Talk:Abu Musa

NPOV?

Not really a NPOV, as the UAE claim sovereignty over the island (and 2 other islands in the Gulf). Iran refuses international arbitration.

let's mention that Abu Musa is an arabic word, what do you think ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.241.239.194 (talk) 04:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

the Locals call it Gap Sabzu a Persian name means the big green. --Babakexorramdin (talk) 21:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah well too bad. The island has been part of Iran for centuries and a little country like the UAE shouldn't be threatening Iran like that and if they want to talk instead of threatening us then we will be more than happy to.But until they stop acting like a barbarian then we will keep the island indefinitely. --2.97.39.8 (talk) 15:49, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Axamir's comments in regards to UAE's claim

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. You have also several times done the same at the Tunbs article. If you have arguments that have not been addressed on this Talk page, present them. PRRfan (talk) 16:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• I think that PRRfan is correct and that any further chnages should be discussed here first. --evrik ^(talk) 15:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Copied from Axamir's comment left on PRRfan's talk page:

1- As for adding Arabic texts to the English page of an Iranian Island, it is not acceptable. Please keep the Arabic in the Arabic page.

2- As far as UAE's or any other country's claim, it has not yet been proven right. If there is any claim, it needs to be well referenced and placed in the claim part of the page.

Please consider this the last warning. No more correspondence will be entertained. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Axamir (talk • contribs) 18:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

1) Why is including the Arabic-language names on this English-language page unacceptable? It's done all over the English-language Wikipedia. 2) The fact of the claim is indeed well-referenced; that's exactly what the footnote is there for. The burden is upon you to find a source that denies that there is such a claim.PRRfan (talk) 22:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

1) It is not acceptable to write Arabic or any other foreign languages in English page. What is the point?! They have put down an Arabic page for such purposes. Why not adding some Arabic text to other city's pages like New York, Chicago?!!!! 2) The reference you provided is not valid. We can not reach to any conclusions. Your account along with your IP address have been reported to Wikipedia for further follow up and possible ban from the website. Please note that adding things without a valid reference will set the ground for disciplinary actions.

Hi, Axamir. Your user contributions page indicates no such "reporting," but thanks for continuing the discussion. You're going to have to do better than to say "the reference is not valid." It seems fair to infer from your edits that you believe that UAE's claim on Abu Musa and the Tunbs is invalid. That's your opinion (and one shared, of course, by Iran). Yet the fact that UAE has repeatedly made such a claim is a fact. Even Iran's foreign ministry officials confirm this (See, for example, http://www.iranian.ws/iran_news/publish/article_23722.shtml). Therefore, the article reflects this. I have added a few more citations to the article for good measure. PRRfan (talk) 14:45, 6 January 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) 00:34, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, to be fair to both sides, maybe we should just not have the infobox. Less intense options are to remove any data which puts the island in a specific country (such as listing Iran or the UAE) or to list Abu Musa being in both countries. But, we should take into account that Iran is the current owner/occupier/administrant of the island and the infobox should also demonstrate that. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 02:04, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

The UAE's claim is given due weight. To give both sides equal weight would violate this policy IMO, since not the UN or anyone else has ever made a resolution about it (which means most countries recognize the status quo as Abu Musa being part of Iran). Since it is not only de facto a part of Iran but also de jure as well, I'm not so sure if it would go in accordance to the undo weight policy to give the UAE POV equal weight. Also, there is no international document that says the island belongs to the UAE as far as I know. Khoikhoi 05:44, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

The first time when the claim was made by UAE, the issue went to the United Nation. It was put to vote and the issue and claim rejected unanimously. --Axamir (talk) 01:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC) Normally when a claim is rejected at the United Nation, the issue is closed, it can not be reopened and put to vote again (This is part of the international rules and regulations).--Axamir (talk) 01:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC) So, the UAE can not go any where with its claim because it is not legitimate. Whenever the tension builds up with Iran or any other country in the region, UAE makes these allegations even thought they all know nothing would come out of it.--Axamir (talk) 01:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

meh

Both countries have claim to the island (one ancient one a british mandate), so it's historical ownership is disputed - at this point unresolved by the countries. It is not important that the UN voted down the resolution, what's important is the current controler of Abu Musa, and how the dispute is changing. Axamir, it's irritating that you're looking to alter the content of the article to tilt towards legitemizing iranian claims, that's not what wikipedia is for. Presenting all the information, not removing data that doesn't agree with opinion, is our objective. --Da Baron (talk) 14:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Just a thought

