Wikipedia

Talk:Arab states of the Persian Gulf/Archive 1

< Talk:Arab states of the Persian Gulf
Latest comment: 2 years ago by 2.147.225.84 in topic The name
Archive 1

Geographical Specifications of PERSIAN GULF

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Geographical Specifications of PERSIAN GULF Geographical Specifications of PERSIAN GULF The Persian Gulf is located in the southwest of the Asian Continent at 23 to 30 degrees northern latitude and 48 to 56 degrees longitude on the south side of the vast country of Iran, with a length of 1259 kilometer. Karoun, Zohreh, Jarrahi Mond, Dalki, Hendijan, Kol and Minab are the largest and the most watery rivers that flow into the PERSIAN GULF from the Iranian Plateau. The PERSIAN GULF is a projection of water from the Indian Ocean into a part of the Iranian Plateau. The whole northern part of it is covered by the Fars Province in Iran. T hus, if we were to presume that the sea did not have a name during history and those geographers and specialists were to select a name for this gulf, doubtlessly, they would find no better name than PERSIAN GULF, because Iran (PERSIA) is the largest country adjacent to this water body which possesses the longest coast. Besides, with a population of more than 70 million it is larger than any country located at the south margin of Fars.

http://pejman.azadi.googlepages.com/Iran

Historical, Geographical and Legal Validity of the Name: PERSIAN GULF

Geography, as the most ancient human knowledge is an applied science which has different aspects. It studies the reciprocal relation of man and nature and provides the results to the users in the form of documents in writing, books and maps. The names of features and phenomena including natural or man made ones have been considered by geographers for a long time, therefore similar features are distinguished by it. The name of a feature can not be observed on the land like the feature itself. Thus, by mentioning the case on maps, Atlases, and books, it will be protected during different eras as a part of historical, cultural identity and saved as mans heritage. For the same reason, any change, destruction, or alteration of the names registered in historical deeds and maps is like the destruction of ancient works and is considered as an improper action. Therefore, the names of geographical features profiting from a unique historical identity, should not be utilized as political instruments in reaching a political, tribal, and racial objective, or in any clash with national interests and other's values. This paper provides a short study of the historical background of the name PERSIAN GULF so that it might cast light on realities.


Persian Gulf's name in UN: http://www.un.org/Depts/Cartographic/map/profile/mideastr.pdf

http://pejman.azadi.googlepages.com/thepersiangulf&itsname —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.247.189.210 (talk) 11:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC).

Okay, yes we know its called the Persian Gulf. But this is about the Arab states of the Persian Gulf. That's why it says Arab Gulf states and not Arabian Gulf states. --Jungli 13:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Page move

Latest comment: 16 years ago18 comments10 people in discussion

The page move was done unilaterally and without much discussion or a proper consensus. "Persian Gulf States" generates 138,000 google hits, while "Arab Gulf States" only generates 97,000 google hits, therefore "Persian Gulf States" is the more common name and should be used as the title in Wikipedia. I am reverting the the unilateral page move, if you want a page move, propose it and let there be a long discussion to reach a consensus. --Mardavich 11:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Google gives more hits for 'Persian Gulf states' than 'Arab Gulf states', so what?? They are different things. Persian Gulf states includes Iran, whereas Arab Gulf states only includes the Arab states of the Persian Gulf. However, there are far higher google hights for "Arab Gulf states" than "Persian Gulf Arab states" which is why this was selected. Plus, there are plenty academic works which refer to it as the "Arab Gulf states" (see Further Reading section of aricle). --Jungli 13:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
There was a formal process that led to the page move; it was not unilateral at all. Jungli is right about the difference between "Persian Gulf States" and "Arab Gulf States". BTW, this issue has nothing to do with the name of the Persian Gulf.--Pharos 11:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
No, Jungli is incorrect about that. Iran is not included in the Persian Gulf States, [1]
  1. ^ "Persian Gulf Sates: Country studies" by Federal Research Division, Library of Congress (1995)

--Rayis 00:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Page name is correct as it is "The Arab Gulf" states, not the Persian Gulf states! is Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, UAE, Qatar and Oman are Persian states or calling this sea as Persian Gulf? No! They are Arab States and calling this sea as the Arabian Gluf... that's why it makes logic in keeping the name of this page as it is and not politicalizing it as other pages related to this area. Ralhazzaa 04:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
the NPOV name of this article is "Arab states of Persian Gulf", when ever I have time, I will propose the move. --Pejman47 12:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
"Arab states of Persian Gulf"!! I think it is ponitless and obvious way to politicalize the article in total and start new Edit War here... Maybe someone else will come to say: "Arab states of Eastern part of the Persian Gulf of the Middle East of the Earth of the Solar System.....". We are here talking about the Arab Gulf States.. not about the Persian Gulf! There is already a Wikilinke to that sea within the article, if u mean geography should be mentioned. Cool down buddy Ralhazzaa 05:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
That is the correct neutral name. Arab States of the Persian Gulf or Persian Gulf Arab States. I believe it should be moved. Arab Gulf can be intrepreted as Arabian Gulf and that is not neutral. Either way Persian Gulf states gets more hit. It seems the original people who moved the page by two votes casted did not consider this issue. --alidoostzadeh 17:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Oppose--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 17:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
It is not vote yet, so keep your opinions till then. --alidoostzadeh 19:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Self-generated POVs are not neutral! Sorry to say that your "suggestion" is not logical, basically. Ralhazzaa 20:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
There is no self-generating POV here and you will not be the only one voting on the issue. I can cite a good amount of books that use this term. It is fact. "Arab States" of the "Persian Gulf". And sure enough it has been used in academia. It is easy to find a great deal of books using this neutral name. All three "Arab Gulf States", "Persian Gulf Arab States" and "Arab States of the Persian Gulf" have been used in academia. The current name was changed by just two votes casted by two people. I was not part of that consensus as many other users weren't. So now it needs to be changed. So basically Sorry to say that your "opposition" is not logical, basically. --alidoostzadeh 20:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
this something else if u want to throw the table! But if u was talking with me regarding doing resource search, then I want to tell u that it is not here the palce for your original researches. Better you post it in your blog. Ralhazzaa 06:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
It is not a place for your original research either. For example claiming "Persian Gulf Arab States" or "Arab States of the Persian Gulf" are not used in academia is definitely OR by you. --alidoostzadeh 00:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

"Arab Gulf" States? Excuse me, but where is the "Arab Gulf"? Are we talking about the Arabian Sea? Or the Gulf of Oman? I cannot locate an "Arab Gulf" on any standard map. Please clarify. Thank You.--129.111.64.135 23:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Then read the article and u will know.. or even ask someone wise enough if u don't trust here! (u r invited to be a real Wikipedian.. not only setting in San Antonio and post useless comments.. this is not a blog) Ralhazzaa 06:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Perhaps that's an abbreviation! The correct and/or complete name is Arabian Persian Gulf States or Arabian states of Persian Gulf.--Alborz Fallah 06:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
If you are really here to read and acquire knowledge, then you can find that what u r looking for here. But if some readers are coming to here fight, just for the sake of fighting, then this is not the right place for them. All the Best, Ralhazzaa 13:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Requested move (2007)

Latest comment: 16 years ago22 comments8 people in discussion
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.


Adding move tag per WP:RM. Please discuss. This is not necessarily a poll--Zereshk 00:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

  • The article specifically mentions "Arab Gulf" in capitalized letters, which is meant to imply that a body of water by that name exists, which does not. Please refrain from politicizing Wikipedia articles.--Zereshk 23:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I did various searches. I think the best term is "Arab States of the Persian Gulf". Persian Gulf States or Arab Gulf States or Arab Persian Gulf States and etc.. all seem a little POV'ish for the name. The term "Arab States of the Persian Gulf" has been used by hundreds of Academic books and it doesn't cause any sort of controversy. I'll mention some of these books: A) Countries of the World and Their Leaders - Page 851- United States Dept. of State. Office of Media Services - 1977

A) (The Gulf War and the New World Order: International Relations of the Middle East - Page 308 by by Ismael, Tareq Y., Jacqueline S. Ismael ) 1994 C) The Empire of the Raj: India, Eastern Africa and the Middle East, 1858-1947 by Robert J. Blyth -2003 - Page 248 D) The Reckoning: Iraq and the legacy of Saddam Hussein - Page 360- by Mackey, Sandra - 2002 - E) The Persian Gulf in the Twentieth Century - Page 204-by John Marlowe - 1962 F) Handbook Of The Middle East by Michael G. Kort - 2002 - Page 39 G) Soviet Naval Diplomacy - Page 375 by James M. McConnell, Bradford Dismukes - 1979 H)A Present of Things Past - Page 90 by Theodore Draper - 2002 I) Islamism and Secularism in North Africa - Page 191 by Douglas Ruedy - 1996 J) Diplomacy in the Middle East: The International Relations of Regional and Outside Powers - Page xxvii by Leon Carl Brown - 2004 K) Diplomacy of Power: Soviet Armed Forces as a Political Instrument - Page 501 by Stephen S. Kaplan - L) Towards the Conceptualisation of Maritime Development: Legal and Technical Aspects of a ... - Page 18 by Nuno Sergio Marques Antunes - 2003 M) .. There are many more.

