This article is within the scope of WikiProject Geography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of geography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GeographyWikipedia:WikiProject GeographyTemplate:WikiProject Geographygeography
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arab world, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Arab world on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Arab worldWikipedia:WikiProject Arab worldTemplate:WikiProject Arab worldArab world
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iran, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Iran on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project where you can contribute to the discussions and help with our open tasks.IranWikipedia:WikiProject IranTemplate:WikiProject IranIran
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iraq, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Iraq on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IraqWikipedia:WikiProject IraqTemplate:WikiProject IraqIraq
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Saudi Arabia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Saudi Arabia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Saudi ArabiaWikipedia:WikiProject Saudi ArabiaTemplate:WikiProject Saudi ArabiaSaudi Arabia
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Western Asia, which collaborates on articles related to Western Asia. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.Western AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject Western AsiaTemplate:WikiProject Western AsiaWestern Asia
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Kuwait, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Kuwait on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.KuwaitWikipedia:WikiProject KuwaitTemplate:WikiProject KuwaitKuwait
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Arab Emirates, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Arab Emirates on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United Arab EmiratesWikipedia:WikiProject United Arab EmiratesTemplate:WikiProject United Arab EmiratesUnited Arab Emirates
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bahrain, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Kingdom of Bahrain on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BahrainWikipedia:WikiProject BahrainTemplate:WikiProject BahrainBahrain
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Qatar, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Qatar-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.QatarWikipedia:WikiProject QatarTemplate:WikiProject QatarQatar
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oman, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Oman on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OmanWikipedia:WikiProject OmanTemplate:WikiProject OmanOman
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. Ifconsensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.
Should we replace the not-a-forum tag with a FAQ explaining the naming dispute and that the name "Arabian Gulf" won't be replaced in the article? NotAGenious (talk) 13:30, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am just wondering why the unrecognised name "Arabian Gulf" is included in this article, while the Gulf of Mexico page doesn't mention the "gulf of America" in the lede. Both are unrecognised names used only by certain countries and literally never used in everyday English. شاه عباس (talk) 17:07, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Because of community consensus. The Arabian Gulf name has been discussed here lots and the editors here have agreed on placing that name in the lede section, unlike the "Gulf of America" trump bs which editors on that page have decided not to put in the lede 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨Abo Yemen (𓃵)17:34, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So what you're saying is every individual page has to reach a different consensus? The 'Arabian Gulf' is bs pushed by Arab states and is never used in any English sources, English wikipedia should reflect English usage. شاه عباس (talk) 06:20, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So what you're saying is every individual page has to reach a different consensus? That's not what I'm saying. That's the policy The 'Arabian Gulf' is bs pushed by Arab states and is never used in any English sources, English wikipedia should reflect English usage. big claim without any proof. There are sources that use the Arab Gulf name and virtually all sources have a mention of the dispute. 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨Abo Yemen (𓃵)06:31, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to prove to you why the sky is blue, kid. A petty name dispute initiated by some made-up nation states doesn't change the English language usage of terms. Did you catch the last part? English. Language. If the usage you are referring to is not used in English, which it isn't, it's completely irrelevant to encyclopedic enquiries conducted in English. There is no dispute as far as normal, educated people are concerned.
I could care less whether it's called the Persian Gulf, the Arabian Gulf or the Pixieland Gulf. The facts are these:
the predominant name in the English language is Persian Gulf by far;
it is known as Arabian Gulf in Arab countries;
because of 2 above there is minor reference to Arabian Gulf in other English language contexts - for example, see the citations in Persian Gulf naming dispute#United States;
Wikipedia policies particularly WP:COMMONNAME and WP:ALTNAME means that facts 1-3 translate into how the article is currently presented. This was confirmed by the community by an WP:RFC whch determined WP:CONSENSUS. You coming here claiming that you're not going to "prove the sky is blue" is therefore irrelevant.
Iranian and Arab nationalist POV-pushers regularly come here to try to remove either name for reasons that have got nothing to do with facts 1-3 or Wikipedia policy.
