Talk:Greater and Lesser Tunbs/Archive 1

Archive 1

[Untitled]

Changed to reflect disputed status between UAE and Iran. Input on further reworking of this entry is welcome. - Preceding Unsigned comment added by Nanomu (talk) 10:01, 15 October 2004 (UTC)

Tunb

These islands are disputed over, facts of both sides must be discussed, names and meaning in both languages must be included not one, and these islands should not be categorized as iranian islands but must be categorized as "disputed territories".

Practice what you preach. You changed the name "Persian Gulf" (WHICH IS NOT "DISPUTED", but is a name fully recognized by the UN and all historical documents) to the fictitious artificial "Arabian Gulf" in the article. You also wrote the sentence: "These and the island of Abu Musa are Emirati islands occupied by Iranians in 1971." Occupied by Iran? That's not exactly presenting views of both sides. And besides, the UAE is hardly 35 years old. That's at most 0.01 the age of Iran (Persia). So it's a bit too young to claim ownership on something that existed before it did. Not to mention that at least 1/4 of UAE's population is ethnically Persian anyway, only ruled by some Sheikh arabs.--Zereshk 09:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

more than 1/4, the ajami population combined with the iranian immigrant populations actually form a large ethnic group within the UAE. the same in bahrain and parts of oman, iraq, and parts of kuwait. just like this user is doing right now, their sheikhs are trying to distort irans former and current cultural influence on the region.Khosrow II 15:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

History speaks

Mohammad Shaikh Al-Pashman in a celebration in Tanb Greater

Lets discuss this issue from every sight, first you must understand the invading and aggressive mentality of iran against weaker countries especially Arab lands that were struggling against foreign colonization on them, although many countries deserve to be hated by Iran for ex:Russia, Britain which imposed a war on Iran, however Arab countries were a good hunt because they are not united and because they were fighting colonization, so Iran have occupied those three islands as well as Ahwaz which was inhibited by Arabs even before Islam (parts of Ahwaz is called now Khuzestan province other name Arabistan for more information www.al-ahwaz.com) and many cities on what is now Iranian coast Langeh and many other places although they were completely independent and ruled hundreds of years ago by Arab dynasties. We know that the three islands were ruled by Arab-ruled Kingdom of Hormuz (1330-1622) and in the eighteenth century it was ruled by Al Qawasim dynasty which today provides the Sheikhs of Ras al-Khaimah and Sharjah, if we take in mind the strategic location of those islands in the mouth of the strait of hormoz some thing make a greedy neighbor desire it, we must know that Iran recognized those islands as islands ruled by Ras al-Khaimah as well as Britain, in 28/9/1912 requested permission from the ruler of Ras al-Khaimah to build a lighthouse, in 1929 the british commissar sayed in a message to the governor of al-Khaimah:"your island Tunb..." William Walles the representor of British foreign ministry noted that 'those islands and Sirri (which is an Emirati island as well) were Arab islands in the time when Britain came to the region and all documents support that saying' and the British foreign minister in his book published in 28/10/1970 stated that those islands were Arab islands, anyway Irans evidences are so weak and the Behistun Inscription does not point to these islands but somehow Iran translated in a way that it could mean an island this issue is very questionable, even if the inscription says that those islands were a part of the Achaemenid Empire that does not mean it is a Persian island the Achaemenid Empire seised many lands by war and reached Syria for example does that in any way tells you that Syria is Persian country?! this is a twisted mentality and if we will go after the Persian armies then Oman and Bahrain must be Persian countries and must join Iran as 'they where a part of persian empire'... just sending and occupying some where does not make it belong to the origional owners greedy iran which strangely claimed Bahrain!, in the other side the Al Qawasim ruled the islands continuesly and provided services and schools, if we look a slightest look in history we find that those three islands are Arab... if the owner of a land was so forgiving and never demanded his legal right in a big part in what is now an iranian coast and quit demanding the island of Sirri does that make him "weak" and must be used and his land must be taken?, if you look to the Persian people in the gulf countries they are treated equally and the matter of inequality is not even in mind and never heard about but the arabs in ahwaz are living a very low and poor life although most of irans Petrol come from there, some have problems with the name Arabian Gulf.. this Gulf was known in many other names in Arabic and Persian it was called the lower sea,salt sea,sea of hagar,sea of Qarif,Gulf of Basra and other names if it was a matter of historic naming then the Red Sea must be called sea of Qalzam, Anatolia must be called asia minor etc, when it comes to that Persia is older than Emirates that is not fully true modern iran was founded only 90 yrs ago in the other side most Emirates are 800+ old which country is older now :), Arabian Civilization was very old and ruled the peninsula read about the Queen of Sheba, there is alot to be sayed I will continue later...

MARVEL 02:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Lets discuss this issue from every sight, first you must understand the invading and aggressive mentality of iran against weaker countries especially Arab lands that were struggling against foreign colonization on them, although many countries deserve to be hated by Iran for ex:Russia, Britain which imposed a war on Iran, however Arab countries were a good hunt because they are not united and because they were fighting colonization,

• First I would like to say that Iran has not started a war in over 250 years, so you are wrong in your assertion taht Iran took land from weaker Arab states. And if I remember correctly, it was Arab states that continually increased tensions, with Nasser calling on the change of the name Persian Gulf, with Iraq invading Iran, etc...

• Also, Iran was just as much of victim of European imperialism as Arab states were. between 1800 and the end of WWII, Iran lost Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Georgia, parts of Armenia, and Arran, as well as control of our oil. Irans monarchs were corrupt and incompetent, and they were nothing more than puppest of the west by the end of the Qajar era.

so Iran have occupied those three islands as well as Ahwaz which was inhibited by Arabs even before Islam (parts of Ahwaz is called now Khuzestan province other name Arabistan for more information www.al-ahwaz.com) and many cities on what is now Iranian coast Langeh and many other places although they were completely independent and ruled hundreds of years ago by Arab dynasties.

• Since you are talking about history, let me tell you the history of the Arabs that now reside in Khuzestan province and Irans Persian Gulf coast line. Those Arabs either migrated or were moved to those areas to act as buffers against other Arab states. The Lakhmid Arab kingdom was founded by Iran, and they remained Iran's ally for hundreds of years until the end of the Sassanid era. You seem to think that these areas are Arab lands, but they arent, they are as much Arab land as the land in north eastern Iran is kurdish land (the Kurds, just like the Arabs hundreds of years earlier, were moved there by a Safavid monarch). Also, I am sure that you are aware that large chunks of the Iraqi, Bahraini, Emirati, and Omani populations are of Iranian descent, so if you are willing to sacrifice all those nations in a trade for Khuzestan, be my guest, because by your logice, those lands would be Iranian right?

• Also, after the Arab occupation, many independent Iranian kingdoms formed (Turkish ones, Iranian ones, Arab ones, etc...). However, those Arab kingdoms you are talking about were insignifcant, and didnt last long in the ever changing environment. Infact, some of those Arab monarchs were very Persianized themselves, because by the time the Abbasids took power in the Caliphate, they were more Persian than they were Arab (culturally and linguistically).

Iran translated in a way that it could mean an island this issue is very questionable, even if the inscription says that those islands were a part of the Achaemenid Empire that does not mean it is a Persian island the Achaemenid Empire seised many lands by war and reached Syria for example does that in any way tells you that Syria is Persian country?! this is a twisted mentality and if we will go after the Persian armies then Oman and Bahrain must be Persian countries and must join Iran as 'they where a part of persian empire'... just sending and occupying some where does not make it belong to the origional owners greedy iran which strangely claimed Bahrain! in the other side the Al Qawasim ruled the islands continuesly and provided services and schools, if we look a slightest look in history we find that those three islands are Arab... if the owner of a land was so forgiving and never demanded his legal right in a big part in what is now an iranian coast and quit demanding the island of Sirri does that make him "weak" and must be used and his land must be taken?,

• You just contradicted yourself. You say that because Iran used to rule those places once, that doesn't make them Iranian, well there you go, just because one small Arab kingdom had control of the islands for a short time hundreds of years ago doesnt make the islands Arab.

• First, I would like to tell you that the North African nations, Palestine, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, and Iraq, were not Arab until after the Arabization during the Arab occupations of those regions. Before the Islamic invasions of the Near East and Africa, there were only about 500,000 Arabs in the whole region (Will Durant, Story of Civilisation).

• Regarding Bahrain, Iran had a legitamet claim. Modern Bahrain was founded by the Persians a thousand years ago, and became a very rich port. Therefore, it attracted many Arabs to the island, who eventually settled it. That is why today the largest minority in Bahrain (40%) is of Persian descent. Later, the Arabs gained power there when they invaded and eventually conquered Iran. So you talk of "origional rulers", dont you realise that Arabs did not originate in any of these islands, they migrated to them later on in history.

if you look to the Persian people in the gulf countries they are treated equally and the matter of inequality is not even in mind and never heard about but the arabs in ahwaz are living a very low and poor life although most of irans Petrol come from there,

• So is that why Emirati's still call the Persian descendents Ajami's (which in simpler terms means stupid)?

• There are many provinces poorer than Khuzestan province. And for your information, Khuzestan was the richest and most developed province in Iran before Iraq invaded and destroyed it. So you can thank Saddam Hussein for the poverty in Khuzestan.

some have problems with the name Arabian Gulf.. this Gulf was known in many other names in Arabic and Persian it was called the lower sea,salt sea,sea of hagar,sea of Qarif,Gulf of Basra and other names if it was a matter of historic naming then the Red Sea must be called sea of Qalzam, Anatolia must be called asia minor etc, when it comes to that Persia is older than Emirates that is not fully true modern iran was founded only 90 yrs ago in the other side most Emirates are 800+ old which country is older now :), Arabian Civilization was very old and ruled the peninsula read about the Queen of Sheba, there is alot to be sayed I will continue later...

