Talk:Persian Gulf

Ancient names for the Persian Gulf

Currently, the page makes a single reference to the usage of 'the Bitter Sea' by the 'Assyrians'. Setting aside that this is incredibly vague, it doesn't address the fact that the Sumerians and the early Semitic Mesopotamians called the Persian Gulf 'the Lower Sea'. This is the most common nomenclature in early Mesopotamian texts. The name contrasts the Persian Gulf with the Mediterranean, which the early Mesopotamians called 'the Upper Sea'. A thousand years later, in Neo-Assyrian tests, the Gulf is called 'the Eastern Sea'. This should be relevant to include, I think.

Source: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4311029 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A458:447B:1:1D7B:7DDB:93A1:E043 (talk) 14:38, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

FAQ template to talk page

Should we replace the not-a-forum tag with a FAQ explaining the naming dispute and that the name "Arabian Gulf" won't be replaced in the article? NotAGenious (talk) 13:30, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Ice Age exposure as land

Modern geography has shown that the global sea level during the ice age was over 400 feet (120 meters lower as recently as 8000 BC. This means that the entire Gulf was dry land, a continuation of the Tigris+Euphrates river valley. Little research to date has explored potential cities and settlements in this area, though it may well have been a far more important area of inhabitation than the well known ancient cities. This topic is worth mentioning. Gar37bic (talk) 14:53, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, if supporting reliable sources can be cited with any addition. DeCausa (talk) 21:08, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes - can you point to RS on this? Lukewarmbeer (talk) 07:34, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

New interactive zoomable map

@DeCausa Hi, the OpenStreetMap map is interactive and zoomable and very well shows map of Persian Gulf. Why did you revert my edit? This map is different from all existing maps. I really believe that if you want to remove one of two maps, you should remove the jpg map and not the OpenStreetMap map.

It is very clear and even more clear than the jpg. All water borders are shown in this new map. Also islands of Persian Gulf are shown better and more clearly. These details only can be shown by OpenStreetMap.

This ability is specially well-used by mobile users. They rapidly zoom by two fingers. Hooman Mallahzadeh (talk) 16:52, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Firstly, you increased the maps from one to 5 in the Infobox (only 4 of which worked with captions) which is way over the top and unnecessary. Secondly, the OpenStreetmap is unnecessary and inferior in comparison to the existing satellite image. The latter gives a good view of the geographic and oceanographic setting. It shows the nature of the surrounding terrain as well as shallow and deeper water, with excellent and clear detail of the coastline such as islands and inlets. A not insignificant factor is that it is aesthetically pleasing. TheOpenStreet map, on the other hand, is an unattractive and featureless slab of grey with irrelevant features such as the location of Riyadh and Shiraz. The coastline is unclear and crudely drawn. The body of water is featureless block of blue. It imparts little information about the Gulf other than its basic shape. The same is not true of the satellite map. DeCausa (talk) 18:07, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

@DeCausa You are right that no more than 5 maps is allowed, but pushpin maps are overlapped when showing and only one of them is shown at any time, but we can ignore it totally by removing pushpin maps.

I really insist on displaying OpenStreetMap map.

Yes Persian Gulf is very beautiful from satellite! But we should only show this gulf, without any extra information. Existing satellite image has extra information in it:

1. Coulds are not necessary specially near Dubai there exists clouds
2. The color of waters is extra information
3. In my opinion, mountains of Iran is unrelevant to Persian Gulf too.

We only should show

1. Borders of gulf
2. Islands of gulf by name
3. Importand countries by name

Additionally, I really think that the details represented in OpenStreetMap are much more useful than the details represented from Seattleite. In fact, we should "model" this gulf. In modeling process, we do not need exact borders with full details. So inaccurate border lines as in OpenStreetMap is more useful than exact borders.

Finally, satellite image lacks any text of for explaining main items. Unlike OpenStreetMap maps. Hooman Mallahzadeh (talk) 18:59, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

@DeCausa In my opinion, svg maps had become deprecated, and we can use "rich metadata maps" as in OpenStreetMap maps. These new maps are much more helpful for anyone. Hooman Mallahzadeh (talk) 19:12, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

These new maps are not more helpful. Having these details is helpful. Why are these "rich metadata maps" more helpful? QuicoleJR (talk) 19:32, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

The open streetmaps are subjectively inferior when displayed in the infobox, and to make use of their features and details you have to click on them and exit Wikipedia to another site. This renders them not suitable for being included in the infobox at this scale. Canterbury Tail talk 19:41, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

@QuicoleJRSolid svg image has no any text. What OpenStreetMap adds is metadata,

1. Name of Island is metadata of satellite image, (not shown in satallite)
2. Showing main roads with names are metadata and so on. (not shown in satallite)
3. Where is the border of Persian Gulf? Is it clear in satellite map? (not shown in satallite)

What is important and useful are these items.

