November 25, 2004
The Persian Gulf
Firts Iranian blogopshere's Google bombing has been successfull: arabian gulf
The page we made protesting National Geographic's use of Arabic names for some Iranian islands and for the Persian gulf, is now ranked first in Google, thanks to efforts by Pendar and thousands of Iranian bloggers.
But in their press release, National Geographic Society has defended its decision to use those names. Here is their press release about the issue which is behind a wierd guest book form:
Statement on Persian Gulf/Arabian Gulf
National Geographic Books has recently published its Eighth Edition Atlas of the World. Questions have been raised regarding the decision to use both a primary name, "Persian Gulf", and an alternative secondary name, (Arabian Gulf), for the body of water situated between Iran and the Arabian Peninsula. This designation appears on two map plates in the Eighth Edition Atlas of sufficient scale for this level of detail. While National Geographic considers "Persian Gulf" to be the primary name, it has been the Society's cartographic practice to display a secondary name in parentheses when use of such a name has become commonly recognized.
The Society does not follow any single source to make such determinations, and seeks to be accurate, apolitical and objective. Decisions regarding nomenclature assigned to geographic places, locations, bodies of water, and the like are checked against a number of external entities, including the Board on Geographic Names, recognized reference books such as encyclopedias, dictionaries, and geographical dictionaries. The Arabian Gulf is recognized as a variant naming of the Persian Gulf by many such entities. In fact, the Society first used the primary-secondary dual listing on a Middle East map published in 1991.
In using the dual primary-secondary indicator, the Society specifically seeks to acknowledge sometimes conflicting naming claims involving bordering bodies of water. The Society does not attempt to make judgments about the validity of such claims but accurately to acknowledge the existence of the conflicting names. The Society has decided to make a change for the purpose of clarification and will include an explanatory note on this treatment of the Persian Gulf in future iterations of the Atlas and area maps, including to our on-line maps at nationalgeographic.com, as it does occasionally with other naming issues.
Our naming policy on the Persian Gulf is consistent with our cartographic treatment of other parts of the world, such as the body of water between Japan and Korea, for which we show the primary name as the "Sea of Japan," and a secondary alternative name, (East Sea).
Questions have also been raised about the labeling of the islands of Abu Musa and Greater and Lesser Tunb. National Geographic's research determined that these islands are currently the subject of a dispute between Iran and the United Arab Emirates (U.A.E.). While Iran controls these islands, the U.A.E. claims them. Our large-scale regional maps include a notation to acknowledge that dispute: "Occupied by Iran (claimed by the U.A.E.)"
National Geographic will insert additional clarifying language on the map plates relating to the Persian Gulf in subsequent printings of the Atlas, and will add such notations to its on-line maps.
The eighth edition of the Atlas of the World is 416 pages, with more than 140,000 place names. More than 15,000 cartographic changes and updates were made in the course of creating this edition, which was five years in the making.
###
Contacts:
Sarah Clark
National Geographic Society
202-828-5664
sclark@ngs.org
Liz Nickless
National Geographic Society
202-775-6163
enickles@ngs.org
In retrospective, I don't think these disputes ever will be settled for Iran's benefit, unless Iran makes friend with Israel.
This is just a reality which every Iranian government has to accept. Iran and Israel need each other in the Arab dominated region of Middle East. Look how Turkey and even Iraq's Kurds have accepted this fact and have established warm relationship with Israel. Who would have expected this from an Islamic-leaning government in Turkey?
Posted by hoder at November 25, 2004 1:16 AM
I'not worried what ARABS say or may say.
What concerns me is that if Mullas were not holing us (Persians)hostage for so long,would anybody in the region dare to imagine rubbing us of our name!!?....
Surely not.Let them all know,WE WILL NOT allow those brackets to remain on the map no matter who published it.
Last but not least,these guys (Arabs) better fight for their own lost lands insteasd of rubbing themseives with our 2500 years of glorious history!!!!