Abu Musa is closer to the United Arab Emirates, the Qasami Sheiks were from the UAE (backed up by the fact that Qasami is an Arabic word, not Persian), the British Mandate placed Abu Musa with the UAE, and Abu Musa itself is an Arabic word... it seems to me that Abu Musa is most deffinatly UAE territory.74.142.146.80 (talk) 17:51, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

please read wp:forum. But tell us if origin of names is a good reason for ownership of lands by countries, how much of Middles east, Caucasus, central asia, .. would remain non-Iranian? Just wondering. Xashaiar (talk) 12:52, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

The name Baghdad originates from the Persian language. Does that mean that the capital city of Iraq belongs to Iran then? This is ridiculous to claim ownership of a place just because of the etymology of the name. Should Mexicans also claim Los Angeles? The island Bornholm is closer to Sweden than to Denmark, but it still belongs to Denmark, so arguing about its distance seems ridiculous to me as well. CoverMyIP (talk) 15:07, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Arabic in intro

There is relevant discussion at Talk:Greater and Lesser Tunbs#Question. In particular, see:

"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)"

PRRfan (talk) 12:39, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Dear PRRfan. Here is Wikipedia, not United Nation. Abu Musa was and is part of Iran territory. Territorial claim and Territorial dispute are two complete distinct subject. As an exmple, Iran still has claim on Bahrain. Shall I add the Persian script due to this claim to the Bahrain article! --Aliwiki (talk) 17:14, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

As Hux notes, WP convention in articles about disputed territory is to include both pertinent languages. But I'm interested in your distinction between Territorial claim and Territorial dispute. Please elaborate. (And by the way, WP convention is BRD: you made a bold edit; I reverted it. The proper next step was not re-reversion, but taking it to the Talk page.) PRRfan (talk) 19:01, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Dear PRRfan. Seems you didn't get the point of my comment. The case of Abu Musa is obvious. I gave the example of Bahrain. If you insist on your point, please be kind to add the Persian trans. to its article. Thanks.--Aliwiki (talk) 22:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Aliwiki, I didn't get your point. That is why I said "please elaborate." Will you? PRRfan (talk) 06:03, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Dear PRRfan; Is there any historical timeline that Abu Musa was part of UAE? NO; Was Iran under colonial mandate, then got its independence? NO. On the other hand, I gave example of Bahrain. Let's add Persian trans. to it, then I will give up this conversation.--Aliwiki (talk) 13:50, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Aliwiki, I asked you to elaborate on Territorial claim and Territorial dispute; can you do so? PRRfan (talk) 15:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand why you neglect Bahrain example; Wikipedia is not UN to resolve territorial problems. If in future UAE occupy Abu Musa or buy it or take it with any other means, then it would be part of its territory. But talking of the current time, Abu Musa was and is part of Iran territory. Means, it was not and it is not part of UAE territory. On the other hand, Iran has claim on some territories such as Bahrain. Please make it clear shall we add Persian trans. to its article or no? If yes, please add it, then I will appologize you for taking your time.--Aliwiki (talk) 15:41, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

There is no need to bring the Arabic script for this Persian island. In fact 07:10, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

My inexpert reading of the history seems to indicate that UAE's claim on the Hormuz islands is somewhat stronger than Iran's on Bahrain. Yet it's not clearly compelling enough for me to keep arguing, and therefore I'm withdrawing from the discussion. Cheers. PRRfan (talk) 16:18, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

UAE's claim on HORMUZ islands? Hormuz as in the Persian word Ohrmuzd (Zoroastrian Ahura Mazda)? I'd like to hear this argument lol — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.68.252 (talk) 07:46, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

The Greater and Lesser Tunbs and Abu-Musa

By Bahman Aghai Diba, PhD International Law of the Sea

The Greater and Lesser Tunbs and Abu-Musa Islands are situated near the Strait of Hormuz in the Persian Gulf, south of Iran. The Lesser Tunb is 22 miles from the mainland of Iran. The Greater Tunb is 17 miles from the Iranian land. Both of them are not able to sustain living and they had never inhabitants. Abu- Musa is the home for a limited number of people (less than 50 households). The Greater and Lesser Tunbs and Abu-Musa Islands have been part of Iran since the times immemorial. In the Nineteenth Century, they were parts of the "Lengheh Territory" that was itself an administrative section of the Fars Province of Iran.

Sovereignty of Iran over these Islands have been recorded in many books, historical documents, almanacs, maritime journals, geographical maps (that show the three concerned islands in the color of the Iranian mainland), official documents, administrative reports, the officials notes of the British authorities in India and so on. The British authorities created some difficulties for the Iranian governments in the case of the Iranian control of these Islands during the early Twentieth Century. The actions of the British officials were always facing protests by the Iranian local and state authorities.