--alidoostzadeh 03:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

  • I agree that the best term is Arab States of the Persian Gulf for the same reasons mentioned above. Houshyar 04:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
It is different, in difinition. The two articles talk about something different, that's why I oppose the merging. Ralhazzaa 05:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  • "Arab states of Persian Gulf" is more informative ! If Arabic states themselves use this title as "Arab Gulf States", that's an internal terminology and there is no need to write a different Wiki-page for that: by merging or moving it with the international name, the informative mission of wikipedia is being fulfilled.--Alborz Fallah 08:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
What is proposed by others is more disordered and politicalized title. If u don't like this tilte, then go and enjoy in the Persian Gulf States that should be including Iran and Iraq. This article here is entitled as used in the Arab world and widely used by other nations. By the way, what do u mean by "internal terminology" and where did u find this term in WP? Anyway, there is a policy in WP related with this issue telling how we shold use the common name that some users here want to make it fuzzy. This policy requires to use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things. In this article, it is a name has a specisifc background of countries similar in economy, culture, traditions, state's system that is unique in that area. Even closest neighbouring countries admit this. Moreover, it is a common name and more conventional and widely used in Arab countries and many other nations. Including Iran and Iraq will take out the focus of this articel and the title will become without weight. If u want to politicalize this issue then go to mass-media, the UN, parliaments of the world, lobby groups...etc. but not in WP as it is not Political System. regards, Ralhazzaa 14:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
The original name was something else. Two users (one of them a sock probably) can not change the name by themselves. Also the name suggests something else. Your reasoning is not sound. Of course wikipedia is not a democracy, but 2 people changing it without any consensus is dictatorial. The other terminologies brought so far are widely used as well, and they have no political overtone. --alidoostzadeh 16:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
No politics?! OK! Then, drop it here and go develop the page Persian Gulf States if you want to project on Iran and Persian-related issues. Ralhazzaa 17:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
That's a Misnomer to call the known entity of "Persian gulf" as "The Gulf" ! When we are speaking about the Arab states of the Persian gulf it's abbreviation may became "Arab states of the Gulf " and that to the "Arab Gulf states" : all of this is only using vulgar terminology . That's just as using the word Xerox as an alternative for Photocopy: no problem is mentioning that in Wikipedia , but no new page ! --Alborz Fallah 17:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Yeah! hope others can reach this point and not direct it to where it shouldn't go. Best,

Ralhazzaa 17:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

If "where it shouldn't go " means not to merge , I'm advocating to move it , but to mention that (Arab Gulf states)is equivalent to Arabian states of Persian Gulf والسلام. --Alborz Fallah 20:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
This is the best solution actually. Since there is no POV here. It seems the page was moved from it's original name by two people. One of the people definitely had a POV (the one who proposed it). --alidoostzadeh 01:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I meant it should stay like this as it is not exactly what is included in the other article. The naming is not disputing as the article text is clarifying this with no doubts. Oppose to move as it against WP rules shown above. Ralhazzaa 04:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Note to alidoostzadeh: if the system here is not going with your POV, you can't easily charge the editors being sock-puppets. It is better for you not to be a conspiracy theorist but to assume good faith. While in the same time being a defender for IP/Pejman.Azadi double edits. Ralhazzaa 04:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

The only one opposing name change right now is you. Furthermore, it is obvious the person who proposed the name change was not neutral and only one person voted for it. Unless there is a new consensus, the page should go back to it's original name.--alidoostzadeh 11:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
It is clear that some users are opposing your proposed changes as it is smells for political reasons. Those editors showed their opinion and go to build -not destroy- in other places through WP. Please save your efforts and don't try to go over WP rules shown above. Ralhazzaa 07:49, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Actually I support Ali's decision to rename the page and I think you misunderstood me:we have to rename the page , but also to mention "Arab Gulf States" in the body of the text.--Alborz Fallah 17:49, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
It is much better for you to avoid dictating words through your comments in WP. Here, we are not receiving orders! Words like We have to doesn't work here and doesn't help your history profile too much. This encyclopedia is not owned by u or any Iranian body/organization/government to extend your POV here and keep ignoring the rules of WP shown above. If you want to violate the rules of WP, I'm not sure what will happen for your account, but there are legal process anyway u can read it in your Welcome message posted in your Personal Page. If your motivation in WP is to develop articles related to Iran, then go and develop Persian Gulf States that is widely different from here. Thanks for your understanding. Ralhazzaa 07:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
  • These 2 artickles are about the same thing, Persian Gulf States doesn't invlude Iran and Irak either. The Honorable Kermanshahi 09:18, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Move to Arab States of the Persian Gulf or merge with Persian Gulf States as the common English name of the region is Persian Gulf. AlexanderPar 07:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

This article has been renamed from Arab Gulf States to Arab states of the Persian Gulf as the result of a move request. --Stemonitis 09:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Title

Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Arab Gulf States seems like a much more common name from google.--Pharos 04:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


Iraq

Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

I'd like to talk about this, This article is about the Arab states of the Gulf not the GCC (Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Persian Gulf) so here we are talking about a geography facts which is Iraq have a shore on the Golf so here by i added Iraq to the list. --MJKubba|talk|contributions 00:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay but you've just added the phrase "And Iraq" at the end, and at the moment it doesn't form a proper sentence. Ordinary Person (talk) 02:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
I put it in a separate line. Okay? ````Ordinary Person (talk) 03:12, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks mate --MJKubba|talk|contributions 12:51, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

article title

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

not once have i heard the terminology of "Arab states of the persian gulf", living in the region, and listening to its daily news, i believe the common terminology for the region is the "Arab Gulf States", and i believe this is the terminology that should be used on wikipedia too, since it is very neutral from naming the gulf's name, which is a current disputed issue between Persians and Arabs, and it also refers to the Arab states, of the gulf... i believe the article should be redirected under the name Arab Gulf States Arab League User (talk) 06:33, 10 August 2009 (UTC)--

Requested move to Arab Gulf states (2010)

Latest comment: 13 years ago17 comments14 people in discussion
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page not moved. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 13:48, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Arab states of the Persian Gulf → Arab Gulf states — The term "Arab Gulf states" is overwhelmingly the more commonly used name to describe this region to the extent that it is the convention in the English-language, especially in the English language academia. For example, a search in Google Books for "Arab Gulf States" returns 21,900 results, while a search for the current title of "Arab states of the Persian Gulf" returns only 2,310 results. This difference should be sufficient to show where the convention lies, even if some people regard it as being POV. In this regard, I quote from the article section Wikipedia:Article titles#Non-neutral_but_common_names about "Non-neutral but common names":

"In such cases, the commonality of the name overrides our desire to avoid passing judgment (see below). This is acceptable because the non-neutrality and judgment is that of the sources, and not that of Wikipedia editors."

I submit that this is such a case where the commonality of the term "Arab Gulf states" overrides the perceived non-neutrality of the term that some people may feel it has. Arabbi (talk) 14:45, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

  • Support "Arab Gulf states" is the most commonly used terminology. Using this terminology also (incidently) circumvents the Persian Gulf naming dispute since this terminology can imply both Arab [Persian] Gulf states or Arab Gulf states. The Celestial City (talk) 16:36, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment. Without weighing in on this issue, I would like to point to the past discussions and recommend either involving some of the other posters if they're still around, or possibly an RfC so there can be no accusations of POV pushing. Culture of the Arab States of the Persian Gulf and any other relevant articles should be included in the move if it is done. Whatever the outcome, a commented-out warning at the top of the article(s) is probably best given recent edits. Recognizance (talk) 20:32, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Support I have to agree according to the WP:COMMONNAME, it states that it goes by most common name, and "Arab Gulf states" is much more common —Preceding unsigned comment added by Poohunter (talk • contribs) 06:54, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Perhaps even use Gulf states, which redirects here and may be the most common term. Ucucha 15:51, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Comment Gulf states should not redirect here. It's missing Iran, for instance, which isn't Arab. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 08:07, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
      • I would also support "Gulf states", although I think "Arab Gulf states" is better. That Iran isn't included isn't relevent, as depite bordering the Gulf it is not uaually considered to be a Gulf state, in the way the UAE and others are. The same also applies to Iraq, also bordering the Gulf but not a Gulf state. The Celestial City (talk) 11:19, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose 1-Search engine test bias : a-Longer name may return less results in search engine test . That means "Arab Gulf states" results will naturally have more results than the longer "Arab states of the Persian Gulf" regardless of the meaning or naming policy b- Technical bias : The words "Arab Gulf states" has independent meaning with common use , without relation to proper noun of Council (GCC) , but "Arab states of the Persian Gulf" is a proper noun that has no other usage and that is natural when we compare a proper noun with a common , popular phrase the results will go wrong . 2-Search engine tests have weakness on ground of neutral point of view ( WP:Search engine and Neutrality ), but Wikipedia does care about it ! About the using of the name "Arab Gulf" and "Persian Gulf" , there is an ongoing dispute between two points of views and selecting one result in this article without attention to that discussion is against WP:NPOV.--Alborz Fallah (talk) 08:35, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Then please propose an alternative test that proves that the current name of the article is more commonly used than "Arab Gulf states". --Arabbi (talk) 09:20, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Because the request for move have been discussed earlier (Talk:Arab_states_of_the_Persian_Gulf#Requested_move_.282007.29), I think moving it needs evidence , but not moving is current situation and it's discussion is mentioned above .--Alborz Fallah (talk) 10:14, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose: I strongly disagree with the page move. The previous moving discussion is obviously enough not to move the page. But in addition, I would like to mention that UNITED NATIONS GROUP OF EXPERTS ON GEOGRAPHICAL NAMES is using the expression Persian Gulf Southern States to refer to the "Arabic states of Persian Gulf".[1]. --Aliwiki (talk) 00:17, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose: The standard and conventional name is Persian Gulf. The full name is Arab states of the Persian Gulf , and other variations are just short versions of of the same title. Kurdo777 (talk) 04:14, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose The intenationally recognized name even by UN is Persian Gulf and the most correct full name should be Arab states of the Persian Gulf Penom (talk) 11:42, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose The current title Arab states of the Persian Gulf does not need any changes. It precisely refers to the content of the article itself. Which is Arab states that are located around the Persian Gulf. CoverMyIP (talk) 12:28, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose The correct name is Persian Gulf. --Wayiran (talk) 15:39, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose There may be lots of different ways to call the "Arab States of the Persian Gulf", but none is certainly more sound and logical than the current name. Armaiti (talk) 03:51, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The Section on Water