• Its the reasons behind the term Arabian Gulf that we have a problem with. The Term Arabian Gulf was invented and proposed by the British, who wanted to weaken Irans influence in the Persian Gulf area, so that they could conquer the people of the region more easily (divide and conquer). However, the term was not accepted widely by Arabs, and they saw no need for the change. Persian Gulf was used by Arabs until even the 1960's. However, Nasser, the pan-Arab president of Egypt, was angered at Iran's support for Israel, and therefore declared that in retaliation Arabs should go on a campaign to change the name. So there is the brief history, it is Arab aggression towards Iran, and we cannot accept that. I wish the reasons were as simple as you mentioned, but the truth is that the name was not changed because of those reasons, but because of hostility and hatred, and that is unacceptable.

• Also, now that we are talking about name changing, did you know that pan-Arabs changed all the Persian names in Iraq for Arabic ones. Yes, Mosul, Basra, Kirkuk, etc... Were all Persian cities, with Persian names. The name of the Arvandrud waterway was changed to the Shatt al-Arab, and the Persian speaking population was oppressed and eventually oblitarated by Saddams regime. The truth is, your governments and leaders have been attacking everything Iranian in the regime for a century now. You never see Iran attempting to change names, you never see Iran funding programs for changing names, etc... and for the record, Baghdad comes from the Persian language.

• lastly, Iran has a 3000 year history, I dont even know what your talking abouot.Khosrow II 03:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

First I would like to say that Iran has not started a war in over 250 years, so you are wrong in your assertion taht Iran took land from weaker Arab states. And if I remember correctly, it was Arab states that continually increased tensions, with Nasser calling on the change of the name Persian Gulf, with Iraq invading Iran, etc...

• Didnt start a war?!, what do you call the occupation of Al-Ahwaz,3 Emirati islands, the western coast of the Arabian Gulf?!.

Also, Iran was just as much of victim of European imperialism as Arab states were. between 1800 and the end of WWII, Iran lost Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Georgia, parts of Armenia, and Arran, as well as control of our oil. Irans monarchs were corrupt and incompetent, and they were nothing more than puppest of the west by the end of the Qajar era.

our monarchs are pretty much the same.

Since you are talking about history, let me tell you the history of the Arabs that now reside in Khuzestan province and Irans Persian Gulf coast line. Those Arabs either migrated or were moved to those areas to act as buffers against other Arab states. The Lakhmid Arab kingdom was founded by Iran, and they remained Iran's ally for hundreds of years until the end of the Sassanid era. You seem to think that these areas are Arab lands, but they arent, they are as much Arab land as the land in north eastern Iran is kurdish land (the Kurds, just like the Arabs hundreds of years earlier, were moved there by a Safavid monarch). Also, I am sure that you are aware that large chunks of the Iraqi, Bahraini, Emirati, and Omani populations are of Iranian descent, so if you are willing to sacrifice all those nations in a trade for Khuzestan, be my guest, because by your logice, those lands would be Iranian right?

• Since you are talking about Khuzestan do you know the complete history of Khuzestan?, Khuzestan was first the cradle of Semitic civilization (Elamite) and Sabeans (whom exist in Khuzestan until now) but then non-semetic Persian Achaemenids occupied Khuzestan from their original home (behind Zagros mountains which is the natural borders between Arabistan -Ahwaz- and between Iran), and then semitic Arabs get the area again when they built their own cities which was the only cities there, then the earned the land also you can find Ahwaz mentioned in Al-Muallakat (the suspended poets) and al-ahwaz was very known between Arabs in pre-Islamic times, when it comes to the lakhmids you must know that the lakhmid kingdom started nearly in the same time when sasanid kingdom started. The rest of your claim is so childish read it and dont laugh at it.

You just contradicted yourself. You say that because Iran used to rule those places once, that doesn't make them Iranian, well there you go, just because one small Arab kingdom had control of the islands for a short time hundreds of years ago doesnt make the islands Arab.

• Do you need glasses honestly?, i sayed repeatedly just containing some area militarily does not makes it belong to the occupier, but the ones who make cities in somewhere no one else lived in and they make homes and full system and a dynasty in that area and a country they really earn the land fully, the Arab kingdoms didnt last for along time?, they've lived their and made homes and inhibited that area and ruled their own, but when you look at Iranian claim they depend in an imaginary point of view and in short times of military occupations on those islands.

First, **********

• Very racist and very unacceptable sentence, what is your goal any way?, then those areas you are talking about are now ethnicly Arabs, and if you know that the population of Paris was only 500 in 990 AD does that make people from Paris not French people?, people grow and marry keep that in mind.

Regarding Bahrain, Iran had a legitamet claim. Modern Bahrain was founded by the Persians a thousand years ago, and became a very rich port. Therefore, it attracted many Arabs to the island, who eventually settled it. That is why today the largest minority in Bahrain (40%) is of Persian descent. Later, the Arabs gained power there when they invaded and eventually conquered Iran. So you talk of "origional rulers", dont you realise that Arabs did not originate in any of these islands, they migrated to them later on in history.

• You need glasses and some brains too if you bothered your self with a 1 min search you will find bahrain known in times much before any Persian empire it was known as "Delmun" and ..you must read some history books before writing or editing others posts if you need a discussion over Bahrain or any were else just tel me.

So is that why Emirati's still call the Persian descendents Ajami's (which in simpler terms means stupid)?

• Says who it means stupid?, this word "Ajami" exist in the Holy Quran and is used widely to refer to Persian people.

There are many provinces poorer than Khuzestan province. And for your information, Khuzestan was the richest and most developed province in Iran before Iraq invaded and destroyed it. So you can thank Saddam Hussein for the poverty in Khuzestan.

• Who likes Saddam anyway we all hate him we know he is a bad guy, but Ahwazi people's resistanse to the Iraqi army indicates that they are independent and do not follow any regime Irani or Iraqi regime and they are independent, isnt it clear that Ahwazi people are seeking independence from Iran?.

Its the reasons behind the term Arabian Gulf that we have a problem with. The Term Arabian Gulf was invented and proposed by the British, who wanted to weaken Irans influence in the Persian Gulf area, so that they could conquer the people of the region more easily (divide and conquer). However, the term was not accepted widely by Arabs, and they saw no need for the change. Persian Gulf was used by Arabs until even the 1960's. However, Nasser, the pan-Arab president of Egypt, was angered at Iran's support for Israel, and therefore declared that in retaliation Arabs should go on a campaign to change the name. So there is the brief history, it is Arab aggression towards Iran, and we cannot accept that. I wish the reasons were as simple as you mentioned, but the truth is that the name was not changed because of those reasons, but because of hostility and hatred, and that is unacceptable.

• Names change in this changing world and as i've said before the name of the places and bodies of water changes by time and their are many examples of that, also Arabs were good sailors from the oldest times they were the first to use Manson wind and the triangle mizzen which proven successful all that in the time of ancient Yemeni civilization times which is older that the oldest Persian Empire, then do not use big words such as hostility and hatred no one hate iran but people are demanding their rights.

Also, now that we are talking about name changing, did you know that pan-Arabs changed all the Persian names in Iraq for Arabic ones. Yes, Mosul, Basra, Kirkuk, etc... Were all Persian cities, with Persian names. The name of the Arvandrud waterway was changed to the Shatt al-Arab, and the Persian speaking population was oppressed and eventually oblitarated by Saddams regime. The truth is, your governments and leaders have been attacking everything Iranian in the regime for a century now. You never see Iran attempting to change names, you never see Iran funding programs for changing names, etc... and for the record, Baghdad comes from the Persian language."

will you tell me the original names of those cities although Basra was founded by Arabs in the 7th century i want to hear the persian name for it, Arbil was called be Sumerians "Urbilum" then the name was not changed much, Kirkuk is an Assyrian ancient name of the city which Arabs didnt change i also want to hear the Persian name of this city. in the opposite iranians changed the names of the Arab cities and here is a list:

Original=new Persian Name

1. al-Huwaiza=Dasht Meshan
2. al-Khalfia=Khalaf Abad
3. al-Khafajia=Sosenkurd
4. al-Ahjar al-Sab'a=Haft Kull
5. al-Salihiyya=Andmeshk
6. Tustar=Tushtar
7. Shelwah=Dasht Abi
8. al-Muhammara=Khorramshahr
9. al-Fallahia=Shadkan
10. Ramiz=Ramhurmuz
11. Ma'ashur=Bandar Mahshihr
12. Khor Abdallah's port=Bandar Shahboor
13. al-Busaiteen=Bustan
14. al-Sus=al-Shush
15. al-Khaza'alia= Khaz'al abad
16. al-Hamidiyya=Farah abad
17. Askar makram=Bandukeer
18. al-Kasaba=Rud Kanar
19. al-Tamimiyya=Hundigan

• notice:all cities above founded by Arabs and populated by Arabs.