In 1968 the British decided to withdraw from the East of Sues by 1971. The British made a package deal with Iran according to which Iran stopped its demand for restoration of its sovereignty over Bahrain, and take back its three islands of The Greater and Lesser Tunbs and Abu-Musa Islands. Only in the case of Abu-Musa, Iran accepted to give some advantages to the Sheikdom of Sharejeh. The Iranian government accepted this formula only in the hope of supporting the small states of the Persian Gulf and giving them a chance of getting independence. The British authorities were the only officials that Iran made the arrangements with them because at that time the states like the UAE were not established yet. The Shah of Iran faced a great difficulty in making the people of Iran ready for such arrangement and some political groups never accepted that.

It is interesting that following the restoration of the Iranian sovereignty over the three islands, three Arab countries complained against Iran in the United Nations Security Council. The United Arab Emirates (which had been formed of several Sheikhdoms with the support of Iran) was not one of them. Egypt, Iraq and Libya were the parties to the dispute. They claimed that Iran has occupied part of the Arab lands. The reason was that Egypt under the control of Jamal Abdul-Nasser (the fabricator of the name of the Arabian Gulf), and Iraq, and Libya were thinking that they were the main leaders of the Arab world and they were pretending that they acted as the representative of the Arabs. However, the UNSC heard the explanations of the parties and after hearing the report of the British representative that implicitly referred to the "package deal", the UNSC deleted the issue from its agenda.

It is also interesting that Iraq, under Saddam Hussein, after attacking Iran in 1980 and capturing a part of the Iranian territory in the border of Iran-and Iraq declared that if Iran wanted peace, it must accept several conditions, including the withdrawal of Iranian forces from the three islands of the Greater and Lesser Tunbs and Abu-Musa. (The most important part of the other conditions was abrogation of the 1975 treaty between Iran and Iraq which designated the Thalweg line or the most navigable canal in the Arvandrood as the border of the two countries).

Saddam dropped the condition when the Iranian forces pushed the Iraqis back and entered the Iraqi territory. Since then the Arab States at Persian Gulf has repeatedly claimed that Iran should hand over the three islands to them. They have succeeded to get the backing of the Arab League. Also, during the last several years they have recruited some of the top research institutes and legal experts in Western world for finding grounds for their claims in the international law and politics.

The British are playing a two-sided and mostly anti-Iranian game in these regards. They have already cast doubt on one of the most important sources of Iran's claim by saying that the old map of the British Authorities in India (the map that was formally presented to Iranian officials as the expression of the maritime situation in the region and it showed the three concerned islands in the color of mainland Iran) was not official. Also, they are not ready to give clear explanations about the "package deal" that resulted in Iran's withdrawal of claims over Bahrain and get its sovereignty back in the three islands.

In fact the story of Bahrain's independence was a clear indication of the package deal. For the same reason the UAE's advocates have always tried to deny the existence of the package deal between Iran and the British authorities that led to the independence of Bahrain, UAE and restoration of Iranian rights in the Persian Gulf over the Tunbs and Abu-Musa.

Following the package deal in 1968, the case of Bahrain was put in the agenda of the United Nations. The United Nations chose a representative on the issue of Bahrain. He traveled to Bahrain and talked to several people in streets and later reported to the UN that the people of Bahrain wanted inexpedience. There was no referendum, public inquiry, research work or even a simple random sampling in the standard model. It was not clear that how the UN representative had reached such a conviction that the people of Bahrain wanted independence, while more than half of the people of Bahrain were Iranians and they wished to remain Iranian. However, due to the fact that the "package deal" was there, the UN did not go through such questions and accepted that Bahrain should be independent. Following this development the representatives of the Western states, especially the British officials, thanked Iran for the peace loving actions and understanding the international situation.

Although the government of Iran succeeded to get two resolutions from the United Nations to officially recognize that the body of water in the south of Iran was " Persian Gulf" (UNAD 311/Qen dated March 5, 1971, and UNLA 45.8.2 (C) dated August 10, 1984,) no Arab country has accepted to use the correct name of the Persian Gulf. At the same time, the conditions of Iranian government at the moment are very much different from those years and the regime of the Islamic Republic is so isolated and disrespected in the international forums that one cannot expect to get a vote in favor of Iran, despite all existing documents and evidences.

Conclusion:

There are many historical documents for proving the rights of Iran. The British have accepted the package deal tacitly. Iran was instrumental in independence of the UAE, which includes the Sharejeh.

