Iran threatens to chuck sueball at Google over missing gulf Iran's Foreign Ministry has threatened to take legal action against Google because the web firm removed the name Persian Gulf from its Maps and left the stretch of water nameless. "One of the seditionist acts taken as part of the soft war against the Iranian nation has been Google's shameless act to drop the name 'Persian Gulf …
"For libel you would have to make a false statement....."
You don't read Private Eye, do you? The British courts have a long and chequered history of passing libel judgements against published material that is essentially, er, true.
That's why the filthy rich move heaven and earth to get a libel suit heard in the UK. Such things as: "Yes, the plaintiff is based in X and the material was published in Y, but someone in Britain could buy it from Amazon......."
TeeCee, I do read Private Eye quite often, but it doesn't change the fact you still need a defamatory statement (or what you consider a false statement or lie) in broadcast or print (for libel) before you can go to a court in the UK and sue under the defamation laws.
"....English law allows actions for libel to be brought in the High Court for any published statements alleged to defame a named or identifiable individual or individuals in a manner that causes them loss in their trade or profession, or causes a reasonable person to think worse of them...." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation#United_Kingdom
You cannot sue for libel for something someone did NOT publish, simple as, as there is no statement made. For example, you could suspect that I think you are a complete numpty, but unless I actually post a comment saying "TeeCee is a complete numpty", there is nothing you can do, you cannot sue for the libel of being not called a complete numpty (of course, not that I would want anyone to think you were a complete numpty). Seeing as Google have not put an alternative name on the Gulf in question, simply left it blank, it's kinda hard for the Iranians to claim the Gulf has been misnamed. I'm also not sure how the Iranians can claim the Gulf itself is upset seeing as it is just salty h2o without the ability to feel slighted....
On the practical side, we cannot stop the Arab countries changing the name of the body of water in their control, so if they want to call their half something different (such as the Arabian Gulf) then that's up to them, and the Iranians and the rest of the World can carry on referring to the half under Iranian control as the Persian Gulf, just as we have no say in the Indians saying we have to refer to Bombay as Mumbai. In fact, there is nothing to stop the individual countries all insisting we refer to parts of the old Persian Gulf as the Gulf of Iraq, the Bahraini Gulf, the Sea of Qatar, etc, etc. TBH, there are more serious issues in the World.
Yeah, and who screwed it up in the first place eh? Not the Iranians (Persians)!
Right, it was the British, French, Russians et al before and after WWI--fighting over OIL of course! The 'colonization' of Persia by the British and the dissolution and carve-up of the Ottoman Empire next door by competing Western interests whilst picking up the spoils of these centuries-old states is best described as hungry piranhas in a feeding frenzy.
And the fuck-up continues unabated today; we're still paying sorely for it with battlefield dead not to mention terrorism. And like Pontius Pilate, we in the West still continue to wash our hands of our early involvement.
"Yeah right. I suppose you still blame the Romans for the problems of Europe, including Britain, too."
To some extent yes. abcd is the Roman/Latin alphabet after all, but that's irrelevant in the 20th-C context to which I'm referring.
The point I was making is hardly a matter of argument. In the light of the WWI Versailles treaty fuck-up, it's pretty easy to understand. The Ottoman Empire, which the WWI allies, Britain, France, Australia etc, was fighting in the Dardanelles, were allied to Germany. Insensitivities, cultural and otherwise were not considered when the allies carved-up the Ottoman Empire.
I really hope Graham doesn't work as a history teacher as he's obviously not cut out for the role, not unless he wants to work in North Korea, Zimbabwe or some other revisionist paradise.
"....Insensitivities, cultural and otherwise were not considered when the allies carved-up the Ottoman Empire." You really need to go do some reading about the history of the Mid East and the Med area in general. In particular, you may wish to focus on how the Ottoman Empire subjugated the locals, including the Arabs that fought on the side of the Brits in WW1 (hint - go read up on Lawrence of Arabia), the Armenians (the Hamidian massacres), and relations with the Christian states in the Balkans and Southern Europe (most of the eventual ethnic problems in the former Yugoslavia can be traced back to the Ottoman invasions).