You must search Persian books of when was the first time Arvandrud was mentioned, this river was given that name from the people who live in both banks of the river Arabs, and even Iranian historians untill recently called it Shatt al-Arab untill now Iranian people in that area call it Shatt al-Arab

Iran has a 3000 year history, I dont even know what your talking about

what am talking about is that you compared the history of Iran from the ancient times in all dynasties and compared it with the modern history of the Emirates after unity and you concluded that Emirate has a history (0.01)of the Age of the Persian Empire, take in mind that some Emirates are more than 2000 years old and evidences of human activity and trade for more than 5000 years, you must calculate the history of Emirates from before the unity an the true comparation is between the Arabian Civilizaion and Persian Empire.

final conclusion:we know right from wrong and it is not a shame to do a mistake but it is a shame to keep doing wrong the islands are full emirati islands so is alahwaz and western coast of the Arabian Gulf, that is for the truth seeker but for some one wants to fool himself nothing is right except the thing he wants it to be right, if my country started any aggression on any country especially a neighboring country i will stand against my country and refuse what it do and apologize for the others, but as i see now not every one is ready for the same, some here are amateurs who like their homeland and trying to defend it everyway, so if you want to change names in this encyclopedia we can change too, if you want to call Shatt al-Arab as Shatt al-Arab/Arvandrud we will change the name of the Persian Gulf into Persian Gulf/Arabian Gulf we are capable of it, Admin please keep locking this Article to prevent it from childish vandalism.

there is no point in arguing with you about this, since you basically ignored everything i said and dont even know the history of the region. anyway, this article will eventually be unprotected and will eventually be corrected.Khosrow II 17:29, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

i have answered every thing you asked or wondered about even when some of them were silly but you rather closing your head, just for the record i dialy read history books for 4hrs and i can assure you that i know more about history that you and all of your friends,and as you are not able to discuss you must stay in the corner and stop vandalisingMARVEL 18:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

what silly points? you contradict yourself over and over, and your argument makes no sense. like i said, this article will soon be unprotected and corrected anyway, so there is no point in me arguing with you overthe history of the dispute. the simplicity of it is that iran is a multi ethnic society, and has always been, and the land it has belongs to all of them, including abu musa, and the tunbs.Khosrow II 19:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The "Arabian Gulf" links to "Persian Gulf" anyways...

What is the point, besides POV-pushing, of having it say "Arabian Gulf"??? --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 10:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. It is very clear that MARVEL is pushing an Arab nationalist POV [1] (which he does not even bother to mask). It is so obvious to be comedic. Khorshid 13:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. What is the point of having Arabian gulf, even though it goes to Persian gulf. Problems similar to this have come and gone and always both the scholars and the masses agree its called Persian gulf. What's the point of all of this fighting? --(Aytakin) | Talk 00:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

You got me. Politics, I guess. Khorshid 03:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Protected

I've protected this article stop the budding edit war we had going here. I'll be happy to unprotect it when I (or any other admin) sees evidence that you guys aren't going to edit disruptively here, or better yet, have resolved to put aside your differences and Do What's Best for Wikipedia. If all else fails, I'd probably settle for the two principals here being able to prove they know what "vandalism" means. Please, when editing an article, don't just revert each other blindly, and don't accuse people of "vandalism" when they have done nothing of the sort. If you do, I will be Cranky. Happy editing! fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 13:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

At least put a POV tag up there and then lock it, just to show that you arent taking sides with this blatant campaign of misinformation. There is no such thing as "Arabian Gulf" according to the UN geographically accepted names.--Zereshk 17:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

According to UN maps and all the other international maps, the island belongs to Iran and not "occupied" by Iran, also the official name of the of the gulf is Persian gulf not Arabian. The alternative is sometimes used, mostly in Arab countries, but the official and UN sanctioned name is Persian gulf. This is not just a difference of opinions, it is one side ignoring the facts. I agree with Zereshk, there should be a POV tag as long as it is locked.Gol 00:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

According to the whole world Mandilla is a terrorist then he was arawded later, anyway the UN does not say that it is an Iranian island but disputed and the ICJ is looking in the issue, the truth speaks from me but Chauvinism speaks from you both Zereshk & Gol.

UN certainly doesn’t say that the island belongs to UAE and was “occupied” by Iran. Only UAE and perhaps a few other Arab countries say that. We can add that to the article to represent their point of view but to mention it as fact without mentioning anything else is POV pushing. Also you are extremely rude and uncivil, I guess that is why you don’t sign your posts. I would be afraid to sign as wellGol 09:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

the UN is a dummy in the hands of the great powers and only recognize areas whith their current governors for example they didnt recognize the states of the former USSR while they know that Russia invaded those lands, but when they liberated their countries and used power then the UN recognized them as independent other cases Bulgan, Palestine.. anyway i want you to tell me what facts to be sayed tell me exactly, now i want to know why is all that anger of just adding Arabic name (which is the origional name of the islands) to the article?, i know that most iranians are polite but you are impolite and accused me of being rude and uncivil (i dont know what is the link between uncivility and me signing) if you like me signature i will sign each time just be happy ;) MARVEL 12:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I called you uncivil because you called me chauvinist. As for UN I actually agree with you but we can not ignore international rules and say what we believe is true. This is not a personal website it is an encyclopedia. you can create a section mentioning that UAE claims the island and also the history behind it, as long as it is sourced, but you can not mention it as the only facts and ignor the rest of the world who consider the island property of Iran. UAE claims to the islands is just that, a claim.You can only mention Iran as the occupier after the international organization says so and UN has not done that yet. I personally have no problem with the Arabic name and you can add it if you want; I never objected to that or erased it. As for the Persian Gulf issue, it is called Persian in the whole world except a few Arab countries. The most we can do is to add Arabian gulf as an alternative name, and it is mentioned in the main article, but not as the official name since the UN sanctioned name is Persians gulf and even the page in WP is titled Persian gulf so it is completely ridiculous to call it Arabian gulf but give link to a page called Persian gulf! Gol 04:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

request unprotection?

Unprotect --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 03:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Support and if not unprotected then please at least add a POV tag as Zereshk has suggested. Khorshid 05:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Support the Unprotect misinformation in the article that needs to be changed.Khosrow II 06:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Support Gol 09:29, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Page protection is not subject to referendum (in fact, there's very little of Wikipedia where the results of a vote matter much). It's quite simple: if this article is unprotected, will an edit war continue? "The other bloke is obviously wrong!" is no argument at all, particularly since MARVEL (talk · contribs) would undoubtedly say the same thing about you people.

Has either side of this argument considered talking to the other (and I don't just mean shouting slogans at one another)? Consider that the other side may have a reason for its views, and trying to work out a compromise? Or, if you're really really sure that the other side's views have no merit, then at least challenging them to provide a source for their views, which (provided you're willing to be fair) often ends a dispute once and for all?

I will unprotect this article only if I can be sure you fellows won't immediately start edit warring and spuriously accusing each other of "vandalism". fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 12:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Since you asked, I left him as message in his talk page explaining the issue and I hope he responds logically. However, this is the clear case of one side ignoring facts. This is not the difference of opinion, I am amazed he has not been warned yet; he wants to represent the POV of UAE government, which is not shared by UN or any other international organization, as facts and deletes everything else. He justifies his action by saying that UN is a dummy! There should be a POV tag as long as it is locked. And he should be told that this is not a personal or pro UAE website but an encyclopedia.Gol 04:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The only matter of urgency right now is the Persian Gulf. If you will not unprotect it, then atleast change the arabian gulf's to Persian Gulf, and then you may protect the article again.Khosrow II 18:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Mark,

Either unprotect it, or keep it protected and put a POV tag up there. Our friend here is on an agenda, which is pretty obvious. I think our call for impartiality should be respected.--Zereshk 19:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Update

As I said I attempted to talk to him and this was his response to me.

“Iran occupying those islands is a fact as they sent their troops there and kicked the inhabitabts of Tunb Greater out this is just a matter of history and every one knows that,man you have a conscious, and i will not be able to connect anymore because i have tests there days do what your concious tells you Salamz”

He is basically twisting the argument talking about morality! He has no back up and no source. Facts are: 1) The official name of the gulf is Persian (Arabian used as an alternative in a few countries only and not sanctioned by UN.) 2) Iran is not the occupier according to UN or anybody except the government of UAE which has a claim on the islands. We can, and should, mention that the claim exists and also what happened in 1971 to be fair to the other side, but that is all. Island is ruled by Iran and at the current moment it is legitimate and not occupation. Please unlock the page so we can correct the information. Thank you.Gol 06:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

IMHO, i suggest repeating the fact that he has no sources or anything to an administrator or many of them, instead of trying to reason with this fellow. --Spahbod 17:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

{editprotected}

{editprotected|Please revert to previous version. Current version is POV}

See m:The Wrong Version ;). No admin will mess around with the version while the article is protected. There is disucssion with the protecting admin above, follow that. Don't use {editprotected} here again, cheers. --Commander Keane 10:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

The Real Problem is...

(So 'Ahwaz', when are the Arabs going to pay me and my cousins retribution for getting **** up with Saddam's Arab-paid-for Chemical bombs)

(Yes, Zereshk, Arabs are the source of all evil in the world ...)

