This article is within the scope of WikiProject Geography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of geography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GeographyWikipedia:WikiProject GeographyTemplate:WikiProject Geographygeography
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arab world, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Arab world on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Arab worldWikipedia:WikiProject Arab worldTemplate:WikiProject Arab worldArab world
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iran, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Iran on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project where you can contribute to the discussions and help with our open tasks.IranWikipedia:WikiProject IranTemplate:WikiProject IranIran
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iraq, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Iraq on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IraqWikipedia:WikiProject IraqTemplate:WikiProject IraqIraq
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Saudi Arabia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Saudi Arabia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Saudi ArabiaWikipedia:WikiProject Saudi ArabiaTemplate:WikiProject Saudi ArabiaSaudi Arabia
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Western Asia, which collaborates on articles related to Western Asia. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.Western AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject Western AsiaTemplate:WikiProject Western AsiaWestern Asia
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Kuwait, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Kuwait on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.KuwaitWikipedia:WikiProject KuwaitTemplate:WikiProject KuwaitKuwait
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Arab Emirates, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Arab Emirates on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United Arab EmiratesWikipedia:WikiProject United Arab EmiratesTemplate:WikiProject United Arab EmiratesUnited Arab Emirates
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bahrain, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Kingdom of Bahrain on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BahrainWikipedia:WikiProject BahrainTemplate:WikiProject BahrainBahrain
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Qatar, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Qatar-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.QatarWikipedia:WikiProject QatarTemplate:WikiProject QatarQatar
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oman, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Oman on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OmanWikipedia:WikiProject OmanTemplate:WikiProject OmanOman
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. Ifconsensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.
Should we replace the not-a-forum tag with a FAQ explaining the naming dispute and that the name "Arabian Gulf" won't be replaced in the article? NotAGenious (talk) 13:30, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am just wondering why the unrecognised name "Arabian Gulf" is included in this article, while the Gulf of Mexico page doesn't mention the "gulf of America" in the lede. Both are unrecognised names used only by certain countries and literally never used in everyday English. شاه عباس (talk) 17:07, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Because of community consensus. The Arabian Gulf name has been discussed here lots and the editors here have agreed on placing that name in the lede section, unlike the "Gulf of America" trump bs which editors on that page have decided not to put in the lede 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨Abo Yemen (𓃵)17:34, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So what you're saying is every individual page has to reach a different consensus? The 'Arabian Gulf' is bs pushed by Arab states and is never used in any English sources, English wikipedia should reflect English usage. شاه عباس (talk) 06:20, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So what you're saying is every individual page has to reach a different consensus? That's not what I'm saying. That's the policy The 'Arabian Gulf' is bs pushed by Arab states and is never used in any English sources, English wikipedia should reflect English usage. big claim without any proof. There are sources that use the Arab Gulf name and virtually all sources have a mention of the dispute. 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨Abo Yemen (𓃵)06:31, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to prove to you why the sky is blue, kid. A petty name dispute initiated by some made-up nation states doesn't change the English language usage of terms. Did you catch the last part? English. Language. If the usage you are referring to is not used in English, which it isn't, it's completely irrelevant to encyclopedic enquiries conducted in English. There is no dispute as far as normal, educated people are concerned.
I could care less whether it's called the Persian Gulf, the Arabian Gulf or the Pixieland Gulf. The facts are these:
the predominant name in the English language is Persian Gulf by far;
it is known as Arabian Gulf in Arab countries;
because of 2 above there is minor reference to Arabian Gulf in other English language contexts - for example, see the citations in Persian Gulf naming dispute#United States;
Wikipedia policies particularly WP:COMMONNAME and WP:ALTNAME means that facts 1-3 translate into how the article is currently presented. This was confirmed by the community by an WP:RFC whch determined WP:CONSENSUS. You coming here claiming that you're not going to "prove the sky is blue" is therefore irrelevant.
Iranian and Arab nationalist POV-pushers regularly come here to try to remove either name for reasons that have got nothing to do with facts 1-3 or Wikipedia policy.