"Yeah, and who screwed it up in the first place eh? Not the Iranians (Persians)! Right, it was the British, French, Russians et al before and after WWI--fighting over OIL of course! "
There's been 5000 years of war in the Middle East with numerous empires rising and falling but everything was wonderful until the West came along and "screwed it up"? Read a history book - but not that marxist shit you' seem to read.
Incidentally, the Persians are not Arabs (and neither are the Turks) - why doesn't their colonization and subjugation of the region count for anything? Your outlook on the matter seems pretty frankly racist - everyone there who is not Europeans is essentially the same.
"One of the seditionist acts taken as part of the soft war against the Iranian nation has been Google's shameless act to drop the name 'Persian Gulf' which is... against historical documents,"
They are not serious about it. Well not yet, anyway. If they were serious, or when they get serious, they will start blaming Zionism and Zionist agents.
Hmmm, curious. A search on maps.google.com.ar for "las malvinas" doesn't identify the falklands, but instead returns a list of possible options, the top one of which is "Islas Falkland (Islas Malvinas)"
A search for "Golfo Pérsico" returns a red marker slap in the middle of the Persian Gulf, but with no label, so same as the English-language version.
Oh, and maps.google.fr can locate "la manche", but it's very clearly labelled "English Channel". I await President Hollande's official protest to Google... or he might decide to simply invade, last I heard, the UK had a shortage of carrier planes :)
Its named as Falkland Islands (Isla Malvinas) because one is its officially recognised name, and the other is its alternate name as recognised by some others.
Such as the English Channel is referred to a La Manche in France.
Its Googles way of keeping the Brits and the Argies happy.
Essentially WWII was a "European Civil War", also it was round two, WWI being round one.
To quote directly from Wiki, note the last sentence:
"Wilhelm II or William II (German: Friedrich Wilhelm Viktor Albrecht von Preußen; English: Frederick William Victor Albert of Prussia) (27 January 1859 – 4 June 1941) was the last German Emperor (Kaiser) and King of Prussia, ruling the German Empire and the Kingdom of Prussia from 15 June 1888 to 9 November 1918. He was a grandson of the British Queen Victoria and related to many monarchs and princes of Europe."
The Germans and British rulers were related, also read Wiki on Nikolay Alexandrovich Romanov/Nicholas II of Russia and check the tangled spider's web of relations he had with other European Royalty.
If you are not happy with the fact that royalty in most European countries were closely related to each other and that this was a large family feud (a la civil war), then I suggest to read the famous historian A.J.P. Taylor's book 'The Origins of the Second World War', 1961. In this controversial-for-the-time publication he argues that WWII was a continuation of WWI and that the interwar years were essentially 'intermission'. He also gives very detailed and documented reasons together with references.
Right, I'm oversimplifying it a bit but that's the very gist of it. Both WWI and WWII were essentially 'European' at their very core; but as with all good bun fights, others on the periphery (U.S/Japan etc.) also have a habit of joining in (and anyway, the U.S. was also in WWI, which further legitimises its involvement in WWII--well, at least to some extent).
"....If you are not happy with the fact that royalty in most European countries were closely related to each other and that this was a large family feud (a la civil war)...." Which is completely irrellevant, given that the Great War and WW2 were both started by elected governments, not the royalty. You might have spotted that if you had been able to see round those massive chips on your shoulder.
This post has been deleted by its author
You've obviously never stood amongst the graves of the dead at the Dardanelles, the Somme or Verdun. Your comments would be more circumspect otherwise.
100 million dead in the 20th C. means fuck-all to you eh?
Thought so.
Similarly, it seems, goes your concern for the actual reasons behind why this was so.