IT IS THE HATRED AGAINST ARABS

FOR THE FULL STORY READ THE RELATED Talk:Ahvaz Odenatus 04:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

First, Zora or whoever you are, please KEEP YOUR HATRED FOR YOURSELF. Second, saddam and his followers is the ones that got *****d by iranians not the other way around. 6 years in Iraq, the world sending them all kinds of weapons, arabs sending them all the oil money they needed, still iran f***** them in the ***, very similar thing happened when Nader shah of persia conquered oman and bahrain and some more arab countries. We think of the arabs in khuzestan as our brothers, they took arms with us when we *****d saddam's a**. So again i advice keep your hatred for yourself, you aint fooling noone but yourself. And one more personal attack like that, and you will find yourself blocked, even if you think using anonymous proxy is gonna help you. --Hakhamaneshi 20:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Mr:Hakhamsakawashikamanshi you do not just need glasses you need a brain too read before answering the guy was just quoting... so you are happy on what nader did? this faliure made a kingdom which didnt last for long and he was turkic anyway right? , it is sufficient for arabs to be descended from Abraham and for me to be from great Bakr bin Wael MARVEL 13:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Experiment

On Wikipedia, we never like to leave articles protected for too long. This one's been protected for five days now; it's time to unprotect and see what happens. Remember that aggressive editing will not be tolerated. Have fun! fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 11:19, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for protecting it in the first place MarkGallagher, i thing their vandalism will start, however those gang have given their openion exclusively in wikipedia, for example the al-Mohammera an arab city persians gave it a NEW name "Khorramshahr" and the original name of it was and is al-Mohammera but those close-minded people give the article the name "khorramshahr" solely because it is a Persian name and we must know that this city is populated by arabs and founded by arabs, but when it comes the Arabian Gulf they defend the name Persian and reject the arabic NEW name, this is a double standard, moreover they use offensive words (a thing they used to in their daily life), im not asking for impossible things when it comes to a disbuted area just mention both names i didnt ask for removing the persian name a thing they do to the arabic name, so admin those guys do not want to discuss they prefer "edit war" and wishing to destroy the neutrality of Wikipedia, so admin keep protecting this page. MARVEL 13:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about? I'm checking the page history and you started the edit war on July 17th when you unilaterally inserted, and later forced, your POV into the article, without any prior discussion on talk page and now you want the page protected because you are editing against the consensus. Also, Khorramshahr is called Khorramshahr because that's the official name of the city, Mohammerah is just a former name. See Encyclopedia Britannica's entry on the city. --ManiF 13:58, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Formerly.. who changed its name???????, did the arab people of the city changed its name or was it the iranian general Reza Shah?, there is now 200,000,000 arab people in the arab world call the city al-mahamara, you like iran at first place but i like the truth at first place i go with the truth even if it was against me, ah also since you refered to britannica i have something you really like Encyclopedia Britannica's entry on Arabian Gulfalso called Arabian Gulf, see what britannica says?, you guys like iran and i also like iran but chauvinism is rejected so is the extremism and ignoring the other, if i was chauvinism like many of you guys -who took place in edit war- i would remove the persian name but what i did is adding the arabic name and meaning to the article and i will write a full history of those islands if i get a guarantee that my effort will not "go with the wind" and my article is vandelized by those "iranian knights", admin protect this page you saw what happened!. MARVEL 14:34, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

The experiment's not going too well

So, less than three hours after unprotection, MARVEL and ManiF are at each others' throats in an edit war. Well, that's Not Good. I'd rather not protect immediately after unprotecting, so instead I've blocked MARVEL and ManiF for twenty-four hours to think about how to be a little less agressive in their editing.

Remember, guys: Wikipedia articles don't have to be perfect right now, and using the summary "revert vandalism" will make you look silly. So don't do it. Happy editing! fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 14:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

MARVEL, as well as some other anon users, have been vandalising and putting POV in a number of iran related articles, such as this. MARVEL started the edit war, and he is now continuing it. ManiF is simply correcting the article from the POV. also, MARVEL, i would like to remind you that the British gave these islands to Iran if Iran would allow bahrain to become its own nation. The Arabs agreed to that agreement, and therefore Iran got these islands. They are Iranian islands.Khosrow II 16:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Iran is occupying those islands as well as Ahwaz and they are chnging name it is not vandalism to only mention the other name it is vandalism when removing the arabic name and the truth, every thing here is confused the admin protects the article and then he let it to vandalism, if he wants to block he should also block Spanhood too, i tell you some thing, we have been tolerant for a long time and arab related articles were vandelized by iranies and admins -unfortunately- are with the other side just because the have wrote their lie previously, the lie is a lie and iran is occupying ahwaz and the three islands and the irani name should by removed as well as all arab related articles, i have alot to say, but now AdMiN why havent you block that spanbod when he vandelized the article or is there is secret plans???

do you know why we get more support in cases like this? its because historical facts are on our side. Iran is not occupying the tumb islands nor are they occupying ahvaz. that is just your POV.Khosrow II 06:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

communicating with such mentality is difficult, why do i write long posts and one reads them?, why do arabs of khuzestan seek independence and why arabistan is now called khuzestan and arabic name are changes, at least you and your gang friends try to keep away from arab related articles and mind your own.

The Greater and Lesser Tunbs and The island of Abu musa are Iranian islands in the Persian Gulf

The Greater and Lesser Tunbs and The island of Abu musa are Iranian islands in the Persian Gulf

The Persian Gulf

The Persian Gulf is a crescent-shape groove which has demonstrated the encroachment of the Indian Ocean waters (Makrân Sea, also known as Gulf of Oman) in an span of 900 km long and 240 km wide in the inferior folds of southern Zagros mountains. The Persian Gulf and its neighboring countries constitute almost one ninth of the 44 million square km span of the Asian continent (1). The Persian Gulf has been a valuable waterway since the beginning of history and as the venue of the collision of great civilizations of the ancient East, it has a background of several millenniums (2). Since centuries ago, the Ilamites used the Port of Bushehr and the Khârg Island for dwelling, shipping and ruling over the coasts of the Persian Gulf as well as transaction with the West Indies and the Nile Valley (3). In the Latin American geography books the Persian Gulf has been referred to as More Persicum or the Sea of Pars (4).

The Latin term "Sinus Persicus" is equivalent to "Persicher Golf" in German, "Persico qof" in Italian, "Persidskizalir" in Russian and "Perusha Wan" that all mean "Pars" (5). and le golf perse in French

Prior to the stationing of the Aryan Iranians on Iran's Plateau, the Assyrians named the sea in their inscriptions as the "bitter sea" and this is the oldest name that was used for the Persian Gulf (6).

An inscription of Darius the Great found in the Suez Canal, used a phrase with a mention of river Pars which points to the same Persian Gulf.

The Greek historian Herodotus in his book has repeatedly referred to the Red Sea as the "Arab Gulf" (7), and Straben, the Greek historian of the second half of the first century BCE and the first half of the first century AD wrote: Arabs are living between the Arabian Gulf and the Persian Gulf (8).

Ptolemy, another renowned Greek geographer of the 2nd century has referred to the Red Sea as the "Arabicus Sinus", i.e. the Arabian Gulf. In the book `the world boundaries from the East to the West' which was written in the 4th century Hegira, the Red Sea was dubbed as the Arabian Gulf.

Today, the most common Arabic works refer to the sea in south Iran as the "Persian Gulf", including the world famous Arabic encyclopedia `Al-Monjad' which is the most reliable source in this respect (9).

There are undeniable legal evidences and documents in confirmation of the genuineness of the term Persian Gulf. From 1507 to 1560 in all the agreements that Portuguese, Spanish, British, Dutch, French and Germans concluded with the Iranian government or in any other political event everywhere there is a mention of the name Persian Gulf (10).

Even in agreements with the participation of Arabs there is a mention of "Al-Khalij al-Farsi" in the Arabic texts and "Persian Gulf" in English texts, such as the document for the independence of Kuwait which was signed between the emir of Kuwait and representatives of the British government in the Persian Gulf.

The document, which was signed on June 19, 1961 by Abdullah As-Salem As-Sabah, has been registered in the Secretariat of the United Nations according to article 102 of the U.N. Charter and can be invoked at any U.N. office (11).

Since the beginning of the 20th century, the name "Persian Gulf" has been used in geography and history books with less reference to the "Fars Sea". Such a change has suggested the idea that the "Fars Sea" had been an old name substituted by a new term "Persian Gulf" (12)

The beginning of 1930s was a turning point in the history of efforts for changing the name of Persian Gulf when Sir Charles Bellgrave, (?) the British diplomatic envoy in Iranian island of Mishmâhig, which today known as Bahrain opened a file for the change in the name of the Persian Gulf and proposed the issue to the British Foreign Office. Even before the response of the British Foreign Office he used the fake name (in an attempt to retake Bahrain, the Tunbs, Abu Musa, Sirri, Qeshm, Hengam and other islands belonging to Iran and to disclose and thwart the plot of disintegration of Khuzestan) (13).

Besides all the disputes that have been made over the name of the Persian Gulf, the United Nations with its 22 Arab member countries has on two occasions officially declared the unalterable name of the sea between Iran and the Arabian Peninsula as the Persian Gulf. The first announcement was made through the document UNAD, 311/Qen on March 5, 1971 and the second was UNLA 45.8.2 (C) on August 10, 1984. Moreover, the annual U.N. conference for coordination on the geographical names has emphatically repeated the name "Persian Gulf" each year (14).

Although using the "Arabian Gulf" instead of the "Persian Gulf" has no basis and will not be accepted in any culture or language, however, it will not diminish our responsibility in expressing the reality and eliminating ambiguities as the main and oldest inhabitants of the region.