Because of these facts (supported with citations in this article and in the Persian Gulf naming dispute) three things result: (a) the article name won't be changed from Persian Gulf (b) a reference to Arabian Gulf as a minority WP:ALTNAME won't be removed. (c) POV attempts to remove either name will be ignored. Live with it. DeCausa (talk) 08:13, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The reasons for and against including it in the lead, and if it were to be included what wording it should have, was debated at length and in detail here. It included a process called WP:RFC which results in the issue being publicised across Wikipedia to ensure as wide an input of views as possible and the conclusions of the subsequent debate being summarized/determined by a neutral editor. This was therefore how the WP:CONSENSUS was decided. While consensus can change, it would require an equally extensive process. Any change or deletion of the wording (which both of you have attempted) will be reverted if it doesn't go through that process to determine whether consensus has changed. Given the content of that discussion, I think it is highly unlikely that consensus will change any time soon. DeCausa (talk) 07:21, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Expecting an editor new to this article to know about the rfc without writing a comment next to the text that there has been a consensus on a specific wording is crazy. The note should've been there ever since the rfc had concluded two years ago and not after I edited it 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨Abo Yemen (𓃵)08:15, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You better send your letter of complaint to customer services. Or the editors involved. I think you'll find that your disappointment with such craziness would apply to pretty much every RfC in Wikipedia (with the possible exception of articles where petty nationalist squabbles play out with tedious regularity). DeCausa (talk) 08:57, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ignoring the really really funny customer services joke, this article is one where petty nationalist squabbles play out with tedious regularity judging from the page's history. Anyways I've modified the comment to have a link to the RfC (tho yes it isn't clickable) 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨Abo Yemen (𓃵)09:49, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The longstanding version of the Infobox had only "Persian Gulf" as a header. "Arabian Gulf" was added on 6 February 2025 here following this edit. The current text adding "sometimes called the Arabian Gulf" to the opening sentence was agreed via RfC in this thread: Talk:Persian Gulf/Archive 8#Adding the name Arabian Gulf in Lead, but it did not cover dding it to the Infobox. If it's to be added then there should be an express WP:CONSENSUS here to do so given the sensitivities/controversies. Comments please. If there's no clear consensus through this thread then an RFC may be necessary. DeCausa (talk) 17:06, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My 2 cents is that (a) ALTNAMES don't have an automatic appearance in the header (b) the "sometimes called" descriptor is a reference to it's infrequency of use in English. The infrequency, in this case, doesn't warrant its inclusion in the header. I don't have a strong view on this and look forward to seeing what consensus there is. DeCausa (talk) 17:20, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If we are working in writing History as is and not alter with it, we should be only be using the Name Persian gulf, as per WP:COMMON NAME. This is an encyclopedia which people come to gain true information.
As for the edit in question, there should not be any other name other than original and long lasting name be written, "alternative" names has no place in the Infobox. DrTheHistorian【Talk】17:43, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:COMMONNAME doesn't say that only one name is to be used in an article. That is about the name of the article, which isn't the question here. Wikipedia editors have already decided that Arabian Gulf is an alternative name that is "sometimes" used, so that is not the question either. The only question is whether this alternative name should be used in the Infobox. Nothing you say addresses that. DeCausa (talk) 18:12, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I answered the question on the second paragraph of my reply.
"There should not be any other name other than original and long lasting name be written, "alternative" names has no place in the Infobox" DrTheHistorian【Talk】18:14, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No you've haven't - you haven't given any reason within WP policy. There is a parameter for alternative names in the Infobox - and it has already been agreed by WP editors that this is an alternative name. DeCausa (talk) 18:16, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are asking to add "alternative" name in the infobox. you yourself has mentioned , "(a) ALTNAMES don't have an automatic appearance in the header".
According to: MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE "The purpose of an infobox is to summarize, but not supplant, the key facts that appear in an article." The alternative name has been mentioned once, only in the header, not a key fact.
"The less information that an infobox contains, the more effectively it serves its purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance."