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Anyone read that part of the article? It's not very well written. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.146.186 (talk) 15:01, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Dr. Peeters's comment on this article

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Dr. Peeters has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:


I am not sure about the statements about the language that is stated to be Gulf Arabic. [Ps I had three years courses in Arab and never heard about this; there are many different Arab languages.]

Iraq does not belong to the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC). The second graph states this, but the first graph includes Iraq but not, e.g. Yemen. I think the title is misleading. The GCC is an institution, but the "Arab states of the Persian Gulf" is not.

Instead of "All of these Arab states have significant revenues from petroleum..." it seems better to write that these countries depend on oil. Nowadays their revenues are low, due to the low oil prices. The economies are vulnerable since they are not diversified.

The whole section on the economy could benefit from rewriting. E.g. the fact that the HDI is high for Bahrain is a statement unrelated to the other sentences.


We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

Dr. Peeters has published scholarly research which seems to be relevant to this Wikipedia article:


  • Reference : Peeters, Marga, 2010. "The changing pattern in international trade and capital flows of the Gulf cooperation council countries in comparison with other oil-exporting countries," MPRA Paper 23539, University Library of Munich, Germany.

ExpertIdeas (talk) 15:07, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Arab states of the Persian Gulf. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:51, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Requested move (2006)

Latest comment: 7 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was moved. enochlau (talk) 11:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Persian Gulf Arab States → Arab Gulf states — "Arab Gulf states" is the more correct term. It does NOT imply that the "Persian Gulf" is called the "Arab Gulf", but points to the Arab countries of the Persian Gulf. Google produces far more results for "Arab Gulf states" (88,000 vs 600). There are also several scholarly books by experts (eg Gregory Gause [2]) who refer to them as "Arab Gulf states" (see Persian Gulf Arab States#Further reading) Jungli 19:16, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add  * '''Support'''  or  * '''Oppose'''  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.


Discussion

Why should this not be merged (under either name) into Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf, as the simplest clearly correct name? — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Because the Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf (GCC) is an organization, where the Arab Gulf states is a cultural/geographical region. This is in the same way that the European Union is an organization, whereas Europe is a cultural/geographical region. The two are very different. --Jungli 02:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
But they cover the same area. (And it's a political/geographical region, as it consists of countries, rather than a cultural/geographical region.)
Add any additional comments:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
It is not true, Turkish people who live in the side of the European, are not called ( European ). The six gulf countries have the same Khaliji (music), Khaliji arabic, Khaleeji culture, life styles, etc.. In arabic when we say ( خليجيين ) we mean only the people of GCC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by منيف (talk • contribs) 05:56, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Arab states of the Persian Gulf. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:08, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Arab states of the Persian Gulf. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:34, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Arab Gulf States is more popular according to google search engine

Latest comment: 5 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

As per google search engine the "Arab Gulf States" name has more results than "Arab states of the Persian Gulf" which is too long and impractical in fact the only reason to use this "long name" is to say it is "persian gulf" not "arabian gulf" and this is Non-academic work at all.. Finally as Per Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion this "long name" must be reconsidered --Kayyond (talk) 03:55, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

It is a translation from Arabic . If it becames long , its the nature of translation . If you want to use a short name , "Gulf states" is more practical , but ambiguous .--Alborz Fallah (talk) 10:44, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Are we obliged to adopt the Arabic name? aren't they call it "Arabian Gulf"? Well, I really doubt that this name "is a translation from Arabic". --Kayyond (talk) 03:38, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Hope that this will be enough --Kayyond (talk) 03:49, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

it's regarded a birth place of holy prophet s.w.a. Regards Maqbool ahmed sifu (talk) 06:00, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Rename to Gulf Arab states

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Gulf Arab states is the common name and also more useful. It also doesn't make it an issue with regards to the Persian Gulf naming dispute, which for example Arab Gulf states (also used frequently) would. --IRISZOOM (talk) 13:37, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Its 2019 and the title still hasn’t changes.. why? Mohaamd 7 (talk) 22:59, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Arab media

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

In Arab Media It's called Arabian Gulf region[1][2], or Arabian Gulf states "دول الخليج العربي".[3][4]--صقر الجارية (talk) 08:26, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

This is the English Wikipedia, not Arabic. HistoryofIran (talk)

References

  1. ^ https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/arabian-gulf-region
  2. ^ https://www.igi-global.com/dictionary/successes-in-the-development-of-an-arabian-gulf-materials-program/46916
  3. ^ https://arabic.sputniknews.com/arab_world/202012041047406861-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A3%D8%B1%D8%AF%D9%86-%D9%8A%D8%B1%D8%AD%D8%A8-%D8%A8%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D8%B5%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AD%D8%A9-%D8%A8%D9%8A%D9%86-%D8%AF%D9%88%D9%84-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AE%D9%84%D9%8A%D8%AC-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B9%D8%B1%D8%A8%D9%8A%D8%A9-%D9%88%D9%8A%D8%A3%D9%85%D9%84-%D9%81%D9%8A-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AA%D9%88%D8%B5%D9%84-%D8%A5%D9%84%D9%89-%D8%A7%D8%AA%D9%81%D8%A7%D9%82-%D9%86%D9%87%D8%A7%D8%A6%D9%8A--/
  4. ^ https://www.dailysabah.com/arabic/arab-world/2020/11/23/%D8%A7%D8%AC%D8%AA%D9%85%D8%A7%D8%B9-%D9%88%D8%B2%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%A1-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AF%D9%81%D8%A7%D8%B9-%D9%81%D9%8A-%D8%AF%D9%88%D9%84-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AE%D9%84%D9%8A%D8%AC-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B9%D8%B1%D8%A8%D9%8A-%D8%A8%D9%85%D8%B4%D8%A7%D8%B1%D9%83%D8%A9-%D9%82%D8%B7%D8%B1

Confusing article; The culture section (and much of the article content) need to be rewritten.

Latest comment: 3 years ago16 comments2 people in discussion

While the article title refers to the Arab states of the Persian Gulf (That is, the GCC + Iraq), much of the article reads as if it refers to Eastern Arabia (the historical Al-Bahrain region) which doesn't include Oman, nor most of Saudi Arabia (Najd, Hijaz, Asir) or Iraq.

Come to think of it, what purpose does this article serves in the first place? This is not a common Wikipedia article (as in, it doesn't follow Wikipedia customary standard for listing of states: There isn't an article for 'Arab states of the Levant' or 'Caucasian states of the Caspian sea'). But if we look at how standard articles are written they're either grouped geographically: 'List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Europe' or politically: 'Member state of the European Union'.

Which begs the question if this article satisfy one of the forementioned categorization listed above. There already exist the following articles:

  1. 'Member states of the Gulf Cooperation Council': A listing of the GCC sovereign states.
  1. 'Eastern Arabia': for the specific Persian Gulf region of Arabia (a much better written article) + 'Arabian Peninsula': for the entire geographical region that includes also Oman and much of Saudi Arabia.
  1. 'Gulf Cooperation Council': for the organization mentioned in this article when it comes to politics, freedom of press, and the economy which is much more relevant to rewrite those section in the GCC article.
  1. 'Culture of Eastern Arabia': deals with the culture of the Al-Bahrain region.