HISTORICAL SITUATION OF GREATER AND LESSER TUNBS, ABU MUSA "The Greater Tunb Island is limited from north to Qeshm Island, from west to the Lesser Tunb, from south to Abu Musa and Raas al-Khaima and from east to Oman (15). The island is called the Greater Tunb, Gap Tunb, Tunb-e Mar, Greater Tunb-e Mar, etc..." (16).

In the Islamic era up to the recent centuries the Greater Tunb Island was part of the states of Fars, Kerman, Mokran and Hormuzgan.

In 1884 it was part of the Persian Gulf ports. In 1949 together with 29 other islands it was a village under the district of Lengeh. In 1951, it was part of the village Mazdouqi in Lengeh district of the city of Lar. In 1954, it was a village in Abu Musa district of Bandar Lengeh port city. In 1958, Abu Musa and Great Tunb districts jointed together and formed a large district with Kish Island as its center. In 1976, it became part of the city of Kish. In 1982, it became part of the city of Abu Musa. In 1991, the Great Tunb Island was part of the Tunb district of the city of Bu Musa (17).

The Greater Tunb Island due to its far distance from the Strait of Hormuz has no strategic importance by itself. However, given Iran's strategic situation, it is considered an important link in the defensive line of Iran in the Strait of Hormuz (18).

The Lesser Tunb Island is neighboring the city of Lengeh in the north, Abu Musa Island in the south, the Greater Tunb Island in the east and Faroo and Faroogan islands in the west. The island is rectangular in shape (19).

Footnotes:

1- Institute of Political and International Studies, selected Persian Gulf documents, volume 1, page 5 2- Ibid, page 5. 3- Mehdi Azimi, "Persian Gulf Political History", Port and Sea, Nos. 41-41, page 2 4- Institute of Political and International Studies, series of articles of seminar on Persian Gulf issues, page 135 5- Institute for Political and International Studies, selected Persian Gulf documents, volume 1, page 18, Institute of Political and International Studies, series of articles of seminar on Persian Gulf issues, page 136. 6- Seyed Hassan Mousavi, "A brief discussion on historical-political geography of the Persian Gulf...", sociology and humanities of Shiraz University, page 118. 7- Institute of Political and International Studies, selected Persian Gulf documents, pages 18-22, Institute of Political and International Studies, series of articles of seminar on Persian Gulf issues, page 137. Seyed Hassan Mousavi "A brief discussion on historical-political geography of the Persian Gulf..." sociology and humanities of Shiraz University, page 118. Mehdi Azimi, "Persia Gulf Political History", Port and Sea, page 22. 8- Institute of Political and International Studies, selected Persian Gulf documents, volume 1, page 22. 9- Ibid, page 146. 10- Institute of Political and International Studies, series of articles of seminar on Persian Gulf issues, page 148. 11- Institute of Political and International Studies, ibid, page 149. 12- Pirouz Mojtahedzadeh, "Persian Gulf in return for history", political and economic, Nos. 105-106, page 26. 13- Pirouz Mojtahedzadeh, "Persian Gulf in return for history", political and economic, Nos. 105-106, page 27. 14- Pirouz Mojtahedzadeh, "Persian Gulf in return for history", Nos. 105-106, page 28. 15- Iraj Afshar Sistani, Abu Musa Island and the Greater and Lesser Tunbs, page 105. 16- Iraj Afshar Sistani, ibid, page 11. 17- Iraj Afshar Sistani, ibid, page 119. 18- Iraj Afshar Sistani, Abu Musa Island and the Greater and Lesser Tunbs, page 121. 19- Ibid, page 123.

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

http://pejman.azadi.googlepages.com/thepersiangulf&itsname Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.66.222.45 (talk) 07:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Article moving

This article should be moved to Greater and Lesser Tonbs, as the proper transliteration of their official names is: Tonb-e Kuchek, and Tonb-e Bozorg. ArmanJan 14:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality

Hello, I'm new here and just stumbled across this article. This whole debate here strikes me as very silly. There is evidently a dispute about these islands, out in the real world. Therefore, I thought it's pretty obvious that Wikipedia must neutrally present both sides. Isn't that what that famous "NPOV" stands for that everybody is going on about? Instead, all you guys have been doing for months (I clicked on that link saying "history"!) is going back and forth between one version that just says they are Iranian, and another version that just says they're Emirate. Isn't that rather silly? I was looking at some other articles on territorial disputes, and I can assure you other Wikipedians have managed better to present a neutral view. I'll try and edit the article myself, based on the German version and material from both the "Iranian" and the "Arab" version here. I'll leave the rest of the details for you guys to work out. FellFairy 11:31, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

To Ali Doostzadeh

Why did you revert my edit? And what does the age of the two states have to do with it? The claim put forward by the UAE apparently goes back to an earlier claim by one of the member emirates. The founding date of the UAE itself is quite irrelevant. And be that as it may, please feel free to correct any factual errors in what I wrote, but you can't just go back to a version that presents the Iranian possession as undisputedly correct, that way it will never be a neutral article. You can't seriously be claiming that the sovereignty dispute doesn't exist, and that the UAE claims don't merit any presentation? I thought Wikipedia was very proud of its neutrality in such things, but now I really don't know what to do. I'm new here and I don't want to start off with an edit war, but for now I think I'll revert this to what I wrote earlier. FellFairy 21:07, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

It's currently part of Iran. If a madeup country like UAE disputes it, then it should be mentioned. But it is not an international dispute. --alidoostzadeh 21:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Not an international dispute? Richard Schofield, Deputy Director of the Geopolitics Research Centre at the School of Oriental and African Studies in London, is of a different opinion. It seems he found enough international dispute about Tunbs to fill up 6 volumes and 5000 pages [2]. FellFairy 09:14, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

It's simple. The UAE is a madeup country in 1971 by the British. Iran has been there in the region way before the British. As per international dispute, no it is a small land dispute and it is not like the fakland wars between argentina or england or the issue of northern ireland. --alidoostzadeh 09:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

It's probably more like Isla Perejil, Hans Island, Hawar Islands, Zuqar Island, Spratley Islands etc. Are these cases not generally referred to as international disputes? FellFairy 09:35, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for adding in that word "not" in your post above. For a moment, I really had difficulties understanding what you wanted to say... :-) But my following point stands, I think. FellFairy 10:17, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Ali, you wrote in the article: "While Iran existed as a state long before 1971, the UAE as a state was formed in 1971 and had no history as independent state beforehand". That may be factually true, but it's still misleading, because it's irrelevant. As you put it, it seems to be insinuating that this fact is a relevant argument. It seems to suggest that Iran's rights are "better" because Iran is older. But that's not the case. Didn't you know states inherit their rights to territory from their predecessor states, that's a very basic rule of international law. The UAE in this case claim to inherit their rights from their predecessor states long before 1971, and in international law these claims are evaluated totally independently from the change in statehood that happened in 1971. I'll try to reword this. I'll preserve the information that the UAE were formed in 1971, but avoid to make any such misleading insinuations. Thanks, FellFairy 20:34, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

To Khosrow

Why did you revert that sentence back to Ali's version, when I had given a full argument why it's misleading? You could at least respond to the argument here in talk. I still think it's misleading and I will remove it again. And as for the "agreement" between Britain and Iran, can you back that up? The sources I've read all say that no such agreement was reached. But I haven't read more detailed scholarly works on the topic yet, I must admit that. FellFairy 06:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Another detail

You wrote ..."that they are situated within its [=Iran's] territorial waters", as part of the Iranian argumentation. I think that's also a bit misleading, again because it insinuates that it's a relevant argument for Iran's claim. But the rule in international law is that "the land rules the sea". That means, you can never say that an island belongs to state X because it is in X's territorial waters. It's the other way round. There are X's territorial waters there because X owns the island. The territorial waters can never be an argument for or against possession of the islands. If the islands belonged to the UAE, then the territorial waters around it would be UAE's too, automatically. FellFairy 06:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Transcription

Now, let's clarifiy this once and for all. It's Persian: تنب, not Persian: تونب, everybody agree with that? All transcription schemes I've seen transcribe that "short u" vowel as "o", and so do all the sources on the web. Same of course for "bozorg". Google for "Tonb-e bozorg": 3000 hits, "Tunb-e buzurg": 4 hits. And Persian: کوچک is "kuchek", LOL, that was in my first Persian lesson.

And by the way, ManiF, I don't mind you replacing those tags, but I don't appreciate you took out the fact tag for the population figure again. It was there because some sources say the islands are uninhabited. But I'll know more later during the day.

And ManiF, I'm still waiting for that apology from you for your bizarre sockpuppet accusation. Or are you going to do that checkuser thing after all? FellFairy 03:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Re blanking

C'mon guys, there's no justification for high scale page blanking like this. Some of that was fully sourced reliable information.--Tekleni 19:06, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, reverting the transcription was unnecessary. It has been fully explained in the section above this one and no one has replied.--Tekleni 19:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I am going to put back the transcription, but the rest of the edits seemed selective and POV-ridden so I think the revert is fully justified, especially since the current version was a compromise to begin with. --ManiF 19:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

ManiF, you must be joking. You can't seriously believe the old version was better than mine. It was completely unsourced and half the statements were simply factually wrong and I've proven it. If you think my new version is lacking some information, by all means add to it. But I'm going to reinstate it as a basis for further work. And do please first read something before you change the article again. This old version was just pure ignorance. FellFairy 21:33, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh yes, and thank you ManiF for finally acknowledging that I was right about the transcription of the name. Of course, if you were a polite person, you'd say "thank you, FellFairy, for correcting us about an embarrassing mistake we made with our own language, and sorry we wrongly reverted you four times over it at first." But of course, nothing like that from you, and still no apology for your absurd claims of the other day too. FellFairy 21:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, once more

What all is wrong with the version as it now stands?