I think, as the person who added it to the infobox, that it should be there as everything in the infobox should represent what's there in the article, and it would only make sense to use the other name of this body of water in the "other_name" param 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨Abo Yemen (𓃵)10:28, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The infobox summarizes the article, but it does not mean that every wording of an article should stand in the infobox. The fact that this body of water is sometimes called "Arabian Gulf" is not a key fact that should appear in the infobox.---Wikaviani (talk)(contribs)10:43, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not according to me. It is known as "Persian Gulf" in the entire world with the notable exception of most of the Arab world. "Arabian Gulf" is already mentioned in the lede, no need to mention it in the infobox.---Wikaviani (talk)(contribs)11:17, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose adding it to the infobox in this way. If it were some parameter down below mentioning "Alternative name" in bold to the left and "Arabian Gulf" to the right, it would be okay to me, but having "Arabian Gulf" right under "Persian Gulf" in the infobox heading just looks confused, and frankly ridiculous.As an aside, although I argued for including the altname in the lead in the RfC, I'm now seeing a big flaw in my argument that I wasn't aware of at the time. It relied entirely on Google Ngrams, which charts the total amount of times the term "Arabian Gulf" is used in a very large corpus of text. But such evidence is only useful for unambiguous terms, because if a term may refer to multiple things, there is no way to know whether it was actually used in Google's corpus in the meaning intended. In casu, "Arabian Gulf" is the English translation of the Latin term Sinus Arabicus, which was used historically as a name for the Red Sea (see, e.g., the sources here). Thus, many of the instances of "Arabian Gulf" in Ngramsmay actually be discussions of this Latin term, and have nothing to do with the Persian Gulf at all.Given the notability of the Persian Gulf naming dispute (the fact that we have a WP article about it should speak for itself) I still think the altname should be mentioned in the lead sentence (or at least be bolded where it appears in the lead), also per Narky Blert's rationale in the RfC, but since we have no direct evidence of usage outside the 1960s naming dispute, it should probably be qualified with "in Arab countries" or similar. ☿ Apaugasma (talk☉)12:11, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
'@Abo Yemen:, Sounds like you're quick on the revert button but not when it comes to give your rationale. Have you read the above comments ? Please go ahead and present your arguments here instead of edit-warring.---Wikaviani (talk)(contribs)14:29, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have read @Apaugasma's comment and I agree with it. I disagree with you on the "sometimes called the Arabian Gulf in Arab countries" wording. It should be "also known as the Arabian Gulf in the Arab world" or something like that 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨Abo Yemen (𓃵)14:37, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why not, I don't know if the proposal was to add "in Arab countries" to the current sentence or to reword it saying what you said.---Wikaviani (talk)(contribs)14:46, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
At the risk of coming across as pedantic, but does the "also" make it sound as though it's called both names in the Arab world? DeCausa (talk) 07:39, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I genuinely don't know the answer to this but is "Arab world" actually correct, rather than, say, GCC area? I was looking back at the RfC and there is very little discussion on the sourcing from Arab sources. What I'm wondering is whether the name issue has the same currency in, say, the Maghreb? What do Iraqi/Syrian Shia call it? What do Iran's supporters in Yemen call it? Is "in some Arab countries" safer? DeCausa (talk) 08:02, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, I don't see any source supporting the view that this body of water is unanimously called "Arabian Gulf" in Arab countries. "In some Arab countries" or Apaugasma's phrasing sound good to me.---Wikaviani (talk)(contribs)08:48, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Arabic sources tend to use "Arabian gulf" more (at least according to google trends) Iraq hosted the 25th Arabian Gulf Cup so there is that. Morroco's PM website recognizes the Arabian Gulf name (Website in Arabic). Other Maghreb countries' official websites don't seem to have a mention of the body of water at all although they call GCC countries as the "countries of the Arabian gulf". I dont think its reasonable (or feasible for that matter) to check with every militant group in the middle east on what name they recognize. 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨Abo Yemen (𓃵)09:21, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the way sourcing should work anyway i.e. finding examples and drawing a conclusion from those examples. That's WP:OR. This should be based on WP:RS that describes the degree of prevalence "in the Arab world", if that's the phrase to be used. DeCausa (talk) 09:28, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I gave you what you asked for tho. But anyway I couldn't find anything that says "known as the Arabian Gulf in the Arab world" or a wording close to it. But I found this 2010 al-Jazeera source: "The term “Arabian Gulf” has been in casual but inconsistent use by various members of the US navy and government, and by many Arab states, for a few decades now." 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨Abo Yemen (𓃵)10:01, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Do not agree that the “alternative” name should be in the lead at all.
According to multiple WP policies discussed bellow, the lead should changefrom "The Persian Gulf, sometimes called the Arabian Gulf, is a mediterranean sea in West Asia." To"The Persian Gulf, is a mediterranean sea in West Asia.". Going back to its long lasting and true consensus.
The name of this body of water has always been recognized as Persian gulf throughout history. UN an international Statistics Division has confirmed that through research stating "the name of Persian Gulf has been admitted in all the live languages of the world ". As this is an encyclopedia, the role is to write established academic and historical consensus, not alter or reinterpret them.
The "alternative" name is recognized as a politically motivated term, as it is confirmed by the same UN article on page 6 paragraph 3; "The motivation to change the name of PERSIAN GULF is purely political", another example by Lawrence G. Potter in The Persian Gulf in History, "Campaign was started to try and replace the Persian gulf name to promote pan-Arabism and oppose Iranian hegemony in the region". Including the "Alternative" name violates the WP:NPOV and WP:SOAPBOX, as the "alternative" name is clearly a politically motivated name which is pushing nationalism and political agendas.