An article from the book: Bahman Aghai Diba, Iran and the International Law of the Seas and Rivers, Amazon, 2011

http://www.payvand.com/news/12/apr/1133.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.68.252 (talk) 07:55, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Removed clauses for discussion

Radmanr added these clauses: "... according to an agreement with Britain for Iran to drop its claim on Bahrain and in return the historic ownership of the islands by Iran would not be disputed as it was before the British entrance in the Persian Gulf in the 19th century." I've moved them here because 1) this needs a citation, 2) key facts are not evident (Who is the agreement between? When was it signed?) and 3) the sentence needs to be rewritten for clarity. 14:56, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, you may find the fact in this book : Countries and boundaries in the geopolitical region of the Persian Gulf.

also in Al-Ahram Newspaper on November 10th, 1968.

In fact 08:47, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Memorandum of Understanding

There is wrong info in the article per the Memorandum of Understanding between Iran and Sharjah. In the article it is mentioned that : In November 1971, UAE and Iran agreed to give sovereignty to the former but allowed the latter to station troops on the island. Well this is half right.

Let me bring the full Memorandum of Understanding underneath and then we'll decide:

Memorandum of Understanding

November 1971

Neither Iran nor Sharjah will give up its claim to Abu Musa nor recognize the other's claim. Against this background the following arrangements will be made:

1. Iranian troops will arrive in Abu Musa. They will occupy areas the extents of which have been agreed on the map attached to this memorandum.

2. (a) Within the agreed areas occupied by Iranian troops, Iran will have full jurisdiction and the Iranian flag will fly.

(b) Sharjah will retain full jurisdiction over the remainder of the island. The Sharjah flag will continue to fly over the Sharjah police post on the same basis as the Iranian flag will fly over the Iranian military quarters.

3. Iran and Sharjah recognize the breadth of the island's territorial sea as twelve nautical miles.

4. Exploitation of the petroleum resources of Abu Musa and the sea bed and subsoil beneath its territorial sea will be conducted by Buttes Gas & Oil Company under the existing agreement, which must be acceptable to Iran. Half the governmental oil resources hereafter attributable to the said exploitation shall be paid direct by the Company to Iran and half to Sharjah.

5. The nationals of Iran and Sharjah shall have equal rights to fish in the territorial sea of Abu Musa.

6. A financial assistance agreement will be signed between Iran and Sharjah

In fact 08:58, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

The MOU was between Iran and Sharjah, before the establishment of UAE. In fact 03:57, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Arab Public Opinion?

According to YouGov , the public opinion of Arabs in Middle East and North Africa , is not homogenous about Iran : The GCC and Levant population have more negative views about Iran versus North Africa & Egypt . The participating population in survey "Disputed Islands Rightfully Belong to UAE say Arabs" are as follow : GCC: 1096, Levant: 469, North Africa & Egypt: 501 . That means the title "Arab public opinion " should be GCC public opinion .--Alborz Fallah (talk) 19:23, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I do not see any reason why such a lengthy section dedicated to a poll by a tele-marketing company. That's only a poll by a tele-maketing company, it has no value unless it is re-assessed by a reliable source or an expert in related fields--Penom (talk) 19:30, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Agree to delete .--Alborz Fallah (talk) 20:19, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree too. Please proceedPenom (talk) 20:32, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

The user that insists to include the poll , seems to adding ONLY the YouGov material to the articles : is he advertising for yougov.com in Wikipedia ? I think if I revert it back , it would be 3R ( edit war ) . Do we have to report it anywhere ?--Alborz Fallah (talk) 14:35, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm surprised by the number of silly excuses used to justify deleting sourced content. "Commercial"? Meh, most sources have to earn income somehow. "Primary"? Surely a leading polling organisation is a reliable source for its own poll results. And so on. Keep it in; it's properly sourced and it improves the article, even if it is not compatible with some editors' POV. bobrayner (talk) 09:40, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Silly is justifications that some guys bring to enter such a low quality primary source. Bases on what policy or giudlines you claiming such a silly statement "polling organisation is a reliable source for its own poll results". Sorry friend your poor quality source does not meet Wiki policies for WP:PrimaryPenom (talk) 14:02, 20 May 2012 (UTC),

• Please stop editwarring. Articles should reflect what sources say, not our personal POV. bobrayner (talk) 14:16, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

You apparently are not familiar with the concept of Due Weight in Wikipedia. We don't just dump a random poll by a random pollster on a topic, and give it a whole section. The issues is not about being sourced, it's about prominence, due weight, and relevance. Kurdo777 (talk) 14:19, 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) 16:39, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Ga37rm's edits