"Greater Tunb has ... a few hundred inhabitants." I don't know if it's true, we have conflicting sources. Actually one of the sources you brought confirms it's uninhabited. [3]. Therefore I'll prefer the version that lists these different claims. I have no opinion which is correct, and I'm not interested in preferring the one or the other, why should I.

"UAE claims the islands belong to Sharja" - Wrong. According to the sources, it's actually Ras al-Kaimah. (Abu Musa is claimed by Sharja).

"Tehran says [...] they are situated within its territorial waters". Okay, that's stated in that newspaper article that way, but I argued above why it's misleading and amateurish. This was written by an ignorant journalist. The real argumentation brought forward by Iran was summed up in the book I quoted, which was written by a highly respected expert in international affairs.

"While Iran existed as a state long before 1971, the UAE as a state was formed in 1971". Still, factually correct but irrelevant. There's no source that says that this actually plays any role in anybody's serious argumentation.

"Britain ... came to an agreement with Iran". No apparently they didn't. The source you quoted ([4]) doesn't say a thing about this, the source I quoted explicitly contradicts that any such agreement was reached. Where and when was that agreement?

"the strategic Persian Gulf Islands were returned to Iran in exchange". Well, they were taken by Iran, by force. Actually, some people died in the event.

"Maps of every description, authority, and country of origin, as well as admiralty and maritime handbooks and surveys, official documents belonging to the seventeenth through nineteenth centuries reflected the longstanding and common understanding of mankind and the considered opinion of the Persian and British governments that the Tonbs belonged to Persia" - That's just an opinion piece, and it's actually plagiarised from the author you're quoting. We can of course summarize it and ascribe it as the opinion of the Iranian side, but we can't just state it as fact. That's blatantly non-neutral.

About the name, I'm not going to quibble over "kuchek" and "kuchak", but the website you quote is quite unreliable, they have a mixed jumble of different transcriptions all mixed together in one text. I looked up the US National Geonet names server. They list "Tonb-e Kūchek, Jazīreh-ye" as the main entry, with "Tonb-e-Kūchak, Jazīreh-Ye-" as one of several alternates. ([5]). They also render the Persian word as Persian: كوچِك, not Persian: كوچَك, so if it's vocalized as a short "i" it should be transcribed as "e", not "a", I think.

I think we can integrate a few of your edits with most of mine, so I don't like to just revert this to and fro. But I'm tired. It wasn't right for you to blindly revert my edits and then start afresh. Therefore I'll now revert to mine and mark the article as disputed, and then it's up to you to bring back whatever you think is correct from the edits you made. But please respond to my points above first. FellFairy 08:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

Before everybody goes on with their blind reverts here, I'm sick of this, are you guys going to accept mediation? FellFairy 09:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

If you have a problem with the article, simply add a "dispute" tag, I'll add it for you. --Azerbaijani 09:46, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the article, I have a problem with people who will just blindly revert anything and everything I write and won't respond to actual discussion. :-( The arguments are laid out above. So, are you taking them up or not? FellFairy 09:49, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Your problem is your impatience. You state something and then before allowing other users to comment on you assertions or challenge it, you go and blindly revert the article to the version that is in line with your PV. --Azerbaijani 09:54, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate you devotion, FellFairy. Please allow for discussion before applying major changes to the article. Kaveh 09:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

What??!? I am discussing, nobody else is. My points have been here on this talk page for days, nobody is responding. So, are you going to respond now or not? And what the heck do you believe is "my POV"? You think I'm pro-Arab or what? Have I ever indicated I believe the Arab claims to be correct? I don't, in fact. I just want them to be presented fairly, as in every other article on territorial disputes. FellFairy 10:00, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

You should not expect real-time results, please have patience and allow for the interested parties to research you claims. Also, direct your responses to the appropriate user by separating you entries. Kaveh 10:07, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh yes, and why can't you guys have patience for once and do your research while letting my edits stand for half a day? That's what I did, I let Ali's erroneous statements stand and went to a library and got a few books. Then I rewrote the article, it was all sourced, and my version was just obviously better than the unsources stub we had earlier. You can't seriously deny that. FellFairy 10:15, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Kaveh, thank you for reconciling our two versions. I really appreciate that. I think if we can work out something like that, everybody can be happy with the article. Sorry for becoming so impatient, but the many reverts of the last few days really got on my nerves. FellFairy 10:40, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate you showing interest in the matter. Unfortunately, the atmosphere here can be charged and there are real trust issues with new users. I am sure you will be able to work more closely with everyone as a mature mutual understanding takes shape. Kaveh 10:45, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

The last paragraph which I had removed is inaccurate and POV even if it's sourced, it simplifies Iran's position making it look as if all of Iran's claims are based on a single map or that Iran is an expansionist state that claims all of Persian Gulf as her territory. This is blatant POV, I'm removing the paragraph again. --Azerbaijani 12:00, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

See my talk page. Kaveh 12:06, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Guys, I'm glad we can now talk properly. But I think you misunderstand something. You don't seem to understand a few things about International Law. The story about the British map is the best thing we can possibly say in favour of the Iranian claim. It's the strongest argument they have! In law, if I have a dispute and my opponent concedes I'm right at one point, he can never go back on that again later! Cases before the International Court of Justice have been lost and won over just such incidents. The incident with the map is in fact extremely central to the official Iranian argumentation. You are really shooting yourself in the foot if you remove it. :-) FellFairy 12:15, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. In fact, this British map from 1892 also show the islands to be Iranian. I only implemented a compromise. Kaveh 12:19, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Kaveh, you could actually add that map to the dispute section with a brief description. --Azerbaijani 12:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Fairy, this is not an international dispute, there are no UN resolutions regarding these Islands, Iranian argumentation is the historic fact that these Islands were a part of Iran before Arabs or UAE even existed in that area, they are a part of Iran now and will remain a part of Iran forever. Iran has no obligation to go any International Court, so don't worry about Iran's argument. --Azerbaijani 12:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, tell that to the Iranian government. Perhaps they'll hire you as a replacement for all their top-level diplomats, since you know better than them. ;-) By the way, of course there are no UN resolutions. The UN isn't in the business of making resolutions about such issues. Learn a bit about International Law and how the UN works. FellFairy 12:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense. There are UN resolutions regarding all the international disputes, this simply isn't one. --Azerbaijani 12:56, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Resolutions by the Security Council are only made when there is an immediate threat of war over an issue, and even then in most cases the Council will only ask the two sides to refrain from violence etc., and won't make a judgment about the conflicting claims themselves. Hah, rather like those administrators and arbitrators here on Wikipedia. As for the Court of Justice, it can only get involved if both sides ask it to, which hasn't been the case here, so they have had no chance to comment on the case either. Most international disputes of this calibre remain below the threshold of UN involvement, often for decades. FellFairy 15:00, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

The three islands were part of Iran during Safavid and Afsharid era. It was recoganized as part of Iran during the Qajar era (as well Bahrain was recognized as part of Iran), but the British slowly took it over. The UAE did not exist before 1971 and I am not sure why a country that did not exist in 1971 has a legitimate claim. --alidoostzadeh 19:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I told you two or three times: because it inherits its claim from the earlier Sheikhdoms. Why don't you just go and read a book about it? FellFairy 21:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

The previous sheikhdom was not independent. --alidoostzadeh 21:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

They were dominated by Britain, but the (purported) sovereignty claims were nevertheless theirs, and not Britain's. That's the uncontroversial premise made in every serious discussion of the issue in international law. You shouldn't really be debating these things here if you aren't prepared to do your homework and read some of the literature on the topic. FellFairy 14:16, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

More sources

I think I found another good source. It's an online article from a work called Encyclopedia Iranica, and it's quite detailed: [6]. What do you guys think, will that do as a source? It's actually by the same author ManiF was quoting from, but it's more neutral and more scholarly in style than his more popular articles elsewhere. We could summarize that and combine it with the things from Schofield, that way the article could become very good. There's a lot of detail there, about the history, the different names, etymology, population figures, everything.