The "Alternative" name is rarely found in modern academic sources and virtually non existent before 1960s, as it was started out on 1968 by Arab some countries. Including a politically motivated term in the lead would give undue wight to a minority viewpoint, violating WP:UNDUE, which states "Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all".
On the original RfC a major flaw existed which seemed to be the deciding factor and it was pointed out above. By not realizing that the Red sea was also called the "Arabian Gulf" or Sinus Arabicus added value to the 9.9% that was calculated. This flaw was even mentioned at the time but was clearly overlooked. This miscalculation inflated the 9.9%, therefore questioning the original claim of meeting the required 10% According to WP:NCGN, "relevant foreign language names (one used by at least 10% of sources in English)". Another reason for the "Alternative" name gaining some views on google NGrams and towards the 9.9% calculated, is that in some modern academic sources they are just simply telling a story of how the politically motivated "Alternative" name came to light, an example: The Persian Gulf in History, but they are not questioning the naming of Persian gulf.
Examples of 'Arabian Gulf' being used for the Red Sea
Some examples regarding Red sea, using the same link from 2022 RfC (Google Ngrams), book > The Cyclopedia reading > “That some thousand years ago this Arabian gulf was much larger, and extend much farther north, especially that arm of it near suez,…”, the book is clearly talking about what is now knows as Red sea not the Persian gulf.
Or this book The Asiatic Annual Register written in 1802 (P.62), "The "Arabian gulf", from the streights of Babelmandel to Suez,..." again clearly talking about the Red sea.
History of Herodotus 1875 (P.25) "Arabian gulf The proper separation of the two continents rather than the Nile..."
The Geographical Journal 1892 (P.620) "Arabian gulf would be continous with the Nile valley,..."
All of the above were calculated towards the 9.9%, and these are just a very few examples. By removing the anomaly towards the calculation, it would drop way bellow 9.9%.
Now knowing the fact that Red sea's (Arabian Gulf) name plus how some modern academic sources only used the "Alternative" to tell a story the miscalculation is clear. According to WP:NCGN, as it is not near 10% the "Alternative" should be removed from the lead, reading as "The Persian Gulf, is a mediterranean sea in West Asia."
Again as per WP:NCGN, which prioritizes common name usage in English, the Argument that some Arabic countries after 1968 started to use the "alternative" name for this body of water is irrelevant to an English article and should be on its own translational WP article and it is.
Per WP:NPOV, "Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides" This is clearly done on its own separate WP articles (Persian Gulf naming dispute), why should the same disputes take place on the main WP article of Persian gulf as it just creates confusion towards historical facts, as till 1960 "Arabian gulf" was Red sea and now its pushing towards something else. Since the naming dispute is already being discussed on a separate article adding it to the lead is excessive.
The "alternative" name is mentioned only once in the article which is in the lead and is not part of the basics or core of the article. According to WP:LEAD, "The lead should give basics of the article in a nutshell and not tease the reader". Reader might think that they will find sources on why the "alternative" name is being used but that is not on this article therefore should not be in the lead, and have its own separate section, which it does.
Finally, Wikipedia is not a democracy WP:NOTDEMOCRACY, on the pervious RfC there seemed to be a voting done in a manner that some users simply just chose an option without giving facts or context backing their claim, just simply wrote "I chose option A". The facts were all against option A, but was chosen due to votes. Option C was opted out even with multiple facts backing it. The RfC was close by the same user that started and pushed towards the "alternative" name to be used and they made the decision according to votes, not according to the facts present, violating WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. Another flaw in that RfC decision.
This is an encyclopedia, not based on opinions but based on facts, facts shown on the RfC archive 8 by Premitive and EnlightenmentNow1792 also in my talks above, are all pointing towards excluding "alternative" name from the lead or in the article, and leaving it for its section that already exists (Persian Gulf naming dispute).
"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"UN. DrTheHistorian17:50, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you to the user for outlining a policy I was unaware of. However, given the sensitivity of the topic, I would appreciate any user who takes the time to read my comment and keep the facts in mind. DrTheHistorian20:20, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's a politically motivated name. But that's not a problem for Wikipedia, which aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them. The aim is to inform, not influence (WP:NPOV). Reliable sources report about this name and its geopolitical motivations to the point that we have Persian Gulf naming dispute. It's patently untrue that, as you say, "the "alternative" name is mentioned only once in the article which is in the lead and is not part of the basics or core of the article": it's mentioned in Persian Gulf#Modern naming dispute, a section which probably needs to be expanded a little.