I was thinking of editing this article to clean it up but honestly I'm at a loss at where to start and felt confused which is why I'm discussing this here, would love to hear your opinion guys :) A Contemporary Nomad (talk) 17:05, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

It's an odd article at first glance, but there are a couple of sources that do treat the states as a joint topic of discussion. There's geopolitical and economic significance to the grouping. There's undoubtedly strong cultural ties and historical ties too, and as you note those ties have their own article (although also of not the greatest quality). I would agree that a lot of the content here probably extends beyond the potential remit of this article and would be better covered elsewhere, such as details about individual political structures and so on, unless the source does relate it to the regional grouping or to the influence of the Gulf (eg. transport links, oil). CMD (talk) 17:21, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
But here where it gets confusing, which grouping do we mean? There are currently two in this article that are being used interchangeably (wrongly so, as I will explain why). If you meant the modern socio-political 'Khaleeji/Gulf states' term used by sources it's satisfied by the 'GCC' and 'Member states of the Gulf Cooperation Council' this article also lumps Iraq under the socio-political term which is false. If however you meant an inhabitant of Eastern Arabia (Al-Bahrain) which the article alludes to, than this article also wrongly lumps Oman (Oman proper and Dhofar are not part of Al-Bahrain), much of Saudi and again Iraq.... And we have an article that discuss Eastern Arabia and the history of Arab states along the shores of the Persian Gulf. I'm sorry but I don't see this as a standard grouping, it's too broad in it's cultural scope (in relation to Eastern Arabia) and too narrow in its political definition.
In my opinion the solution to the problem is to divide the elephant into much smaller chunks to deal with. First, in the geographic scope what groups the GCC countries together is the Arabian Peninsula, an actual geographical region that includes the Persian Gulf coast, Oman proper, Najd, and Hijaz. Then for the political definition what those sources refer to by 'Gulf countries' is the Gulf Cooperation Council a group of sate actors that share a political structure (absolute monarchies) and under the GCC umbrella have been an active actor in Middle Eastern affairs in the last half century or so. We have two articles to satisfy that grouping, the organization main article, as well as the Wikipedia standard 'Member states of the Gulf Cooperation Council', to which much of this article refers to, leading to this confusion. A Contemporary Nomad (talk) 17:47, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
I would also like to state that this is the same reason why we don't have an article for 'Arab states of the Levant' even though there are multiple sources that refer to the Levant (or A'Sham) in a historical and political sense. Especially when it's relevant in modern history (Arab-israeli conflict, Syrian civil war...etc), Levantian Arabs have a cultural identity, shared history. And yet we don't break WP:Notability to group them, even though I could write a whole list with relevant sources on Arab states of the Levant (fear not, I won't :p) A Contemporary Nomad (talk) 18:02, 17 April 2021 (UTC)


Update: Merged and rewrote the culture section in the Eastern Arabia article. Also rewrote soapbox speech and removed unreliable sources. A Contemporary Nomad (talk) 22:22, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

The Freedom of press section is ridiculous. Kuwait has recently introduced a 'cybercrime law' to target the opposition. Frankly that section is written... 'weirdly', as in in what way are those Gulf states 'better' in freedom of press by ranking compared to their regional neighbors who are absolute dictatorships like Iran and Saudi? I will merge it under 'Human rights in Kuwait', 'Human rights in Qatar'...etc and rewrite them to meet WP:Neutrality standards. A Contemporary Nomad (talk) 23:58, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
The grouping covered would be the seven states covered by the article, as established in some of the sources. It overlaps with other groupings, as all groupings do, but presumably this was created because it was found in some relevant sources. CMD (talk) 04:42, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Can you please specify which grouping? The current sources linked in the article refers to GCC countries excluding Iraq which this article alludes to by grouping the Arab states along the Persian Gulf, in fact, Iraq was/is only mentioned in the introduction of the article only to point out that it's not a member state of the GCC. To what purpose does this grouping serve when the article content only refers to GCC member states. And before merging the culture section it was even specific to Eastern Arabia#culture.A Contemporary Nomad (talk) 05:04, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
The Arab states of the Persian Gulf? I don't understand this question. If the article content isn't up to snuff the article content isn't up to snuff, but that's a separate point to the topic of the article. CMD (talk) 05:21, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
It's not a separate point, it's the whole point behind this discussion. The fact that this article lacks content is a symptom of the underlying problem WP:Notability. The article title groups seven Middle Eastern (GCC + Iraq) when such grouping (while mentioned in some sources) only leads to confusion. The article body and content discuss the GCC member state while Iraq only hang in the introduction to notify readers that it's not a part of the GCC. It's neither a socio-geographic grouping nor a political grouping. A Contemporary Nomad (talk) 05:41, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
I've put back the naming issue, that's directly linked to the article topic, probably more than most potential info. Added a source which includes Iraq in the grouping. On Culture, best practice would be to leave a summary here rather so that readers can be directed to the main article, instead of fully removing it. CMD (talk) 05:00, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Excuse me, but how is this sentence relevant to the article which is "supposed to be" the 'Arab states of the Persian Gulf'. The official name is the Persian Gulf and we have an article that discuss the naming dispute, is this supposed to be a fun fact? It reads out of place. Moreover [your new source] doesn't mention that Iraq prefer to use the alternative term, it only mentions Iraq once in the introduction. I'm honestly assuming WP:GOODFAITH on your part but don't see your last action as helpful in cleaning up this article. Please take a look at the article history this edit waring is a symptom not a cause for the current state the article is in. We should clean up this mess by making sure that this article follows Wikipedia standard (take a look at the EU listings articles for example for a much better written WP content). Cheers A Contemporary Nomad (talk) 05:29, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
It's directly relevant because it's one of the issues which unites the relevant countries. It relates to the cultural and geopolitical links in the area. This is not an article about a political bloc, so I'm not sure how the EU comparison relates. CMD (talk) 05:37, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
The naming of a body of water is what unite those countries? I'm sorry @CMD but I don't find your argument convincing at all. I truly don't want to turn this into an edit war so perhaps we should let a third party review this discussion.A Contemporary Nomad (talk) 05:46, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Culture and geopolitics unites the countries, and this is one of the most clear and representative manifestations of such. Don't follow the rapid escalation of the last two posts, but WP:DR has notes about such procedures. CMD (talk) 06:04, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
The article doesn't not cite such cultural grouping. The previous culture section was in reference to Eastern Arabia region which not only exclude Iraq but much of Saudi and Oman as well. The 'Eastern Arabia' article mentions that 'Gulf Arabs' have become a modern socio-political term in reference to GCC member states, with two reliable sources mentioning that. But we also need to expand in Eastern Arabia article and perhaps dedicate a sub-section under the culture section to discuss the modern socio-political identity. This will also solve this article problem. A Contemporary Nomad (talk) 06:17, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

On the inclusion of Iraq in this article (Part 1 of a multi-part series to clean up the article)

Latest comment: 3 years ago28 comments3 people in discussion
This discussion is (part 1) of a series to improve the Arab states of the Persian Gulf article. started in April 2021 by A Contemporary Nomad(Talk). Please feel free to join in the discussion below.
Why is this a multi-part discussion?

@Contemporary Nomad believe that the discussed article suffer from multiple issues (some are unrelated) that makes discussion around improving the article difficult and confusing. Out of belief that process is important @Contemporary Nomad suggests to break up the issues and deal with them one by one in isolation (although not a rule) to make sure the article adhere to WP:NPOV and to reach a consensus on the best course to take to meet Wikipedia policies on verifiability, notability, and neutral point of view.

Please note that this is not a vote but a constructive discussion on the article and its content to reach a consensus. Everyone is encouraged to join in the discussion but please refrain from simply casting a vote.

 * The current discussion revolves around the inclusion of Iraq among the 'Arab states of the Persian Gulf'.

Useful acronyms
Acronym Formal Title
ASPG - Gulf states Arab states of the Persian Gulf
GCC Gulf Cooperation Council

  A short history: This article was created in 5 November 2005 by @Jungli under the title 'Arab states of the Persian Gulf'. Its introduction stated that: 'The Arab Gulf states are a group of six Arab countries that border the Persian Gulf. These countries are Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, Oman and the United Arab Emirates. These six countries form the members of the Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf'. The article remained more or less unchanged (with the exception of a major edit war spilled over from the Persian Gulf naming dispute in Wikipedia) until August 2013 when user @Insomniaingest included Iraq in the article introduction in a series of consecutive edits while also removing the unsourced claim that: 'Saudi Arabia is a hereditary monarchy with limited political representation' (Please note that much of the article was unsourced and remained that way for a long time). @Insomniaingest also added three sources for the inclusion of Iraq. Following the historical pattern of the article, the article remained almost unchanged, again, except for the ongoing WP:WAR with the new additions being swept under the rug. In December 2014 @Sudopeople added a new map to the article which is the same as the old map with the inclusion of Iraq. The issue of Iraq inclusion also became part of the WP:WAR infesting the article with removal and reverts by IP users and Wikipedians.

Definition and WP:COMMONNAME

One of the underlying issues in the article is the ambiguity of the article title and its introduction. Does ASPG refer to a geographical or a socio-political grouping? and which one is more accurate. In order to asses and fix the article issues the article main objective must be properly defined.