User:Ga37rm has changed the content and sources of the article. I am reverting them, until we reach a consensus in here. In fact 09:34, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

sorry for not posting here before making edits - I came across some United Nations content online and thought it would expand on the sovereignty issues. Are we ok with adding some content about the UN letter? We don't have to use everything I put in, maybe just some of the letter and the context of the issue. thank you for your help. Ga37rm (talk) 13:14, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

It's ok. Could you please post the exact links of UN documents in here, please ? In fact 11:55, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

The UN documents are not directly accessible via the UN database you must search the database to to access the files. So I have uploaded jpegs/pdfs to wikicommons and pasted them below. To assist with the review - I have also inserted the text from my earlier edit the citations now reference the UN documents hosted on wikicommons. Unless you have other edits, I'll post these new edits to the entry.

Letter Dated 3 December 1971 from the Permanent Representatives of Algeria Iraq Libya And Peoples Democratic Republic of Yemen

In 1971, the UAE took its sovereignty claim over Abu Musa and the two Tunb islands to the United Nations, wherein the Security Council “decided to defer consideration of the matter to a later date” in order to allow the two sides time to reach a solution through bilateral negotiations. Iraq, Kuwait, Algeria, Yemen and Libya were amongst several of the original countries who expressed concern over Iranian occupation of the islands, holding the view that the territory rightfully belongs to the UAE. Since this time, in public statements, the UAE has consistently called for the peaceful resolution of the dispute either through bilateral negotiations or by referring the issue to the International Court of Justice or another form of international arbitration.

Ga37rm (talk) 15:27, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Could you kindly give us the reference (UN document) for this:

In 1971, the UAE took its sovereignty claim over Abu Musa and the two Tunb islands to the United Nations, wherein the Security Council “decided to defer consideration of the matter to a later date” in order to allow the two sides time to reach a solution through bilateral negotiations

In fact 05:03, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

For this passage: "In 1971, the UAE took its sovereignty claim over Abu Musa and the two Tunb islands to the United Nations, wherein the Security Council decided to “defer consideration of this matter to a later date” in order to allow the two sides time to reach a solution through bilateral negotiations"

You can view the specific page - page 24 of the document, page 26 of the file, at the end of the page - here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AUN_DOC_S_PV_1610_Security_Council_official_records%2C_26th_year%2C_1610th_meeting%2C_9_December_1971.djvu&page=26

To make review easier, I have corrected the citations to go to the Commons preview page instead of the file, edits are reflected below. I also moved the file embeds to the bottom of this page.

In 1971, the UAE took its sovereignty claim over Abu Musa and the two Tunb islands to the United Nations, wherein the Security Council decided to “defer consideration of this matter to a later date” in order to allow the two sides time to reach a solution through bilateral negotiations. Iraq, Kuwait, Algeria, Yemen and Libya were amongst several of the original countries who expressed concern over Iranian occupation of the islands, holding the view that the territory rightfully belongs to the UAE. Since this time, in public statements, the UAE has consistently called for the peaceful resolution of the dispute either through bilateral negotiations or by referring the issue to the International Court of Justice or another form of international arbitration.

Ga37rm (talk) 14:43, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• 
  Letter dated 13 October 1993 from Saudi Arabia to the UN page1
• 
  Letter dated 13 October 1993 from Saudi Arabia to the UN page2
• 
  UN DOC A 49 412 S 1994 1078 Letter dated 20 September 1994 from Saudi Arabia to the UN
• 
  N DOC A 51 56 S 1995 1070 Letter Dated 29 December 1995 from Oman to the United Nations
• 
  UN DOC A 51 PV 19 Official Records of General Assembly September 1996
• 
  UN Doc S 10740 - Letter Dated 17 July 1972 from the Permanent Representatives of Algeria Bahrain Egypt Iraq Kuwait Lebanon Libya Morocco Oman Sudan Syria Tunisia United Arab Emirates Yemen
• 
  UN DOC -S - 10429 Letter Dated 9 December 1971 from the Minister of State of the United Arab Emirates Addressed to the President of the Security Council
• 
  UN DOC S PV 1610 Security Council official records, 26th year, 1610th meeting, 9 December 1971
• Letter dated 1994 July 7 from the Permanent Representative of Kuwait to the United Nations addressed to the President of the Security Council
  Letter dated 1994 July 7 from the Permanent Representative of Kuwait to the United Nations addressed to the President of the Security Council

In Wikipedia we are supposed not to use primary sources : in this case I think the official statement of UN may not be the passage that the chairman of the meeting says . For inclusion of that sentence in the text , you may show a book or article in a reliable source that express the same conclusion that you are mentioning WP:SECONDARY . --Alborz Fallah (talk) 16:00, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. In that case, I think we should change the source for the passage to the following:

In 1971, the UAE took its sovereignty claim over Abu Musa and the two Tunb islands to the United Nations, wherein the Security Council decided to “defer consideration of this matter to a later date” in order to allow the two sides time to reach a solution through bilateral negotiations.