Because of these facts (supported with citations in this article and in the Persian Gulf naming dispute) three things result: (a) the article name won't be changed from Persian Gulf (b) a reference to Arabian Gulf as a minority WP:ALTNAME won't be removed. (c) POV attempts to remove either name will be ignored. Live with it. DeCausa (talk) 08:13, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The reasons for and against including it in the lead, and if it were to be included what wording it should have, was debated at length and in detail here. It included a process called WP:RFC which results in the issue being publicised across Wikipedia to ensure as wide an input of views as possible and the conclusions of the subsequent debate being summarized/determined by a neutral editor. This was therefore how the WP:CONSENSUS was decided. While consensus can change, it would require an equally extensive process. Any change or deletion of the wording (which both of you have attempted) will be reverted if it doesn't go through that process to determine whether consensus has changed. Given the content of that discussion, I think it is highly unlikely that consensus will change any time soon. DeCausa (talk) 07:21, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Expecting an editor new to this article to know about the rfc without writing a comment next to the text that there has been a consensus on a specific wording is crazy. The note should've been there ever since the rfc had concluded two years ago and not after I edited it 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨Abo Yemen (𓃵)08:15, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You better send your letter of complaint to customer services. Or the editors involved. I think you'll find that your disappointment with such craziness would apply to pretty much every RfC in Wikipedia (with the possible exception of articles where petty nationalist squabbles play out with tedious regularity). DeCausa (talk) 08:57, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ignoring the really really funny customer services joke, this article is one where petty nationalist squabbles play out with tedious regularity judging from the page's history. Anyways I've modified the comment to have a link to the RfC (tho yes it isn't clickable) 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨Abo Yemen (𓃵)09:49, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Arabian Gulf is incorrect
Please edit as soon as possible, you miserable Arabs!
You have nothing and you want to take everything for yourself by taking over...like you took over Iran 1400 years ago Miss.pavandi (talk) 15:41, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am requesting a factual correction regarding the naming of the Persian Gulf in this article. The term “Persian Gulf” is the only internationally recognized and historically accurate name for this body of water. The inclusion of “Arabian Gulf” contradicts established historical, legal, and academic sources.
Why “Persian Gulf” is the Only Correct Name
1. International Legal Recognition:
• The United Nations (ST/CS/SER.A/29/Add.2) explicitly states:
“The term ‘Persian Gulf’ is the standard geographical designation recognized by the United Nations and should be used in all official UN documents.”
• International organizations, including National Geographic, Encyclopædia Britannica, and Oxford Atlas, exclusively use “Persian Gulf.”
• Maritime agreements and official maps from the UK, US, and global institutions all confirm “Persian Gulf” as the sole legitimate name.
2. Historical Accuracy:
• Ancient Greek and Roman maps, including those from Ptolemy and Strabo, referred to it as “Sinus Persicus” (Persian Gulf).
• Islamic scholars like Ibn Khaldun consistently used “Persian Gulf” in their works.
• The term “Arabian Gulf” was historically used for the Red Sea, not the Persian Gulf, as confirmed by British Royal Navy documents.
3. Wikipedia Policy Compliance:
• Neutrality (WP:NPOV): Including “Arabian Gulf” gives weight to a politically motivated term rather than a historically established one.
• Verifiability (WP:V): The vast majority of reliable sources exclusively recognize “Persian Gulf.”
Requested Changes
• Remove “Arabian Gulf” from the introduction and infobox.
• If necessary, mention it only in the “Controversies” section, clearly stating that it is a politically driven and non-standard term.
• Align the article with Wikipedia’s core principles of accuracy, neutrality, and verifiability.
This request is based purely on historical and academic accuracy, without any political bias. I appreciate your time and consideration and look forward to your response.