When the very name of a subject is in dispute by a whole geopolitical region as reported by reliable sources, that's a pretty 'core' or 'basic' issue, and it should be common sense to mention it in the lead. Especially those coming through from the Arabian Gulfwp:disambiguation page will profit from instant clarity regarding the naming issue in the lead sentence. And that's what we do: inform, not influence.
Or so goes one editorial argument for including the name in the lead. Be aware though that despite Wikipedia's policy against editorial bias (NPOV), Wikipedia's content is determined by editorial wp:consensus, however biased one might personally find these editors to be. Therefore, writing long screeds for a position you know most editors will disagree with is not the most productive way of going about things. Much better is to compromise, and to look for a position that does have a chance at getting editorial consensus. ☿ Apaugasma (talk☉)23:08, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The 9.9% seemed to be the deciding factor as it met WP:NCGN at the time, now you pointed out your own mistake on the original RfC for the calculation which brings it way bellow 9.9%, as shown by my examples above (Thanks for collapsing & wording). The fact that now we are reading the original RfC and are finding very little discussion on the sourcing from Arab sources but decided on the change of the lead anyways, says volume. I now see that the people who wrote in detail and had valid points were just ignored simply because it was long writing, understandably so.
This is based on facts not common sense. If the UN after a long research and IHO decided that there is no "alternative" name for this body of water, how can we decide otherwise? aren't we suppose to write history as is and Inform! not Alter?
We should just simply move the: The body of water is historically and internationally known as the "Persian Gulf". Since the 1960s, with the emergence of Pan-Arabism, some Arab governments have called it "Arabian Gulf" (in Arabic الخليج العربي , Al-Khalīj al-Arabī) or "The Gulf", but neither term is internationally recognised." To the second paragraph as this explains the situation perfectly and clears confusion for people coming from Arabian Gulfwp:disambiguation page. No need for it to be on the lead. DrTheHistorian01:42, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're not reading what Apaugasma has said to you. Yes, "Arabian Gulf" is a recently invented and politically-motivated term which is used (almost) entirely only by one side of that dispute, which is a definite minority of total usage. In Wikipedia that makes it more likely not less to be referred to as an alternative term in the opening sentence. (Clue: that dispute is a small part of one of the most consequential and dangerous geo-political confrontations on the planet.) Nothing you have said will change anything. DeCausa (talk) 07:06, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Because of confusion for the readers. Example, "Gulf war" was originally used about the war between Iran and Iraq, but after the US-led operation against Iraq, early 90s, this name was exclusively used for that American-led operation but no longer for the war between Iran and Iraq, to avoid confusion.---Wikaviani (talk)(contribs)11:10, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely been called that all the way till 20th century, 1952 Quote [332].
You seem to be missing the argument, the "Alternative" name was set on lead based on 9.9% inclusion on academic sources, rounded to 10%, at the time barely meeting WP:NCGN standards. Now we know that was miscalculated, by researching we know it is in fact way bellow threshold, making original argument Invalid and simply giving undue weight to the minority. According to WP:UNDUE what you just said is incorrect actually, Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all.
In fact, Egyptians (Official Egyptian gov website .gov.eg), Moroccans, Algerians call it Persian Gulf. Some Lebanese 1, 2 sources also call it "(الخليج-الفارسي= Persian GULF)".
some more ex: Jordanians(.gov.jo), Somalians, Yemenis(Official gov website), Omanis and sometimes Bahrainis use "The Gulf" (not going through all). Making the "Alternative" name even more of a minority. (all sources are official gov or their respective News agencies)
Huge part of Arab population (~45%) use the real and historical name and other Arab sources are not fully lenient towards the "Alternative" name, denoting its removal from the lead.
There seems to be very little evidence into why "Alternative" name should be included, but more on why it shouldn't, making it odd and pointing towards its inadequacy in academic sources.
use "The Gulf" they are using "the Gulf Cooperation Council". That's a completely different thing from what you're quoting. Also, Egypt's website headline says "Antiquities Minister tours two tombs at Persian Gulf in Saqqara" which is next to the nile and not near "the gulf". Most of those websites use Google Translate'd versions of Arabic articles smh 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨Abo Yemen (𓃵)07:50, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You create an FAQ subpage of the Talk page then link to it from the talk page. There are examples on, eg, Talk:Jesus and Talk:Muhammad to follow. I wouldn't bother though. It won't make the slightest difference. DeCausa (talk) 12:58, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
.svg){kind=small}