But we can't edit the article now, right? What must we do to get it unfrozen? Demonstrate that we are no longer quarreling? Hey guys, where are you? Peace...? FellFairy 18:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Just ask User:Winhunter to unprotect it. Had he actually looked at the debate here, he wouldn't lock it in the first place. Meanwhile, you can lay out your proposed changes in the talk page. Kaveh 01:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Winhunter hasn't been active, he says he's taking a break. I've gone to that "Requests for protection" page and asked there. I think I'll prefer writing directly into the article when it's unfrozen, because it will all be just adding of details here and there, like more footnotes and stuff. FellFairy 08:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The Persian Tunbs

The Persian Tunbs

I'd like to announce that these Iranian Tunbs belong to Iran during the history. I have my own reasons and more than 7000 years history is supporting my claim, on the other hand these Iranian tunbs are approved by the United Nation and also United state and European countries. So I do say The Persian Gulf and its Iranian tunbs will be remained IRANIAN for ever.[The Persian Empire by Pejman Azadi]

http://pejman.azadi.googlepages.com/Iran Persian Gulf forever Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.47.210.6 (talk) 19:34, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

New changes

I have added new changes to this page and updated the information regarding the dispute. As everything added is well referenced, just check, I expect no major changes. Ali Soltani 03:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

References

Someone needs to clean-up the references. This article could also use a "see also" section. --evrik ^(talk) 15:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Axamir's comments

Axamir, you have several times attempted to erase note of UAE's claim on the islands, delete the islands' Arabic names, and otherwise make uncited assertions that go against the facts and their much-discussed presentation. If you have arguments that have not been addressed on this Talk page, present them. PRRfan (talk) 16:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• I agree with PRRfan. Let's discuss this here and not have an edit war. --evrik ^(talk) 15:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

See related discussion at Talk:Abu Musa#Axamir's attempt to erase UAE's claim. PRRfan (talk) 22:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Really, Axamir, attempting to delete the discussion won't help you make your case. PRRfan (talk) 04:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

"Tunb" or "Tonb"

I know that showing the true pronunciation of Persian/Arabic is a bit difficult in English Texts, but there is a mixture of use of "Tunb" and "Tonb" in the article. Isn't it better to unify them to one and explain the pronunciations seperately? --Najand (talk) 15:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Question

Is it absolutely necessary to have that Iranian flag in the image caption? Since a significant part of the articel seems to be about the dispute over these, that could easily come of as being a biased statement or reflexion. 68.39.174.238 (talk) 05:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The flag was added by Aximir, in one of the several dubious edits he has declined to discuss. I have reverted Axamir's edits pending discussion here. PRRfan (talk) 05:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

It is necessary because of the fact that this island is part of Iran and anyone who would like to travel to this islands either need to present his/her Iranian passport or Iranian visa to enter these islands.--69.255.45.43 (talk) 02:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

PRRfan: Your attempt in deleting Iranian flag would not make this island part of any Arab country. So, please quit this childish action of yours and respect other countries territorial sovereignty. --69.255.45.43 (talk) 02:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)--69.255.45.43 (talk) 02:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Axamir, neither insults nor sockpuppetry advance your cause. PRRfan (talk) 03:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

PRRfan: It was very rich! You are just showing your true color here in this discussion. Nobody has any value for your fraud posts and references. This is to inform you that In case of any more insult from you, I will have to report your actions for further investigation. Thank you for your understanding. --Axamir (talk) 05:09, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Axamir, if you put half as much energy into making your case as you do into empty threats, we might be able to arrive at a satisfactory resolution here. So kindly explain why you believe the Arabic names of islands claimed by an Arabic country should be deleted. PRRfan (talk) 19:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

-- The flag should stay, because it shows the status quo of the island. And please don't forget that from the creation of UAE in half century ago, not one day they have the full control of the islands. I rather prefer an article like Falkland Islands. Perhaps if an infoxbox added in the article and the flag was put there, your objection to it will decrease. Take care. --Pejman47 (talk) 20:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Putting the flag in an infobox under "administered by", as has been done on Abu Musa, would satisfactorily reflect the status quo. I objected to Axamir's addition of the flag because he also attempted to delete mention of UAE"s claim on and the Arabic names of the island, which, in the absence of edit summaries or cogent discussion, suggested an attempt to whitewash the conflicted state of affairs in favor of a summary declaration of Iranian sovereignty. PRRfan (talk) 01:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes the flag should be there since it is administed by Iran. It is part of Iranian territory and there is an Iranian flag planted there. The UAE can make a claim and we can mention it, along with the fact that UAE is a name of a nation since 1971 while the name Iran goes back to at least Parthian times (if not Avesta). But the area is part of Iranian territory and administered by Iran, so the flag should be there..--alidoostzadeh (talk) 05:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Right, like I said, and now have added. But you have not explained why you have deleted the Arabic, and so I have restored it. PRRfan (talk) 15:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Like I mentioned to you, there is an arabic page for this purpose العربية. Adding arabic words for English readers in an English page is just irrelevant. --Axamir (talk) 04:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Axamir, my compliments to you for beginning to use the edit summary box. As for the Arabic, by your logic, there should be no Persian words either. Care to try another argument? PRRfan (talk) 04:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

PRRfan: The official language of that island is Persian so it can be referred to. But what is arabic anyways? It is like going to New York page and pronounce it in arabic. Who cares?!! Thanks for your understanding... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Axamir (talk • contribs) 05:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

PPRFan: Please be advised that your false language has been reported to Wikipedia Webmanagers. I have requested to ban your account permanently due to using bad language and adding fraud information. --Axamir (talk) 23:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Axamir, you have done no such thing. Kindly focus on the discussion at hand. As both the Abu Musa and Tunbs pages say, and as you have not presented evidence to dispute, there is an unresolved claim by the Arabic-speaking UAE on the islands. Therefore, it's not appropriate to delete the Arabic names. PRRfan (talk) 23:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

If France disputes sovereignty of those islands, would you write it in French? or if UAE claims ownership of New York City would you write the name of NYC in arabic. Off course not. It is stupid. Using arabic or any foreign languages other than the language of the residents of the island in the English page is not acceptable.
There is an arabic page, if you like, you can edit with your own language.
Please quit your childish undo-game. Nobody benefits from it. --Axamir (talk) 21:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Axamir: No offense but you're not actually correct in this languages argument. Where there is a disputed territory, a convention has developed whereby the name of the territory is stated in all the relevant languages. See Western Sahara, for example, where the English name is translated into both Arabic (with respect to the claim by the Moroccan government) and Spanish (with respect to the claim by the Polisaro Front). This article is about a territory that is similarly claimed by two nations - Iran and the UAE - so if we follow that convention we should translate the name into Persian and Arabic. Note that for the purposes of adding such translations, it doesn't matter whether the various claims over the territory are valid. It only matters that the claims exist. I hope you can agree with this and that this post enables both you and PRRfan to resolve your differences. -- Hux (talk) 06:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Axamir. It would be best if you continued the discussion ongoing at the Wikiquette alerts page. It would, of course, also be best if you would provide citations for your changes, or discuss the existing references, instead of merely deleting them.[7] PRRfan (talk) 22:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Elmondo21st, you going to have to justify your reverts if you want them to stick. The main point is that these islands are officially part of Iran, while they are only claimed by the UAE. If they are just claimed by the UAE, how does it make them an integral part of it? Khoikhoi 23:17, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Abu Musa, Greater and Lesser Tunbs , UAE

I think the basic point that these islands Abu Musa, Greater and Lesser Tunbs belongs to the United Arab Emirates according to several sources. and doesn’t mean that Iran is having control over these islands presently, that these islands belong to iran .so the article should be well-balenced and respect the Emirati demand over the islands.--Elmondo21st (talk) 00:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

"according to several sources" - what would these sources be? You yourself admit that the "Emirati demand" the islands, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the islands are officially a part of the UAE. Quite the contrary. Khoikhoi 01:00, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

• Dear Elmondo21st, Here in Wikipedia we are not talking about the which of the claims are right or wrong . The "Administration" is presently Iranian , that means "having control over these islands presently" is the determining factor in the box . Please don't change it.If you are so interested in the dispute , add your information on dispute section . Thank you --Alborz Fallah (talk) 15:29, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

BTW, no claim has been officially made to the international court of law by UAE as of now. There is no open lawsuit in this regard. All of these accusations are verbal! So, I don't think anything needs to be added or even metioned in the page in regards to the UAE verbal claims and threats to make a claim. [8]--75.75.94.232 (talk) 05:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Lesser Tunb uninhabited ?

GoogleEarth shows Lesser Tunb has a runway, artificial harbour, roads, buildings and what looks like defensive walls and gun emplacements. I don't see how this could be called uninhabited. Why not sort your edit wars out by having an Iranian version and an Emirate version ? DaveK —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.93.92 (talk) 01:21, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

There is no such thing as Emirati version! All of Emirates' claims are just verbal. They do not have any open cases in the international court of law. All of their previous claims dissmised. It shows the accusations are politically motivated rather than having a true basis. [9] --75.75.94.232 (talk) 05:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Axamir, again

To: 75.75.94.232, Don't make yourself tired explaining to this guy PRRfan. I know him from other topics, he has several ID accounts and doesn't care what anyone says and wishes.--Axamir (talk) 20:24, 15 June 2009 (UTC) I'm going to report him to Wikipedia to warn him directly of his violence.--Axamir (talk) 20:24, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, Axamir. I would have hoped you had mellowed since we last discussed this matter. First off, I don't have multiple accounts; I don't know why you would say so. Second, you have behaved poorly in your interactions on this topic. You have several times attempted to erase note of UAE's claim on the islands by fiat instead of citation and consensus, several times tried to delete the islands' Arabic names, and otherwise make uncited assertions that go against the facts and their much-discussed presentation. And finally, you have put your energy into empty threats instead of productive discussion. Moreover, you have several times attempted to delete parts of the discussion, which is no one's idea of good etiquette. I wish you well, and hope you can play a constructive role on these issues. You can start by discussing your proposed changes on this talk page. PRRfan (talk) 20:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

RE: It shows otherwise by looking at your recent discussions about the necessity of adding things to legend and how you pursue your sole wishes. I encourage you to delete your other accounts and stop your tactics you using in adding your propogannda to pages. I have never seen someone doing things wrongfully and then keep a straigh face and blaime it on other people. Now we are aware of your agenda and your intentions and won't let you impose your wrong opinions on pages.--Axamir (talk) 01:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Everyone: There is just one person behind all these allegations and alteration of the page. The IDs he is using are as follows: PRRfan, Future Perfect at Sunrise, Heimstern and many more. Please revert the page back to its original page after you notice he undoed or altered the page. His tactic is so medieval! Thank you.--Axamir (talk) 19:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Axamir, your charges are baseless, and they do you no credit. PRRfan (talk) 19:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Reverts