The Persian Gulf region is home to eight neighboring countries: Bahrain, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE. Six of those countries are member states of the Gulf Cooperation Council. All of those countries with the exception of Iran are part of the Arab League. Although Iraq status as solely an Arab nation is a matter of contention. Iraq recognize two official languages (Arabic and Kurdish), Iraq is also home for many non-Arab ethnic groups (Kurds, Turkmens, Assyrians, Yazidis, Shabaks, Armenians, Mandaeans, Circassians, Sabians and Kawliya) and the new Iraqi government post-Baathist reign have moved toward stressing Iraq multiethnic heritage.ref However Iraq remains a majority Arabic speaking nation and is referred to as such commonly by the media in its relation with the Arab world.

Geographical argument

The argument in favor of a geographical grouping is based on the premise that such listing is in reference to the Arab states alongside the Persian Gulf, that includes the seven aforementioned nations. Such grouping (Arab states alongside a specific body of water) is unique to wikipedia, as there are no other articles that group arabs as such, not along the Arabian sea, the Red sea, the Mediterranean, and the Atlantic ocean. This path will boil down to [WP:OSE], while avoiding the WP:Standard fallacy it's important to the discussion to clarify whether this is the main article objective or not (WP:N).

Socio-political argument

The argument in favor of a socio-political grouping is based on the premise that the states referenced in the article share a common socio-political identity that makes them notable in the context of Middle Eastern and Arab world. All of the seven aforementioned nations are part of the Arab League a political union that stretch from Western Asia in the Persian gulf all the way to Western North Africa in the Atlantic ocean.

Six of them (Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and UAE) are members of a regional political union called the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC). The GCC countries share many similarities in that they're all absolute monarchies and all are located in the Arabian Peninsula (Eastern Arabia specifically).

In the modern era post-GCC Formation, the Arabic term Khaleeji (خليجي) (literally: 'Gulfi') have come to denote to citizens of the GCC bloc known colloquially as such in the Arab world, even in the press (example: CNN Arabic on Gulf states coronavirus cases) and the popular media (example: Egyptian comedy show on Khaleeji stereotypes). These states share cultural similarities in traditional clothing, language, economics, and modern geopolitical history. The ethnic makeup of the GCC countries is made up of a majority of tribal Arabs who inhabits the Arabian Peninsula (Tribe and State in the Contemporary Arabian Peninsula).

There isn't a regional political union that unites Iraq with the other GCC nations in the Arabian Peninsula.

What the sources say

There are sources that refer to GCC states solely as ASPG and sources that include Iraq in the geographic scope of the Persian gulf. Differentiating between the two is important to understand whether the source refers to the geographic listing or socio-political listing. And which one this articles should be (WP:COMMONNAME).

In order to determine that, we will look at what primary sources refer to when they mention ASPG. We will look at scholarly sources, press (English, Arabic, and Persian), and organizations name/listing.

This will be done in the research section below.


Research

The following is a list of sources that uses the ASPG term to refer to the socio-political grouping of the member states of the GCC:

Scholarly sources

Media sources

Organizations

Discussion

I believe from the evidence illustrated above that the WP:COMMONNAME for ASPG is in reference to the Arab gulf monarchies in the Arabian Peninsula, a unique socio-political categorization that's used in the context of Middle Eastern politics to refer to six Arab countries: Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and UAE, often referred to the group as the 'Gulf States' or 'Gulf monarchies'. — ♾️ Contemporary Nomad (💬 Talk) 02:23, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Common name is about determining the name for the subject of the article, not about working back from the name to determine the subject. The current title is descriptive (WP:NDESC), rather than a particular term. The terms "Gulf states", "Gulf monarchies", and similar are different and should not be considered synonyms with a descriptive title. On the question of scope, removing Iraq would essentially make this article a duplicate/WP:contentfork of Gulf Cooperation Council/Member states of the Gulf Cooperation Council/Eastern Arabia, so if the issue is potential content it would be better to place it on one of those article rather than creating a newly redundant article. CMD (talk) 03:05, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
With all due respect I disagree. First the WP:Redundant issue is a different problem that we can discuss separately. Currently the question is whether 'Arab states of the Persian Gulf' is a geographical or a socio-political term. Whether the WP:COMMONNAME of this article includes Iraq or not. — ♾️ Contemporary Nomad (💬 Talk) 03:17, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
"Arab states of the Persian Gulf" is a descriptive title (WP:NDESC), not a particular point of terminology or a wp:commonname. Iraq fits within the article topic that is being described, and the alternative article topic is already covered by multiple articles. CMD (talk) 03:32, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
So you believe that the title is a geographical term and you call it descriptive, specifically 'Arab' countries alongside the Persian Gulf. I just want to warn that this opens up a Pandora's box on multiple fronts. On 18 April 2021 you wrote that 'It's directly relevant because it's one of the issues which unites the relevant countries. It relates to the cultural and geopolitical links in the area'. Can you explain (or contribute sources) what cultural and geopolitical links that is? — ♾️ Contemporary Nomad (💬 Talk) 03:44, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
It's descriptive, not sure how you're defining if it's geographical or not. My statement was derived from the sources in the article, such as the Guardian one and the Potter 2009 in Further reading. Support for Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war is probably the most obvious moment of geopolitical cooperation, and is the context to the New York Times article currently used. CMD (talk) 04:19, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
@CMD: 'My statement was derived from the sources in the article'. Then let us review the sources together shall we? First, L. G. Potter The Gulf’s Ethnic Diversity: 'At present, no part of the Middle East is as ethnically diverse as the basin of the Persian Gulf-Gulf of Oman-northwest Arabian Sea (henceforth, the "Gulf")'. The book refers to the multiple ethnicities that inhabit East Arabia, South Iraq, and Iran: 'The best examples of this sanctuary quality of Gulf society are found in the extensive Ibadi community2 that dominates Oman; the community of the Sabaeans/Mandians, the last remnant of the Christians of John the Baptist in the world, now surviving only in the marshlands of southern Iraq and Khuzistan; and the continued practice of African animism, most visible in the prevalent rite of Zar, or "voodoo" by the old African communities on the Iranian coast of the Gulf. The survival of languages as ancient as Aramaic, Kumzari, Bashagirdi, and Qeshmi, or as remote as Malayalam, Somali, Ethiopic, and Bantu among the indigenous Gulf inhabitants, further corroborates the same liberal (or indifferent) attitude toward linguistic, religious or racial distinctions observed in that cultural world'. The book is neither about Arabs specifically nor is it about ASPG(You're free to try and dispute this). Thus it's not an evidence for the 'descriptive title' of the article.
Your second source the Guardian article Persian Gulf? Arabian Gulf? One big gulf in understanding: The article only mentions Iraq once in the very first paragraph in the article opening: 'On one side of the water there's Iran, and on the other side a collection of Arab states: Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Oman and the United Arab Emirates'. This is a geographic description of the Persian gulf region, an opening statement to describe the gulf, and includes all eight nations including Iran. The article doesn't mention that Iraq prefer the term 'Arabian Gulf' nor does it alludes to grouping it with the GCC states anywhere in the article body. Again, this source does not support the argument for the 'descriptive title' of the article.(WP:NPOV dispute this if you disagree)
Your final linked source the New York Times article U.S. Official to Tour Persian Gulf Arab Lands (1987): The article discuss US official Richard W. Murphy visit to reassure Persian Gulf states that the United States is "committed to protecting them and the Gulf from Iranian threats". This article alone does not support the WP:N of the 'Persian Gulf Arab lands' article. Here are articles that reference Secretary of State Mike Pompeo visit to the ASPG countries (as Arab Gulf states): Daily Sabah Pompeo defends Gulf state tour, Trump administration's efforts to squeeze Iran: 'US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on Sunday defended his tour of Gulf Arab states and the Trump administration's continued efforts to squeeze Iran, even as a new U.S. administration led by Joe Biden prepares to enter the White House in January'. The Jerusalem Post Pompeo announces a visit to Israel, Gulf countries. We can conclude that the NYT article alone does not support the argument for the descriptive article title nor the 'special relation' between Iraq + the GCC states.
Regarding your WP:OR statement: 'Support for Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war is probably the most obvious moment of geopolitical cooperation' this statement is false: Oman an Arab Gulf state was not supporting Iraq during the war Oman neutrality made it a vital actor in the conflict 'Such policy solidified into secret cease-fire discussions held in Muscat and although formal agreements were never signed, mistrust between Iran and Iraq decreased as a result. Oman maintained these sentiments by rallying hard for peace and for restored relations with Iran at the United Nations, which would eventually coalesce into UN Security Council Resolution 598, ceasing all hostilities in the Iran-Iraq conflict'. Furthermore, this still does not imply a 'special geopolitical link' as you once claimed. Kindly refrain from making false claims unless you intend to support them with verifiable sources, WP:OR is not constructive for this discussion. although I'm always willing to hear your personal theories on the Iraq-Iran war and their implications whether they've created a 'special link' between Arab Gulf states by "geopolitical cooperation" (ironically...) or not, you are always welcome to post those theories in my talk page and we can entertain them together. Regards, — ♾️ Contemporary Nomad (💬 Talk) 05:45, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure what is trying to be conveyed here. What does it mean to make an argument for a descriptive title? How does one "evidence" a descriptive title? How are the sources related to these arguments and evidences? I thought your issue was with the article topic, not the title. That seemed to be what your initial post was about. What exactly is being proposed here, and why? CMD (talk) 06:05, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
What is being proposed here is clear in this section title, introduction, and research. To reach a consensus whether Iraq should be included in the ASPG or not. The addition that occurred in August 2013 without being properly challenged nor discussed is being brought up now. I think you well know the purpose of this discussion as you tried to justify Iraq inclusion based on perceived "geopolitical cooperation", a statement that I pointed as false and you haven't disputed. This question (the inclusion of Iraq) is important for the future of this article and its potential content. — ♾️ Contemporary Nomad (💬 Talk) 06:15, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Okay, in that case, on the question of the article topic, I oppose creating a WP:CONTENTFORK of other existing articles per above, and note again that article titles are determined by article content, not the other way around. CMD (talk) 06:31, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
The WP:CONTENTFORK fallacy is not constructive to the current discussion which is the inclusion of Iraq in ASPG, the fact that there are redundant content elsewhere in wikipedia is not an argument to not exclude Iraq per verifiable sources. @CMD: note again that article titles are determined by article content, not the other way around. I'm afraid that assertion is false... 'Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article. If the subject has not been covered outside of Wikipedia, no amount of improvements to the Wikipedia content will suddenly make the subject notable. Conversely, if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability' You have tried to include Iraq in the subject (WP:N) by using sources that don't support your argument (in the position you've taken) and made a false unverifiable statement to justify the inclusion of Iraq. In this case you cannot use the WP:CF fallacy to improve your position. But, I must say, that it's interesting that you brought up the article content in this discussion. Currently Iraq is only mentioned in the introduction of the article only to point out that Iraq is not part of the GCC.... that's it. The content alone is not an argument either for or against but I find it funny that you brought it up because it doesn't support your argument at all. — ♾️ Contemporary Nomad (💬 Talk) 06:54, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
If you are concerned with notability you should bring this article up at WP:AFD. Notability is not about article titles or WP:COMMONNAME, so I don't understand how it fits into the current discussion. CMD (talk) 07:20, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
It fits the current discussion because some argument against the exclusion of Iraq (like the one you have raised, the "geopolitical cooperation" argument) merit a discussion on whether such subject deserves it own article or not, is it notable or not. It's central to the main issue (On the inclusion of Iraq). As for WP:AFD this is another issue that we will bring up after we reach a consensus on whether Iraq belongs to the article grouping or not. There are many courses of action we can take, but we have to reach a consensus first on this issue. You can speed up this process by acknowledging that there are no special link that unite Iraq with the Gulf states in the Arabian Peninsula. Or you can continue to argue in favor of the inclusion of the August 2013 additions. But kindly don't derail the subject by bringing up the WP:CF fallacy and if you're in favor of the inclusion use WP:V sources. — ♾️ Contemporary Nomad (💬 Talk) 07:38, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Iraq is in the current grouping in the article, and there are already separate articles for the 6 GCC states. If you are concerned about notability you should raise that at the appropriate venue, adjusting an article subject in such a way that it becomes a content fork first before addressing notability is on odd way to lengthen the process. CMD (talk) 08:08, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
@CMD: Iraq is in the current grouping in the article and this is the main issue here, why it was added in August 2013 and if it was a justifiable addition. You keep on assuming that this discussion is about edit-removing Iraq from the grouping, it's not. This discussion is merely to reach a consensus and document the process. The result of this discussion won't be an immediate edit to remove Iraq, as in, your WP:CF fearmongering that you keep bringing up is misplaced as this discussion is not about an action to take but a discussion on the central subject of the article. @CMD: ...odd way to lengthen the process I'm afraid we have to walk through this tedious process and this discussion between you and me is the best example in favor of such process. You still haven't conceded or brought up your position on the argument in favor of Iraq inclusion other than derailing the subject and walking on circles. Again, this discussion is not about WP:AfD or WP:DA this is solely about Iraq grouping in the article subject, an argument which you have officially taken a stance on and haven't expanded on yet. If you think this process is "oddly long" you can always speed it up by bringing the discussion back on your argument for the inclusion, as in, whether to concede or to advocate for the inclusion (which you're always encouraged and welcomed to do). I hope we can solve this civilly and most importantly, rationally. Thanks — ♾️ Contemporary Nomad (💬 Talk) 08:33, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
As noted above, there are sources currently included which present the countries as a group, and to not include Iraq would be a duplication of existing articles. Either the subject is a grouping including Iraq, or the subject is a content fork of the other articles mentioned above. Not sure how noting this is "fearmongering" exactly. If the discussion is result of the discussion is not to edit the article, what is it for? How does simply saying other arguments are misplaced and asking others to "concede" help generate consensus? I'm not sure what the envisioned multi-step process here is exactly, or why there is a need to walk through it, or how this discussion is a point in its favor, but I believe what I've said above is clear enough on what I think is the discussion topic. CMD (talk) 09:16, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
@CMD: 'As noted above, there are sources currently included which present the countries as a group' And as I have demonstrated the sources do not support the unique inclusion of Iraq in this grouping and you didn't dispute that other than ignore the argument and repeat the claim. @CMD: 'and to not include Iraq would be a duplication of existing articles' Irrelevant, I have said multiple times before that this discussion is merely to reach a consensus on the status of Iraq within the grouping, as for consecutive action this is something we will discuss later on. The research in this discussion is around the validity of the grouping in this article and whether Iraq is within it, raising the WP:CF alarm is fearmongering because it's based on the false assumption that this discussion would lead to a specific action to take, when such action will only be reached through teamwork and first defining what terms even mean. @CMD: 'If the discussion is result of the discussion is not to edit the article, what is it for? To reach a consensus on the status of Iraq within this grouping as per this talk research. @CMD: 'How does simply saying other arguments are misplaced and asking others to "concede" help generate consensus?' You're dangerously misrepresenting what I've said (and I advise you not to go down this path). What I wrote is that you have taken (as for now) an open position within this argument, you were in favor of the inclusion of Iraq by citing WP:OR that a special geopolitical cooperation is a defining feature of this article grouping, quote per claim: @CMD: 'Support for Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war is probably the most obvious moment of geopolitical cooperation'. After I disputed your false claim you have ceased to close your position on it or continue to argue in favor of it, this leads to a confusing state for the reader of this discussion. I didn't simply just ask you "to concede" but said that you could either admit that your proposed theory is false or continue to argue in favor of it which you're always welcomed to do in this discussion. WP:EGO does not support anyone here and is unconstructive to the main argument at hand, the inclusion of Iraq within ASPG per the research above. @CMD: 'I'm not sure what the envisioned multi-step process here is exactly' I think it has been adequately explained by now: To reach consensus within this community that will later on be built upon to improve this article status. — ♾️ Contemporary Nomad (💬 Talk) 14:39, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
  Response to third opinion request:
I am responding to a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits on Arab states of the Persian Gulf and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes.
As the article currently stands, Iraq should be included as an Arab state that borders the Persian Gulf.
Regarding arguments against including Iraq: A Contemporary Nomad notes some of Iraq's important geo-political, ethnic, and cultural differences from the other 6 states. These differences are well-sourced and should be included in the article. Substantial similaries should also be included, including the geopolitical cooperation that some GCC states engaged in with Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war and the arguments that some of the states make that the gulf should be called "Arabian". Arguments by A Contemporary Nomad that depend on "Gulf states" being synonymous with "Arab states of the Persian Gulf" are circular reasoning; most of the disagreement here is centered on whether the terms are synonymous.
Regarding aruments for including Iraq: Reasonable readers will anticipate the inclusion of Iraq based on the title, which CMD correctly describes as the kind of "non-judgmental descriptive title" mentioned in WP:NDESC that will not necessarily show up verbatim in reliable sources. The cited sources in the article and in this discussion are sufficient to show that Iraq is considered an "Arab state" and a "Persian Gulf state"—a clear case of meeting reasonable inclusion criteria for this article. The Guardian article is more explicit, including Iraq with the others as an Arab state on the Persian Gulf. Neither of A Contemporary Nomad's counterarguments negate the explicit connection; it isn't relevant that there's no mention of Iraq's stance on "Arabian Gulf" or Iraq's grouping with the GCC.
Regarding content-forking: CMD raised a good-faith point that this article might be an inadvisable CF if Iraq is included. I share CMD's confusion in seeing A Contemporary Nomad reject such arguments as outside the scope of this discussion. If this article is to exist, it should do so without substantially overlapping with other articles. If this article is to cease existing...
Regarding notability: It's entirely possible that this article is not notable. Assuming Iraq is included, this article would fail notability if it has a lack of sources that discuss the 7 states together. If Iraq is excluded, this article's notability is a moot point; it should be merged with an existing article or moved to something like Gulf states (Middle East) (currently a redirect).
I am sure there is still much to debate here, and I encourage both of you to continue while AGF. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 06:37, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
Pinging @A Contemporary Nomad: and @CMD: Firefangledfeathers (talk) 06:48, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for your response @Firefangledfeathers really appreciate it. So I guess we three (@CMD?) at least are in agreement that the subject as it stand, that is, Arab states of the Persian Gulf has notability issues. So what do you guys suggests the best course of action we take, should we WP:Afd or merge with Gulf states or Eastern Arabia which is the geographic boundary (that include the very southern tip of Iraq). Or perhaps a disambiguation page? — ♾️ Contemporary Nomad (💬 Talk) 15:12, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
I haven't stated that I think this article has notability issues, but if you do think it has notability issues, then the correct venue is AfD. CMD (talk) 15:37, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
I also haven't stated that I think this article has notability issues. Notability was discussed in the section, so I wanted to address it. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 15:43, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
Okay... But before going with AfD (or merge) I wanted to make sure that we have reached consensus. Do you guys have any further input, whether in defense of its notability, future action to take...etc — ♾️ Contemporary Nomad (💬 Talk) 15:58, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
Also forgot to mention, @Firefangledfeathers please check out the Guardian opinion piece used as a source for the grouping. I am truly perplexed how that article suggests such a grouping or could be used as a resource to supplement this article. The article mentions the eight nations surrounding the gulf in the very first paragraph and then talk about how 'Arabs' prefer the term the Arabian Gulf without specifying who exactly, the article then alludes that the US started to switch the term to annoy Iran and support Saudi. But this doesn't provide much answers or evidence, does Iraq prefer the term the Arabian gulf as this wikipedia article mention? The Guardian article doesn't say that nor does it explicitly alludes to that. — ♾️ Contemporary Nomad (💬 Talk) 15:59, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
You want to make sure there is consensus for what exactly? On notability, this is an old article with some useful sources so it would be best to cover that in AfD, which you do not need consensus to launch. On future action, it's still unclear what the overall original proposed action was, so I'm not sure what future action is being mooted. CMD (talk) 16:54, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
I wanted to discuss with the community, with you guys, on what to do and how to fix it. I’m new to Wikipedia so not very familiar with the process (although I pride myself as a quick learner) and thought that WP:AfD stands for proposals for deletions which was not what I’m intending to do (I wanted the community opinion). But I acknowledge that I was mistaken, I have just read WP:AfD and checked out the process there and I agree it’s best to submit it there. As for this discussion I honestly didn’t want for it to turn to an immediate action but to reach a consensus and thought that by discussing it perhaps wiki veterans (ME politics editors for example) would take further action. That’s why I was puzzled when you raise the content fork concern because I assumed that you meant that I want to simply remove Iraq from the subject, which was not my intention. — ♾️ Contemporary Nomad (💬 Talk) 17:06, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
A Contemporary Nomad, you're connecting a few issues there. I believe the article is one small piece of evidence that the Arab nations of the Gulf are discussed as a group in reliable sources. If this were the only piece of evidence, I would believe that the article fails notability. I don't claim that the article is evidence that Iraq prefers "Arabian Gulf" and I don't think CMD did either. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 18:15, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
@Firefangledfeathers I didn't say that you claimed that. I was merely pointing out that this opinion piece is not a suitable source for such grouping. And pointing that out to you and any potential readers of this discussion, that the piece in question does not add any valuable insight (you're free to dispute this), it doesn't discuss the Arab countries as a group but in the introduction named all the countries facing the Persian gulf including Iran. It's ambiguous in that it doesn't specify which country/s exactly dispute the name of that specific body of water, nor does it provide any evidence or an insightful info in that regards. The article main subject is about the Saudi-Iranian proxy war and how the USA use of a specific naming signal a political action in US part.
If this wasn't such a contentious issue I would have personally removed that sentence from the article but @CMD insist that it's important somehow. I won't dispute the importance of the naming issue but can anyone please find a source that the current Iraqi goverment prefer the alternative naming because I couldn't find any. As it stands, the sentence could be confusing at best, dishonest at worst. Perhaps the best course of action is to add a More citations needed tag in the article. Will do that now. — ♾️ Contemporary Nomad (💬 Talk) 18:29, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Recent major edits