"You've obviously never stood amongst the graves of the dead at the Dardanelles, the Somme or Verdun...." I have a relative recorded at La Neuville in Corbie, France, who died in the 1916 fighting on the Somme. There's just a marker because his body was never identified. Please don't think your moral hobbyhorse somehow gives you a better view than anyone else, you'll only be shown up for the fool you are.
".....100 million dead in the 20th C. means fuck-all to you eh?...." It is more deeply worrying that all those dead fell due to the decisions of common politicians, yet there are still rabid "believers" like yourself that are determined to paint it all as some form of monarchistic game. So, was Stalin a royalist when he invaded Finland and Poland in 1939, and the Baltic States in 1940? How about Hitler, I don't seem to recall him being anything more than an illegitimate son of an Austrian civil servant, not a member of the royal House of Hohenzollern.
Just to show the silliness of your frothing, the Prime Minister that took British Empire to war in 1914 was Henry Asquith, a Liberal, the US Prez that led America into the fray in 1917 was Woodrow Wilson (a very anti-royal Democrat that planned the League of Nations as a means of destabilising the traditional European royal empires), and the French PM of the day (Gaston Doumergue) was a Radical Socialist! Not a monarch amongst those elected decision-makers.
Please do continue exposing the limitations of your knowledge and your boundless prejudices, they are both highly amusing.
"Which is completely irrellevant, given that the Great War and WW2 were both started by elected governments, not the royalty"
Oh, BTW, read this: http://hti.math.uh.edu/curriculum/units/2004/01/04.01.04.php.
|
Now that you've read it, delete all reference to royalty. Still make sense eh?
If you don't believe that one, then I've more in the same vein.
Beats me why you're bothering to argue about something you know so very little about.
---
"You might have spotted that if you had been able to see round those massive chips on your shoulder."
Sorry, the chips aren't mine. Suggest you plant them where they actually belong--on the shoulders of history.
"....Oh, BTW, read this: http://hti.math.uh.edu/curriculum/units/2004/01/04.01.04.php...." I was going to, but it was a broken link, so instead I stopped at the prior level (http://hti.math.uh.edu/curriculum/units/2004/) to check the authors and noted that not a single one of them was a historian. This is my surprised face, honest! Frankly, if all your "vein" is going to be is academic whimsy then I suggest you leave the ivory towers and get out into the real World for a change.
"....Beats me why you're bothering to argue about something you know so very little about....." It is becoming very obvious that your "knowledge" is based not on experience or even reading of the subject matter, but on spoonfed and opinionated drivel passing itself as "education". Try again, only this time with some meat, please.
It's a bit strange to call it a European civil war. The European powers instigated it but they also controlled most of the world at that point so it wasn't just Europeans fighting, even at the beginning.
Also, are carriers really needed to defend an island with airstrips from a country 12 miles away?
I have to agree with the people ruling Iran on this.
It is the Persian Gulf and has been so for a very long time. I expect that it is called something else in Farsi and something else again in Arabic. You can call something whatever you like in your own language but changing the name in my language (other than perhaps pronunciation) is not acceptable.
We say "English Channel" and the French say "Manche". Nobody is telling anyone what to call it.
It may even be that the Iranians are right when they blame a conspiracy on this. Iran has never got on too well with most Arabs. Now they don't get on very well with most of the rest of us. So some bright sparks somewhere could well have decided to this. They should shut up and get back into their box.
In most cases, the original name for a city (and many foods as well) is used verbatim in other languages. However, due to issues with varying pronunciation in different languages--and dialects, names generally don't translate well.
There are two methods that have been commonly used to make the foreign names understandable. The first is the wholesale corruption of the name to simply manhandle it into something simple, i.e. Munich or Venice.
The second method is usually a result of the languages having different writing systems. When the languages have different writing systems, transliteration schemes are developed to allow speakers from one language to more readily understand the other's written works. Historically, transliteration schemes have been rather imperfect due to misconceptions by speakers of both languages. This is especially true when the available phonemes (spoken sounds) in a pair of languages are dramatically different. As a result, once in a while the transliteration scheme will get updated which results in a new spelling for the same word, i.e. Peking is now Beijing. While I don't know much about the languages on the Indian sub-continent, I would expect that Bombay/Mumbai falls into this category as well.
