Iran, the birth of Shiat islam for example"

Actually, the Shiat sect of Islam began in southren Iraq, where Hussain Bin Abi-Taleb was killed in Karballa by the Caliphs men, from there, people began shouting for following what they dubbed, "Ali's Way" they followed what he did during his war against various Arab leaders in his short term as Caliph, from southron Iraq it spread to Iran through the Safavids, I suggest you research your facts, Bee-Bee.

"Conforming to an idea does not give rise to its challenge. If a scholar adheres to a norm then he is a follower of that idea and will not challenge it"

Bee-Bee, what are you talking about? The Arabs had extremly heated debates over almost everything, from the doctrines of Socrates to the interpertation of the Holy Qora'an, some sects even went to the extreme that they were considered out of the faith i.e. the batenia, the baha'ya, the mo'tazala...etc. Of course I'm not encouraging that, I'm just saying that not all Arab scholars conformed to an idea.

"As for arab contribution to islam I am again correct. Nationals such as the Asyrians, the Persians, the Egyptians have by in large contributed far more than arabs, and I said I do not regard a national to be arab simply because they speak arabic"

Like it or not, Bee-Bee, the Egyptians are Arabs, always were, always will be. Their ancestors can be traced back to the deserts in Yemen, they fled the famine that hit that region about ten thousand years ago, some researcher you are! You seemed to drop the list of names of Arabs I gave that contributed to the cause of Islam, read it, research it, and tell me if I'm wrong then, Bee-Bee. Also, all Arabs come from two regions, the Higaz in today's western Saudi Arabia, and Yemen, in the southron Arabian penisuala. From there the Arabs spread across the lands called tody the Arab World, after being liberated by the Arabs from the Byzantines and the Sassanids, the Arab World remained united under an Arab leadership, until they began dissenting, and were taken over by the Ottomans. The Arab World then was sliced by British and French colonial powers under the rule: "divide and conquer", of course you would know that if you were who you claimed to be, Bee-Bee.

"I live in the west and speak english, but I am not English. And because I abey the rule of the land where I reside does not make me a national of that society. You must not merge definitions in order to derive at a satisfactory result."

Do you see yourself as English? No? People from the coast of Oman to the the Atlantic ocean see themselves as Arabs, I gave the explanation of why above, but please, who am I to try and stop your ignorance, go to each one of those 300 million, and tell them you're all wrong.

"As for Salahedin, he spoke arabic and Kurdish, but he was nevertheless, Kurdish and no time did he give the impression that he was arab. It seems confusing and very uneducated for anyone to suggest that simply because one speaks a language one is of that origin"

It's called assimilation, Bee-Bee, you know it's when a person or a group of people spend a certain amount of time in a place and take from its culture, language and behavior. Now, racially speaking Salahedin was Kurdsish, but he definately did not liberate al-Quods(Jerusalem) as a Kurd, he freed it as a Muslim and an Arab, Al-Quods holds no importance for Kurds, but it holds a very important place for the Muslims and especially the Arabs.

"At no time in my text have i refered to arabs as a 'race' i exclude racial matters from these discussions."

O-kay, WTF?! Let me help you a little there, Bee-Bee. Now a race is when only certain people with certain genetic coding can be referred to as that group, i.e. White, Aryan, Indo-European, Black, Hispanic...etc.

A nation is when people can be grouped together based on common grounds i.e. language, traditions, religion, unity of fate( what happens to certain region will affect the next one, which'll affect the next one...)...etc. like the Arabian nation for instance, and the American nation, and the European nation, somewhat.

Got the difference, Bee-Bee? I'm surprised you had the gull to basically spew a hate rant and call it an argument. Your argument are completely base-less, and I think you made wild guesses without going into your subject, please Bee-Bee, stop embarrassing yourself and at least do some research before you start babbling your hate rants, okay, sweety? MB 01:00, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[No Title]

I have been advised by the Wikipedia information team to post this link on this page:

http://www.parstimes.com/PG.html

In order for it to be discussed for inclusion. The site is totally commerical free and there are a couple of contributed articles on Persian Gulf & Persian Gulf Command.

I think this would be a good external link for the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.108.116.158 (talk • contribs) 05:13, 17 December 2005

It doesn't matter. You're still trying to get people to go to your website. --Khoikhoi 00:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)