Latest comment: 2 years ago27 comments3 people in discussion

Pinging @A Contemporary Nomad, Chipmunkdavis, and Rsk6400: as recent editors. A Contemporary Nomad, your major re-work is clearly contested by CMD, and I have not yet been able to sort out which parts of your edits are improvements and which aren't. As per WP:BRD, can you please self-revert (if no one gets to it first) and bring your thoughts here to build consensus. In the aftermath of an AfD that didn't go your way, it's hard not to see such a massive deletion as retaliatory. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 04:44, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm actually pretty content with the Afd discussion result. I have presented my thoughts and highlighted that the article do in fact needs a cleanup. After the Afd discussion have ended I've resumed my work on restructuring the article to clean it up, remove WP:SYNTH content and clarify the history of the term. In the aftermath of an AfD that didn't go your way, it's hard not to see such a massive deletion as retaliatory. The AfD didn't not go my way..? I have raised the issue there specifically wanting the opinion of the community as I have discussed it in here beforehand. And why would you assume it's retaliatory and claiming it's "massive deletion" when it's not? — ♾️ Contemporary Nomad (💬 Talk) 04:52, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
I will work on a response to your points. In the meantime, will you please self-revert per BRD? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 04:55, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Take your time, honestly I find your bad faith assumption that you've opened the talk with is pretty concerning. And I did self revert at 04:56 after writing my reply, I do prefer discussion and process — ♾️ Contemporary Nomad (💬 Talk) 05:10, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Didn't see this reply as I was formulating my own. Let me know if the response below doesn't address your concerns. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 05:20, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for self-reverting! Taking your points in reverse order: I think "massive deletion" is a fair description of removing over a third of an article; it's not a judgment statement, as there are often good reasons to remove content. I didn't assume your edits were retaliatory, I explained that it's difficult to see them as otherwise. You may not see it this way, but I think rational observers would question whether AfD proposal→Keep Close→Massive deletion→Edit reverted→Re-revert is retaliatory. Regarding the AfD, I stand by my general assumption that AfD proposers support deletion.
I have not stopped assuming that you are editing in good faith and see your self-revert as good evidence to support that assumption. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 05:18, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Well, If you go to the Afd discussion and read my comments you would find out that: A- I didn't propose deletion, from the opening statement I have made it clear that I wanted the community opinion for a solution, be it redirection, deletion or merging: Should the article be up-merged or deleted? B- The point stands that the article in question needs a massive cleanup, yes I did remove two-thirds of it which was a synth of countries summaries that do not belong here (not to mention they were poorly written but that's irrelevant since the fact that it's WP:SYNTH merit their deletion) do you contend with that? I'm willing to start a discussion on it. So should we discuss it as a whole or section by section? And finally C- The article have to mention that this term 'Arab states of the Persian Gulf' has been used in different contexts throughout history, even in the Afd discussion the keep crowd recognized that. — ♾️ Contemporary Nomad (💬 Talk) 05:28, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
I am ok with ending the AfD rehash if you are! If you you want, we can discuss that at one of our user talk pages. For your changes, I would suggest either section-by-section discussion or that you make incremental edits, starting with those you believe to be the least controversial. If someone reverts them, that's a sign that discussion needs to happen. To be clear, I do dispute at least part of your overhaul. For example, I don't believe the removal of the Freedom of press section to be justified on the grounds of WP:SYNTH. Other editors, perhaps more active ones or AfD participants, may have more to say. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 05:49, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
I would favor a section by section discussion using my edit as a template, for the definition list it has to be included in the article to address the fact that the sources might be referring to multiple different states as the cited references point out. To be clear, I do dispute at least part of your overhaul. For example, I don't believe the removal of the Freedom of press section to be justified on the grounds of WP:SYNTH. Can you please explain how so? The sources cited do not talk about the region as a whole but individual states, I also seriously contend with the content presented since it reads like whitewashing the Gulf states freedom of speech. The section should be discussed at each specific country politics/human rights article and in the GCC article as well. I also seriously doubt what's presented in this section since it has problematic statements: Both organizations rank Kuwait's press as the most free of all Arab states of the Persian Gulf and, in fact, rank amongst the top three most free press in the Arab world which might not be wrong per se, but mislead the reader with the "wording" of the paragraph. If it were presented on the human rights page in Kuwait and the rest of the states that would be another matter (and hopefully WP:NPOV rewritten) — ♾️ Contemporary Nomad (💬 Talk) 06:04, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Synth is not a source talking about a particular topic. Synth is when multiple sources are combined to say something none says themselves. Changing the topic of an article is not cleanup, again, article titles are dependent on article content, not the other way around. CMD (talk) 10:24, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
The sections removed are a collection of specific countries sources to build content on under the guise of being under the article grouping when it’s not. Can you point otherwise? The sections on politics, free speech, and economy should be in the specific countries article and the GCC human rights article (and main article) otherwise it’s a content fork. And by Synth we mean that the citation themselves are not part of the article subject (the Arab states of the Persian gulf). The article should reflect on the history of the term as well it’s part of the subject. If there isn’t a sound argument for the inclusion of the deleted sections I will rev your edit. And please, if you can present your argument for the sections inclusion under the section header in this talk page it would make organizing this discussion much easier. Thanks — ♾️ Contemporary Nomad (💬 Talk) 11:03, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Why did you remove the maintenance tags from the previous article? — ♾️ Contemporary Nomad (💬 Talk) 11:13, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
I was restoring the content, the tags can be restored too if needed. The above definition of is mistaken, synth refers to making specific points which are not in their sources (see WP:SYNTH), which has not been demonstrated here, and overview articles are not content forks (see WP:CFORK and WP:SS). No synth has been presented for any of the relevant sections, so a separate message for each one on the grounds of synth doesn't seem productive. On inclusion, all seem reasonable topics for the region and are covered in various country articles as you mention (although this is not to say they are in the optimal organizational structure). CMD (talk) 11:28, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
I strongly disagree. So is the article going to be a collection of irrelevant content based on the countries listing? Should we add Climate, Mining in the Persian Gulf region, science and technology...etc? With all due respect maintaining them would only make the article in a worse position. I would have up-merged them to their relevant articles if it wasn't for the fact that they're poorly written and some has NPOV issue like I've mentioned to @Firefangledfeathers on the "Freedom of Press" section. The point stands, countries summaries content do not make for an overview article, and I seriously doubt it's up for Wikipedia standards either. — ♾️ Contemporary Nomad (💬 Talk) 11:43, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Sure, possibly reasonable additions. It might not be the optimal arrangement as I mentioned, but it's not synth. See other articles such as North America, Middle East, South Asia and so on which often devolve into country-by-country proseline with more specific sourcing. CMD (talk) 11:53, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
An "Overview article" is not a catch-all term for an article to be treated like a rug to sweep content under, even broad concept articles have a comprehensive subject with content built around it (WP:BCA). You have not defended the old sections inclusion except that they "seem relevant"? when A- This is not a refutal (why are they relevant? Does the sources specifically discuss the Arab states of the Persian Gulf as a group?) and B- You ignored the fact that they do need a clean-up and WP:BOLD action is not unwarranted.
As for your example, with all due respect, it's way off mark. North America, Middle East, South Asia are geographic regions listing which *wait for it* we do indeed have for this group of countries under: Middle East, Arabian Peninsula, and Eastern Arabia. I admire your conservatism but feel that it's really misguided on what's best for the article. — ♾️ Contemporary Nomad (💬 Talk) 11:59, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Your point A is again a misplaced understanding of synth. My reply to the below points on whether "sections be removed or kept on the grounds of WP:Synth", is again that the examples of synth presented here are not actually synth, so the sections do not need to be removed on the basis of synth. As for B, changing the subject of an article following a keep AfD is not a bold action, it is a disruptive action circumventing an established consensus. Similarly disruptive is deliberately removing sources from the article, like the Tétreault one, which discuss topics such as politics, and then claiming that there are no sources on politics that look at these countries. Please desist from such actions, and from edit-warring following the keep AfD. CMD (talk) 14:03, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
How did I change the subject of the article exactly? By pointing out with references the history of the term which you said yourself don't mind as an addition in your talk page? And we're discussing the inclusion of the countries summaries here — ♾️ Contemporary Nomad (💬 Talk) 14:12, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
For the record: I didn't claim that 'there isn't a source on the politics' of the grouping. I was specifically talking about the section sources, not the source at the introduction. And I'm in favor of rewriting the section (and including that source) if the consensus is to keep the politics section. — ♾️ Contemporary Nomad (💬 Talk) 14:40, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
You changed the subject of this article in this edit, which blanked the existing content, including removing the short description, and changed the article from covering the countries to covering "a term". I see you have done so again. CMD (talk) 01:20, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Including the history of the term in the introduction is not changing the subject. Yes I did edit the article previously, but then during discussion here I think we have reached reach a conclusion to retain the sections in question (although they need to be rewritten) and I don't see how is that "disruptive" when I have provided scholarly sources on the history in a short note in the intro? — ♾️ Contemporary Nomad (💬 Talk) 04:31, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Discussion on the inclusion of the previously deleted sections