This page is for discussing improvments to article. If the two of you want to talk about each others behaviour (aka squabble about something no one else is interested in) take it to your user talk pages. DeCausa (talk) 20:46, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"new to this topic" as you have mentioned on Jan 30th "Expecting an editor new to this article". I have been on wikipedia since late 2000s.DrTheHistorian【Talk】03:44, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have been on wikipedia since late 2000s. With an account created on 28 December 2024? Either you're hallucinating or you just called yourself out as an alt account (sock) 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨Abo Yemen (𓃵)08:13, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've also used the internet and been on wp without being an editor or having an account. You shouldn't be telling me what to and not be doing on here 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨Abo Yemen (𓃵)19:48, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The longstanding version of the Infobox had only "Persian Gulf" as a header. "Arabian Gulf" was added on 6 February 2025 here following this edit. The current text adding "sometimes called the Arabian Gulf" to the opening sentence was agreed via RfC in this thread: Talk:Persian Gulf/Archive 8#Adding the name Arabian Gulf in Lead, but it did not cover dding it to the Infobox. If it's to be added then there should be an express WP:CONSENSUS here to do so given the sensitivities/controversies. Comments please. If there's no clear consensus through this thread then an RFC may be necessary. DeCausa (talk) 17:06, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My 2 cents is that (a) ALTNAMES don't have an automatic appearance in the header (b) the "sometimes called" descriptor is a reference to it's infrequency of use in English. The infrequency, in this case, doesn't warrant its inclusion in the header. I don't have a strong view on this and look forward to seeing what consensus there is. DeCausa (talk) 17:20, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If we are working in writing History as is and not alter with it, we should be only be using the Name Persian gulf, as per WP:COMMON NAME. This is an encyclopedia which people come to gain true information.
As for the edit in question, there should not be any other name other than original and long lasting name be written, "alternative" names has no place in the Infobox. DrTheHistorian【Talk】17:43, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:COMMONNAME doesn't say that only one name is to be used in an article. That is about the name of the article, which isn't the question here. Wikipedia editors have already decided that Arabian Gulf is an alternative name that is "sometimes" used, so that is not the question either. The only question is whether this alternative name should be used in the Infobox. Nothing you say addresses that. DeCausa (talk) 18:12, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I answered the question on the second paragraph of my reply.
"There should not be any other name other than original and long lasting name be written, "alternative" names has no place in the Infobox" DrTheHistorian【Talk】18:14, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No you've haven't - you haven't given any reason within WP policy. There is a parameter for alternative names in the Infobox - and it has already been agreed by WP editors that this is an alternative name. DeCausa (talk) 18:16, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are asking to add "alternative" name in the infobox. you yourself has mentioned , "(a) ALTNAMES don't have an automatic appearance in the header".
According to: MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE "The purpose of an infobox is to summarize, but not supplant, the key facts that appear in an article." The alternative name has been mentioned once, only in the header, not a key fact.
"The less information that an infobox contains, the more effectively it serves its purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance."
I think, as the person who added it to the infobox, that it should be there as everything in the infobox should represent what's there in the article, and it would only make sense to use the other name of this body of water in the "other_name" param 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨Abo Yemen (𓃵)10:28, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The infobox summarizes the article, but it does not mean that every wording of an article should stand in the infobox. The fact that this body of water is sometimes called "Arabian Gulf" is not a key fact that should appear in the infobox.---Wikaviani (talk)(contribs)10:43, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not according to me. It is known as "Persian Gulf" in the entire world with the notable exception of most of the Arab world. "Arabian Gulf" is already mentioned in the lede, no need to mention it in the infobox.---Wikaviani (talk)(contribs)11:17, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose adding it to the infobox in this way. If it were some parameter down below mentioning "Alternative name" in bold to the left and "Arabian Gulf" to the right, it would be okay to me, but having "Arabian Gulf" right under "Persian Gulf" in the infobox heading just looks confused, and frankly ridiculous.As an aside, although I argued for including the altname in the lead in the RfC, I'm now seeing a big flaw in my argument that I wasn't aware of at the time. It relied entirely on Google Ngrams, which charts the total amount of times the term "Arabian Gulf" is used in a very large corpus of text. But such evidence is only useful for unambiguous terms, because if a term may refer to multiple things, there is no way to know whether it was actually used in Google's corpus in the meaning intended. In casu, "Arabian Gulf" is the English translation of the Latin term Sinus Arabicus, which was used historically as a name for the Red Sea (see, e.g., the sources here). Thus, many of the instances of "Arabian Gulf" in Ngramsmay actually be discussions of this Latin term, and have nothing to do with the Persian Gulf at all.Given the notability of the Persian Gulf naming dispute (the fact that we have a WP article about it should speak for itself) I still think the altname should be mentioned in the lead sentence (or at least be bolded where it appears in the lead), also per Narky Blert's rationale in the RfC, but since we have no direct evidence of usage outside the 1960s naming dispute, it should probably be qualified with "in Arab countries" or similar. ☿ Apaugasma (talk☉)12:11, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
.svg){kind=small}
Not done: Also, that's not nice of you to say :( 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 16:42, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the 