---------
There's a German article about this, I think they found out about it thru your blog cuz they mention you:
http://www.heise.de/tp/r4/artikel/18/18899/1.html
here's the google translation:
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=http://www.heise.de/tp/&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dtelepolis%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26client%3Dgoogle%26rls%3DGGLD,GGLD:2004-47,GGLD:en
---------
For the google bombing to be successful a contineous effort is needed to keep that page ranked first as the whole point of this is that people in the future and not just now see this. All persian blogs need to keep a link to the page hidden somewhere on their websites!
---------
I think it is worst still, the way the BBC refuses to use any other term but "The Gulf" or just "Gulf". How many Iranians have written to them for how many years. Why don't you accuse BBC as well? Maybe they will respond.
---------
Did National Geographic issue that press release as a direct result of the Google bombing?
---------
Your closing statement about Iran needing Israel is strange. All those countries need each other. It is no surprise Turkey and Israel are close. Israel has always been open to relations with any country even if those relations aren't naturally warm. Egypt and Jordan come to mind. Turkey and Israel benefit from each other's openess. Iran though has been busy throwing in it's lot with active anti-Israeli forces like Hamas, Hizbullah, and Syria.
As for the uproar about the names...I've run across old text during research that refers to the gulf as 'Arabian Gulf' or 'Gulf of Arabia' so I can see why the National Geographic Society printed it that way. Both names are in use...like Middle East and Near East. The Society does an EXCELLENT job of researching their maps and material. It is not their place to settle territorial disputes. If you want to protest something you should pick something more substantial.
---------
As I understand it, relations between Turkey and Israel have distinctly cooled since the Justice and Development Party came into office.
Anyway, IMHO it seems to me that thinking in terms of power blocs and "my enemy's enemy is my friend" is not terribly healthy -- it can increase tensions and allow countries to fall prey to meddling by outside powers. Certainly the fact of the Iraqi Kurds enjoying warm relations with Israel would only hinder reconciliation with their fellow Iraqis (or Iraqi neighbours, if you believe that the Kurds should be independent).
---------
I completely agree with you, we have to change our friendship boundries in this region, otherwise these arab countries will change the name if "Iran" at some point... I am 100% sure about that, maybe AJAM ABAD is the proper name!
---------
Your idea that Iran should become friend with Israel to stop attacks such as the National Geographic one is exactly what the think-tank behind this move has intended. They want us to believe that it's in our interest to be friend with Israel, it is not. We should be friends with 100 million people surrounding us and the 1 billion others who are connected to us by culture, religion and even language.
Israel is a short story in the history similar to South Africa apertheid, German Natzi. Don't be fooled by their 50 yrs run supported by the U.S. It'll come to end soon because it's based on racisim and social segregation. Can not prolong.
---------
Hoder,
Please enlighten me if I'm missing something, but what has the naming of the Gulf got to do with Israel?
---------
Their reasons for placing the arabs name under the Persian Gulf look right to me. But it looks right if the do the same thing to other disputed lands such as: Israel ( occupied Palestine), Saudi Arabia (Hijaz), Shat-ol Arab (Arvand Rood), Chechenia (occupied Chehen), Kuwait (Occupied Iraq- claimed by Sadam's regime), Northern Kyprus(Occupied by Turkey), Iraq and Afghanistan (occupied by US), Tibbet (occupied by China), Malvinas Island or Falkland (occupied by UK). If you don't see at least 80% of these disputed lands with those kinds of brief explanations inside a couple of parenteses under their names, then the people of National Geographic are not honest in this regard. But of you see the same thing about other lands, we should respect their rules.
---------
so if we occupied the Abu Mosa, how about you put occupied Palestine for Israel ?
---------
I am still confused about the answer of National Geographic Society. When you use a phrase following by another in parentheses, it obviously means that the latter is just for adding complementary information. In this case, their statement means "the islands have been occupied by Iran" and if one is still curious, and for example seeks the name of the poor occupied country, "claimed by U.A.E". Really outrageous!
---------
Note:
* Required
The following HTML tags are allowed in your comments: <a> <b> <i>. To make line and paragraph breaks, press return (don't use <br> or <p>).
The bold, italics, and link buttons (and associated shortcut keys) only work in IE 5+ on the PC.