In the discussion forum it is hard to see the citation, does that work? Ga37rm (talk) 23:04, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Let me help to make the references visible : Just add a template of references to the end of the page ( I did that ). And I also put all of the images in a Gallery . About using the book The Three Occupied Islands of the UAE: The Tunbs and Abu Musa , I think the statements and publications of one side of the conflict may not be valid as the representative of the third party opinion : as an example if a publication of Iranian foreign ministry claims the UN point of view is this or that , it should not be used in the article as a fact ; but anyway the book itself ( I mean the book of Thomas Mattair ) has a citation index and it sure has an address that points to the UN statement : Can you show in the page 128 of that book , what is the reference of the sentence ? --Alborz Fallah (talk) 08:42, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for making the references section and the gallery. I had looked at some other talk pages and did not see reference sections, but it makes it much easier to discuss here. I looked at Mattair book and found that it makes reference to some works by Schofield, Richard - Arabian Boundaries: New Documents (Londong: Archive Editions, 1993 to 1997), vol 2, 471-85. I do not have access to the Schofield text. I was going to post images of Mattair, but as I was going through the process, I was not able to find a license under which it is permissible to post. As I do not know the author, I cannot ask them to waive. Do you have a recommendation? I cited Mattair because I was told that I could not cite the UN documents. Those documents are in the public domain and straight forward, they note and capture what has taken place, which is what I am trying to add to this entry. Ga37rm (talk) 15:23, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Well , you know , if the exact sentence of the Schofield, Richard is that the UN point of view was to recommend bilateral negotiations , I think it is possible to include it in the article and cite the Schofield . But I don't think we ( editors of Wikipedia ) can add the our conclusion and our opinion about the documents to the article : As an example , the official opinion of UN is what the security counsel votes for , and a chairman of UN , or a chairman of a meeting between rival countries is not official UN point of view . A compromise between two party , in sub-level of security counsel may also be the reason of such statement in UN documents : that is not official UN view .--Alborz Fallah (talk) 08:31, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

What if we change it to reference the Security Council on that specific day. The event happened, as did the letters. Alternatively, what if we remove that first sentence and just reference the other letters for now.Ga37rm (talk) 17:55, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I have not heard from others on this - I know there is no time limit on this, but the discussion seems to have dropped off. I spent some time looking at the original materials and revised the addition I created. Can we go ahead and make an edit to the entry with text like this?

The UAE took its sovereignty claim over Abu Musa and the two Tunb islands to the the 9 December 1971 meeting of the United Nations Security Council. At that meeting, the Security Council decided to “defer consideration of this matter to a later date” in order to allow the two sides time to reach a solution through bilateral negotiations. Iraq, Kuwait, Algeria, Yemen and Libya were amongst several of the original countries who expressed concern over Iranian occupation of the islands, holding the view that the territory rightfully belongs to the UAE. Since this time, in public statements, the UAE has consistently called for the peaceful resolution of the dispute either through bilateral negotiations or by referring the issue to the International Court of Justice or another form of international arbitration. Ga37rm (talk) 20:24, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

• I did not find the answer to my question above in the files. I think it's a POV ! In fact 08:10, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I addressed your point in my response on 23 July. You can view the specific page - page 24 of the document, page 26 of the file, at the end of the page.

The UAE took its sovereignty claim over Abu Musa and the two Tunb islands to the the 9 December 1971 meeting of the United Nations Security Council. At that meeting, the Security Council decided to “defer consideration of this matter to a later date” in order to allow the two sides time to reach a solution through bilateral negotiations If it should be phrased another way, that is fine, but this is important item with UN that is currently, not reflected in the entry.Ga37rm (talk) 19:05, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Conclusion making is prohibited (Original research ) in Wikipedia . Again , I think you can use the exact sentence of Schofield, Richard . I don't think using "the Security Council decided to defer consideration of this matter to a later date" is reasonable based on the document you show , because the out come of the meeting my not be a decision of Security Council , but it can be a Compromise between two sides , that does not have the legal status of a Security Council's decision . --Alborz Fallah (talk) 07:00, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Understood. What if the language was changed at the opening of the paragraph to reflect procedural action, then mention the letters from the nations? I do not have access to the Schofield book, so I can't get the exact passage from that book, only what Mattair cites.