Politics}}

Again section revolves around the GCC member states. Much of it remains unsourced. 'The Sultanate of Oman also has an advisory council (Majlis ash-Shura) that is popularly elected.' I seriously doubt that statement, Oman is an absolute monarchy, and from its name "consultive assembly" I presume it doesn't have much power like the Saudi "Majlis", anyway how can we possibly know that for sure when whoever wrote that WP:OR didn't include a source to study and criticize?. 'In Qatar, an elected national parliament has been mooted and is written into the new constitution, but elections are yet to be held.' Old info? I'm not aware of any elections held in Qatar. Again, the absence of Iraq in this section is concerning and is what I meant when I pointed out the much of the article (poorly written) content is confusing. — ♾️ Contemporary Nomad (💬 Talk) 12:36, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Freedom of press

As mentioned in the main discussion above in a reply to @Firefangledfeathers. Quote: The sources cited do not talk about the region as a whole but individual states, I also seriously contend with the content presented since it reads like whitewashing the Gulf states freedom of speech. The section should be discussed at each specific country politics/human rights article and in the GCC article as well. I also seriously doubt what's presented in this section since it has problematic statements: Both organizations rank Kuwait's press as the most free of all Arab states of the Persian Gulf and, in fact, rank amongst the top three most free press in the Arab world which might not be wrong per se, but mislead the reader with the "wording" of the paragraph. If it were presented on the human rights page in Kuwait and the rest of the states that would be another matter (and hopefully WP:NPOV rewritten) — ♾️ Contemporary Nomad (💬 Talk) 12:40, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree that this section has problems. Fixing them should include more up-to-date sources, focus on more than just Kuwait, and more encyclopedic tone. But I need to push back against your citation of SYNTH to justify removing the section entirely. If we find solid sources that describe press freedom of each state, including and summarizing that information would not by SYNTH. We're not currently, nor would we be in the improved version, implying or stating any conclusions not covered by the sources. If we have 3 sources that say, respectively, France is cool, China is neat, and Yemen is awesome, there are no SYNTH issues involved in publishing those near each other. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 03:25, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
I don't want to remove it on the basis of synth (well not anymore). However it needs to be re-written which hopefully we both can do? We can start by making it more "WP:NPOV" for example I have sources and criticism of Kuwait new "cyber law" that is used to curb dissents, I think we should include that as well. Are you open to rewriting the section with me? — ♾️ Contemporary Nomad (💬 Talk) 06:21, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Peace

The sections starts with: 'The six Arab states' presumably the GCC? Another gem: 'with varying degrees of success and effort, try and advance peace in their own countries and other countries.' Ah yes, definitely a WP:NPOV intro/s. 'However, Arab countries in the Persian Gulf region - specifically Saudi Arabia and Qatar - stand accused of funding Islamist militants such as Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood.' linked source is about SA, Egypt, and co. accusing Qatar and Iran. Although I could find a better source (but I don't think Saudi Arabia support MBs or Hamas?). 'According to the Institute of Economics and Peace (IEP)'s Global Peace Index of 2016, the six governments had varying degrees of success in maintaining peace amongst their respective borders with Qatar ranked number 1 amongst its regional peers as the most peaceful regional and Middle Eastern nation (and ranked 34 worldwide) while Kuwait ranks second in both the regional and the Middle East region (and 51 worldwide) followed by the UAE in the third spot (61 worldwide).' This needs to be rewritten or outright removed.

If you feel my judgment is wrong for WP:BOLD removal of this section please explain why by replying here, thanks — ♾️ Contemporary Nomad (💬 Talk) 12:21, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Removed binging @Chipmunkdavis: If you disagree you're free to directly Rev, but if you can please write your thoughts on the issues raised here — ♾️ Contemporary Nomad (💬 Talk) 12:51, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

The name

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
  • this page can stay as it is. However we should be allowed to create new page under the title Arab Gulf States The terms ( دول الخليج ) or the ( Arab Gulf States) or ( Khaleeji countries ) is widely used in the media and in the region as well as in many official organization to refer only to the six Arab gulf states. these six states have many similarities that distinguish them from Iraq and Iran. For example they have the same Khaliji (music), Khaliji arabic, Khaleeji culture, life styles, to name few...... Also, many official UN and other worldwide organizations use the term Arab Gulf States. For example, HRW as one example [1] use the term Arab Gulf States to refer to these six countries. Iraq and Iran are not part of these countries. So that topic should not be Content forking. Also, Many academic publications use the term ( Arab gulf states ) to refer to the six Arab states. As example there is book entitled : Arab Gulf States: Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia & the United Arab Emirates. [2]

References

  1. ^ "Arab Gulf States". HRW. Retrieved 14 November 2016.
  2. ^ Gordon, Robison. Arab Gulf States: Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia & the United Arab Emirates. Lonely Planet; 2nd edition (October 1996). p. 1. ISBN 086442390X. {{cite book}}: More than one of |pages= and |page= specified (help)

Khaliji culture already has a page. Iraq is an Arab state that borders with Persian Gulf so it should be listed in this page. 2.147.225.84 (talk) 20:59, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Arab_states_of_the_Persian_Gulf/Archive_1&oldid=1215692773"