I ask you:

1. Cloud over Dubai is useful to anyone? (shown in satallite)
2. A mountain in Iran is useful? (shown in satallite)
3. Snow over mountain is useful. (shown in satallite)

@Canterbury Tail Sorry for pinging you, but you reverted my edits. So please continue discussing. Hooman Mallahzadeh (talk) 19:51, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

I have been discussing, you don't need to ping me., I'm able to follow discussions I'm participating in without notifications. Canterbury Tail talk 19:53, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

The metadata is not visible to most readers, as few of them will click on the map. The border is also not ambiguous since the Persian Gulf is a body of water, and therefore the coastline acts as the border. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:54, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

The information you're talking about is NOT visible in the infobox. Name of island, not visible in infobox. Main roads? Not visible in infobox. Border of Persian Gulf, seems to have been arbitrarily chosen in this map which is odd when there is no recognised boundary to it. In fact the labels in the infobox are confusing because they're illegible and cut off by the borders. Canterbury Tail talk 19:57, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

As I know OpenMapStreet shows details of metadata maps based on the zoom number, for example, zoom number of 7 shows only 1 island and zoom 9 shows 5 or more islands etc. Perhaps we should change settings of OpenMapStreet to show more or less texts on early zooms. Some settings are required for that. But I really think that we should not use satellite image for Infobox of Persian Gulf. They are somehow deprecated for Infoboxes. Hooman Mallahzadeh (talk) 20:12, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

They are not deprecated for infoboxes, you would need a community consensus for that. Your opinion is not policy. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:18, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Hooman Mallahzadeh, what you say makes absolutely no sense. One cannot access the features you claim. It is a dull, pointless, ugly map that adds nothing and takes away information displayed in the satellite map. You are pushing these useless maps in multiple articles. I don't know what motivates you in doing this but you have literally found no one who agrees with you. You need to drop this. DeCausa (talk) 23:04, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

@DeCausa Hi dear DeCausa, please mention that it is the hidden version, like this

Abstract map on OpenStreetMaps

So it is hidden in the first view, but we can benefit from its abstraction on Persian Gulf if needed by expanding it. I really think that this technique (hiding OSM) is reasonable. Hooman Mallahzadeh (talk) 11:54, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Please do not add this map to the article again without consensus. Consensus is required for adding disputed content, such as this map. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:04, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

@QuicoleJR Ok. I will never add. I just wanted to check new technique of hiding. Be sure! Hooman Mallahzadeh (talk) 13:10, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

2000 years of Persian navy

The section Persian_Gulf#Ancient_history implies that there was a Persian navy in Antiquity that not only survived the fall of the empire, but endured until the British navy arrived. I have doubts. The source link is dead. --91.89.199.179 (talk) 19:18, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

I can't access the source either. It does seem to be an overstatement (however impliedly made). Iran was part of the Arab caliphate from the 7th to 10th centuries - there could, in no sense, be a "Persian navy" during this time. It was then mostly subject to various Turkic and Mongol empires (but many of them were Persianate) until the 16th century when the Iranian Safavids gained control. There was, therefore, a substantial gap in "Persian" naval control after antiquity - for exactly how long is debatable. The wording should be adjusted - but to exactly what? DeCausa (talk) 22:51, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Having looked at it again I've simply removed the sentence "Persian naval forces laid the foundation for a strong Persian maritime presence in Persian Gulf, that started with Darius I and existed until the arrival of the British East India Company, and the Royal Navy by mid-19th century AD.". For the reasons stated above it can't be correct. Also the cited source source is about Ancient Persia so it either is ill-qualified to comment on the 2,500 years after Darius, or, in fact, doesn't comment. Thirdly, it doesn't actually seem relevant to the section which is about the Gulf in antiquity. DeCausa (talk) 23:41, 28 December 2024 (UTC)