The UAE took its sovereignty claim over Abu Musa and the two Tunb islands to the 9 December 1971 meeting of the United Nations Security Council. At that meeting, the Security Council reserved judgment and “defer consideration of this matter to a later date” in order to allow the two sides time to reach a solution through bilateral negotiations or other third party efforts.Ga37rm (talk) 14:27, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure , because still it is a primary source . But according to Wikipedia:Negotiation , I think maybe other user (user Infact ) , accepts this one : "The UAE took its sovereignty claim over Abu Musa and the two Tunb islands to the 9 December 1971 meeting of the United Nations Security Council. The result has been deferred to a later date in order to allow the two sides time to reach a solution through bilateral negotiations or other third party efforts.".--Alborz Fallah (talk) 08:10, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

According to Pirouz Mojtahedzadeh's book, UN security council rejected the UAE's claim and the issue was closed. In fact 09:24, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with including these new UN documents, at least in the gallery. However, making a conclusion such as "the result has been deferred to a later date" suggests that the UN Security Council has reached a conclusion over deferral, this is while we are not sure of that based on the sources.

I think one needs to know the actual working standards of the UN Security Council at the time of these meetings to be able to make this conclusion. That is why we need sources written by experts to be shown here before we include any conclusion in WP. Farmanesh (talk) 13:47, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

As Pirouz Mojtahedzadeh has stated in his book, The Somali ambassador suggested it to be closed. In fact 07:46, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Another alternative is the willingness of UAE itself at that time to cut that dispute : maybe they themselves wanted to give the Island(s) to a bigger military power to protect the oil flow from the threatening communist opponents in Oman , but did not want the Arab world know they are dropping their claim ! ( The New York Times article says : There have long been suspicions that the agreement between Iran and the Emirates included a secret annex that gave Iran control of the island in 1992 ). Was it the decision of UN to postpone to talks , or was it an agreement ?! --Alborz Fallah (talk) 10:09, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you all for your contributions, this is all very helpful. Regarding having something written about the UN’s action, as opposed to the UN’s original documents, I understand the requirement and need for this. As I noted earlier, I came across the UN references via the Mattair book. I would submit that we could use the Mattair book, as one source, for this purpose. In his work – Three Occupied Islands of the UAE: The Tunbs and Abu Musa on pp. 128 – he writes “Based on the argument put forward by Somalia’s representative that to recommend recourse to Chapter VI, Article 36 of the Charter would be precipitate, and that debate should be deferred until a third party could seek an appropriate resolution, the President of the Security Council, noting that there were no objections, so ordered it.” Mattair cites the UN document that are used in my draft language. Realizing that there are other sources, as User: In Fact cites, we could modify the existing passage in the article to include Mattairs work and the UN docs; or, modify the above proposed passage to include the work cited by User: In Fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ga37rm (talk • contribs) 20:48, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I noticed i did not sign my last post - are there any other issues or questions? if not, can i post to the page some of this content?Ga37rm (talk) 22:47, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• I am going to revert all edits back to August 11, 2012, as I strongly believe that there is no proof for claiming that it was decided to “defer consideration of this matter to a later date”
• On the contrary, as Pirouz Mojtahedzadeh has clearly mentioned in his book, The Somali ambassador suggested to close the case and the UN decided to close the issue.. In fact 12:20, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

You seem to be overreaching a little here, you reverted two months of contributions and edits from multiple members of this community. much of which, but not all was discussed. to simply delete all these contributions seems not to align with the standards of the wikipedia community. I am going to return some of the edits. If you have specific issues we should discuss them before going forward.Ga37rm (talk) 21:29, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Ga37rm, you're essentially interpreting primary sources here, and that's a big no-no as far as Wikipedia policy goes. You should limit your writings to what reliable secondary sources say on the issue, and refrain from synthesizing sources, especially primary sources which are not usable in Wikipedia. Furthermore, please get a WP:CON on the talk page first, before implementing major changes on controversial topics like this one. Kurdo777 (talk) 03:24, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Consensus and compromise was reached on many of these points, after weeks of discussion. You did not engage in that conversation, but your latest edits deleted all this work – it is not just my edits, other people contributed to that language and structure. That does not comply with the principles of Wikipedia. Further, edits imputed by you seem to not align with neutral facts. A number of the sources you have reverted back to have the same issues you cite with the sources I have included. Additionally, not sure how the enforcement of WP:3RR applies here, but you seem to be making a large number of edits at once. Ga37rm (talk) 23:12, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