Re this revert: the cited Farsnews article only reiterates the Iranian position, but even that article, exactly in so doing, confirms that the dispute exists and that the UAE is raising these claims. Whether you or I or Farsnews or anybody else think those objections are baseless is irrelevant here; they are there, and therefore we must reflect them in an NPOV way. As for a claim "not being made to the International Court of Law", that's plain irrelevant. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:24, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Sources are everything here, and sources make it clear that these islands are indeed disputed. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 08:10, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The island is disputed verbally! It means you and me can claim those islands too!! It wouldn't mean anything unless these claims find their way into the court of law. As of now there is no open cases in any international courts pursuing these claims! So, it is not more than just war of words than being an offical claim submitted to an international court of law. So, I still do not see any reseaon to put up these claims highlighted in the page.--75.75.94.232 (talk) 14:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC) BTW, I am not talking about the legitimacy of the Emirat's claim. No one has filed any complaint as we speaking. If you guys file a complain now, you are ahead of Emirates in claiming those islands!! So, I respectfully ask to return the page to how it was without adding any biased and emotional statements as to these islands belong to or claimed by Emirates. Thank you. --75.75.94.232 (talk) 14:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

You are mistaken about the role of courts in disputes like this. The huge majority of minor territorial disputes of this kind are never brought to the International Court. (For that to happen, the two countries would have to agree to take it to the court first). Nevertheless such disputes exist. They exist as long as countries uphold their conflicting claims, which both countries in this case do. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:08, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: I could claim these islands: Like I said, sources are everything. If I claimed these islands today, no reliable source would report this. It would be patently non-notable, and if a reliable source started reporting my claim (save possibly in Reuters's "oddly enough" column), they'd be a laughing stock and wouldn't remain a reliable source much longer. So no, my hypothetical claim to these islands is not the same as the UAE's. The UAE's is covered by sources, mine is not would not be even if I made it. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 16:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

RE: I hear you on the importance of Source. But what more important is having a supporting documents that can back you up in the court of law. What you and UAE have in common is that you both do not have ample documents to prove your case. That's why it has not gone any where ever since the issue has been brought up. To respond to our fellow about both party needing to agree on going to court, I would say not necessarily that's the case. Not both party needs to agree to take the matter to the court. Iran would be dragged to the court of law if anyone including UAE makes a complaint.--75.75.94.232 (talk) 04:03, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Whether the UAE has sufficient documents to defend their claim in a court of law is irrelevant. Wikipedia is not a court of law. We base our decisions on what reliable geographical sources say, not on whether the case is solid or not. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 07:18, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

RE: I agree with you on that. I advise you to change the sources you getting your information from. Because they do not look reliable to me. All the islands in the Persian gulf whether the ones that are now part of Iran or the ones that declared independence have had Persian identity over the course of history.--75.75.74.126 (talk) 19:29, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I still oppose to that fact that the dipute part should be reflected in the legend part of the page. We can add the dispute part in the legend whenever it is claimed officially in the court of law. Our decisions should not be based on some war of words that is going on once in a while between two countries. Thank you all for your inputs in this regard.--75.75.74.126 (talk) 19:29, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I've added three more citations about the ongoing dispute, which should, of course, be reflected in the legend. PRRfan (talk) 14:17, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I had seen your citations before. They are nothing new! I expect you to return the page to the shape it was prior to your alterations. We can change the legend whenever UAE decides to pursue its claim lawfully in an international court. Thank you.--75.75.94.232 (talk) 03:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, from what I see in the literature, the UAE are the ones who have been trying hard to do just that ([10], [11] etc.) – but as I said, they can't without Iran's approval. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:52, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid your expectations are going to lead to disappointment here. Your notion that a territorial dispute needs to be actively being arbitrated in an international court to be reflected is just plain incorrect. Verbal diplomatic disputes do indeed count, and you'll find it's true all over Wikipedia. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

RE: Expectation is going to lead disappointment because you are there and push the undo button, ha?!! I'm done with you.--75.75.94.232 (talk) 16:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

No, your expectation is going to lead to disappointment because you expected us to revert, something we weren't going to do. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Imperialist UK ceded three Iranian islands: Former diplomat

A former Iranian diplomat says the three Persian Gulf islands of Greater Tunb and Lesser Tunb and Abu Musa definitely belong to Iran and the issue has already been proven by the available documents and maps.

“There is no doubt that this [Abu Musa] island [and the other two islands] belong to Iran. This has already been proven. With the documents and maps we had in our possession and even the maps that the Russians had and which they gave us, we proved these three islands belong to Iran,” Reza Qasemi, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi’s last ambassador to Kuwait said Tuesday.

He added that the contention over the three Iranian islands in the Persian Gulf dates back to the creation of a union of sheikhdoms in the Persian Gulf, which is now known as the United Arab Emirates.

“In fact, the creation of that union was a British idea. They aimed to put Iran, which had rightful claims to Bahrain and the three islands… in front of a group of Arab emirates. At that time, they talked of including Bahrain in the union as well,” the former ambassador said.

“Iran ...clearly announced that as long as the issue of Bahrain and the three [Iranian] islands was not solved, it would not agree to the establishment of such a union which was forged by Britain,” he noted.

Qasemi further stated that the issue of the islands belonging to Iran was solved many years ago and is an outdated debate which should not be renewed on any ground.

“Abu Musa Island and the other two islands of Greater Tunb and Lesser Tunb belong to Iran and there are documents to prove this. At that time, we even sent [military] forces to the islands to restore Iran’s ownership of the islands,” he added.

According to former Iranian envoy to Kuwait, after Iran sent forces to the islands, four Arab states lodged a complaint against Tehran with the UN Security Council.

“These four countries included Iraq, South Yemen, Libya, and Algeria. Iran’s representative to the Security Council presented a very comprehensive report and proved [Iran’s] ownership [of the islands],” he said.

As a result of Iran’s argument, Qasemi noted, the Security Council dropped the issue from its agenda and it is an internationally accepted principle that when the Security Council drops a subject, it cannot be raised again.

“Therefore, the UAE’s insistence on owning the islands and its claim to having sovereign right [to the islands] is totally wrong. Sovereignty is secondary to ownership; that is, in the absence of ownership there is no sovereignty,” he said.

The former diplomat concluded by saying that Iran and the UAE have signed an official agreement on this issue which can still be found in the archives of the Iranian Foreign Ministry.

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/236904.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.68.252 (talk) 08:52, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Advertisement for a random polling website + Undue Weight violations

Devoting an entire section on a Wikipedia article to a random online poll conducted by " online panel" of a random polestar/market research firm, is a clear violation of WP:UNDUE. The person who first dumped this so-called poll on that page and many others (Redroar75 [12]), appears to be an employee of, and affiliated with the YouGov, working as a PR person, and all he does in Wikipedia is link-dumping as free advertisement and publicity for YouGov marketing firm. Just a quick examination of his contributions, show that every single one of his edits is linking to this not-so-notable company as a reference, creating and devoting an entire section to this company on various pages, in order to advertise and promote them. Most of the edits are even promotional/business-like in tone too, just take a look at these examples. [13][14] So this is borderline spamming, besides the obvious weight issues. Kurdo777 (talk) 14:26, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Let me add my two cents here:

1. Reliability of YouGov is not clear.

2. Even if YouGov is credible, they say they have used "online panel" which is the worst method of polling in MENA where many are not online-savy (older generation, people from less-rich Arab countries, etc.), resulting in biased sample, hence not being able to claim that your population (Arabs) have the same views as the respondents to this poll have. You can get confirmation of this from any survey specialist who knows the region, this is a relatively basic issue in survey methodology.

In conclusion, it would be misleading and scientifically inaccurate to call this poll a true representation of the opinions of general Arab population. Farmanesh (talk) 16:38, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Both comments are true . I can add , the sampling is not valid , because if MENA means Middle East and North Africa , then why the sample is not homogenous : I mean more samples from Arab states of the Persian Gulf then less from Levant Arabs and least from Egypt and other North African Arab states ? the bias is pretty meaningful because the population of Egypt alone is many times more than all Arab states of Persian gulf combined , and their opinion is proved to be different with eastern Arabs .--Alborz Fallah (talk) 18:37, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Let me add that Egyptian presidential election, 2012 is proof of the obvious unreliability of YoGov "online panel" polls. The same editor who is trying to add a section on YoGov here for promotional purposes, had done so on that page, predicting that according to YoGov, Amr Moussa leads all candidates by 49% (almost a majority), but the actual election results show that Amar Musa has only got 12% of the vote, and is projected to finish last in the elections. [15] So we're talking about a pollster/marketing research firm that uses biased samples and is almost 40% off mark, which is fishy to say the least, and well outside the acceptable normal margin of error in polling. Kurdo777 (talk) 02:47, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Read it again and again and again.. keep reading it until you cam distinguish between when the poll was actually conducted and when the final election result was announced. People's views change, campaigns begin and unravel etc. The poll does not claim to predict the election that will follow many months later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redroar75 (talk • contribs) 12:23, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Greater and Lesser Tunbs. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080229133058/http://www.hiik.de/konfliktbarometer/pdf/Konfliktbarometer_2001.pdf to http://www.hiik.de/konfliktbarometer/pdf/Konfliktbarometer_2001.pdf

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 06:10, 23 October 2017 (UTC)