What consensus are you talking about? Your edits were clearly disputed by several other editors, and you neither addressed their concerns, nor made any attempt at a compromise. You thanked everyone for their input, yet you just restored your disputed edits after a couple of months, without making any changes that actually addressed the issues that had been raised about your edits, such as the WP:OR phrase "it had been decided to defer consideration of this matter to a later date”. Furthermore, your edits clearly violate Wikipedia core polices on Primary Sources (WP:Primary), and synthesizing sources (WP:OR). And your assertion that I deleted edits by other people that "contributed to that language and structure" is wrong. I had restored all those good-faith edits that were meant to improve the article, prior to your latest revert. The issue here are your edits, and your edits only, as they use primary sources (your own interpretation of primary documents) against Wikipedia rules. Kurdo777 (talk) 02:38, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

regarding other editors discussion and compromise, please see Alborz Fallah talk 08:10, 11 August 2012 (UTC). Regarding sourcing - there are multiple third party sources for the edits. Some editors seem to challenge the sources, but the same could be said about a number of the sources being used to support the material you are clearly advocating for. Ga37rm (talk) 19:44, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

The way you're going about doing this, is far from constructive, and is not seen as a compromise. Your edits can be seen as imposing your views using your own interpretations of primary sources. If you're actually interested in constructive editing and reaching a consensus, you can propose your edits here, one line at a time, as oppose to the "none or all" approach you've taken. Then we can discuss each line for a few days, with points and counterpoints, and those proposed changes that are uncontested or can be compromised on in terms of sourcing or wording, can be added to the article, one line at a time, by both sides' blessing. This way you build consensus as you go along on most issues, and issues that remain unresolved can the be put up for wider community input. Kurdo777 (talk) 23:13, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok, let's start with the UN, the current passage incorrectly states that the issue has been settled and closed. We previously discussed this and I incorrectly deducted that we had agreed to the modified language. There is clear third party material that supports the following proposed revision:

The UAE took its sovereignty claim over Abu Musa and the two Tunb islands to the 9 December 1971 meeting of the United Nations Security Council. At that meeting, it was decided to “defer consideration of this matter to a later date”.

I look forward to yours, and others, input.Ga37rm (talk) 23:49, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

And as mentioned above by others, there are secondary academic sources that say otherwise. Therefore, as they say, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" , and we need more than just one source which happens to be not-so neutral either, with a loaded title like "UAE's occupied Islands" which suggests the author is clearly taking sides in the dispute, and has an agenda of his own. Kurdo777 (talk) 02:31, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Let me mention my view again: I agree with including these new UN documents, at least in the gallery. However, making a conclusion such as "the result has been deferred to a later date" suggests that the UN Security Council has reached a conclusion over deferral, this is while we are not sure of that based on the sources.

I think one needs to know the actual working standards of the UN Security Council at the time of these meetings to be able to make this conclusion. That is why we need sources written by experts to be shown here before we include any conclusion in WP. That means an expert source making such conclusion and not us make such conclusion here in WP.Farmanesh (talk) 00:25, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Pirouz Mojtahedzadeh is obviously an expert regarding geopolitic issues of the Persian Gulf. In fact 07:03, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Not sure how the source I cite is any less or more qualified than Pirouz Mojtahedzadeh is on the issues. They have similar work product. Further, you asked me to stop making edits, but you continue to make edits while we are discussing items. Please provide for me with why Mojtahedzadeh is a valid, neutral source, but Mattair is not. There must be room on this page for something besides a single, onesided narrative. You asked for secondary sources, I provided them, you show no interest in using them. So, I am asking you how your sources differ from the ones I offer. Ga37rm (talk) 17:59, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I never asked you to stop making edits, it was an administrator who asked you to stop reverting the page. Also, I'm not making any new edits on the page, User:In fact did that. It appears that he added a couple of maps to the image gallery. Do you have an issue with the maps he added? If so, he should revert himself until we finish discussing them. As for X or Y being "less or more qualified", I did not say that. I said that "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". If we have a claim and a counter-claim by two different authors on the same matter, it's best to just leave out the contested line, unless there is actual evidence for it. Now my question to you is, why is our discussion stuck on this one line which is clearly contested? Why don't we first discuss the other parts of your edits, line by line, implement the uncontested changes, as well changes that we can compromise on, and then we can return to the unresolved issues like the line in question at the end, and if we don't reach an understanding, we can always request wider community input through RFC. But lets just first discuss the other parts you proposing to add or delete, and take it from there. Kurdo777 (talk) 19:03, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I think that's a good suggestion. Except the contested one line, Ga37rm has suggested good changes. In the spirit of moving forward, lets agree on adding those while we continue deliberation on the remaining issue. Farmanesh (talk) 13:27, 18 October 2012 (UTC)