So, to answer your question more directly, we generally try to use names that are as close as possible to the original while still being pronuncable by people who are not familiar with that language.
"ust because a stopped clock is right twice a day doesn't change the fact that it's stopped."
Doesn't stop it being right, either. Seriously, I find renaming of things for political purposes both extremely petty and destructive. It merely creates bad feeling and something to fight over, whilst at the same time causing confusion and a messy historical record. There's no practical gain for changing the name, it's purely an antagonistic move. That body of water has been called The Persian Gulf since the ancient greeks and has that name in multiple languages (including English). The attempt to change the name came along with Arab nationalism in the Sixties. It was even called the Persian Gulf BY the arabs up until that time.
Please Google, just file this one away with "Freedom Fries" as a stupid thing by petty people. No good will come of it.
When several US companies claim that they already own the "iRan" patent for a new digital music player / track shoe hybrid, and the "iRaq" patent for a new digital music player / vegetable counting device.
It all kicks off and nobody wins except the lawyers.
It is internationally known as the Persian Gulf and has been for a very long time. It makes no sense for Google to screw with that. I note that Bing is still correct.
If this sort of thing is OK, then can I make a case for renaming the Bristol Channel? Why should the English be claiming it?
But Iran's attitude is not. It's a really stupid argument over a large expanse of water that Iran does not control. If consensus amongst countries in the region were to change the name, then the name should be changed. If the name continues in dispute then I see no issue in calling it Arabian / Persian Gulf until some international body sits everyone down and resolves the issue.
I'm not sure why Google should give a shit about which of either name is right. They certainly shouldn't try very hard to molify Iran given their obsession to isolate the entire country from the internet.
"consensus amongst countries in the region were to change the name"
I gather that the arabian countries already call it the 'arabian gulf' in arabic and the Iranians call it the 'persian gulf' in Farsi. The question is, why should English speakers change from the centuries-old usage of "Persian Gulf"?
Iran is basically throwing a hissy fit over nothing but it's still stupid of Google to not write "Persian Gulf" at least on their English-Language maps
Changes of name from outside are usually a prelude to aggression. Seriously, whether that is enforcing English names on places in Ireland (as the English did when they first started trying to invade Ireland), or Israel giving their own names to various places or China's refusal to recognize what Taiwan calls itself. Before territory grabs, aggressors attempt to assert their right to the territory and dismiss others. Name changes have historically been a part of that ever since people started to demand justifications from their governments for why it was right for them to take control of somewhere.
Given how threatened Iran feels by the West and by Israel recently, it's not surprising they are touchy on this subject. But like you say, that's by the by. There's no reason we should change the name of centuries upon centuries because arab nationalists would like it to be called the Arabian Gulf.
Why does it matter so much? Who actually cares?
Think about it!
On the Iranside they call it Pursian Gulf
On the Saudi side they call it Arabian Gulf
Its the same stretch of water know by different names by different cultures.
The same could be said about alot of stuff.
Oi! Iran! Wind ya neck in!
The waterway running from my freshly-washed car to the drain at the side of my house is missing from Google maps!
I will not tolerate this outrage!
On a more serious note... I'm not exactly a fan of US politics, in fact I think it's even more corrupt than that of the Middle-East, but at the same time I don't see how a private, American company like Google can be held legally accountable to a foreign country, just because it chooses to omit something from a service it doesn't specifically provide to that country.
Of course, you could say the same if they had included that information, and pissed-off Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar and the UAE instead, except it would also have pissed-off the interventionist US government as well, which is rather more relevant to a US company, and thus the real motive for this ostensibly arbitrary decision.
But if Iran's Foreign Ministry really wants to do something about it, they should counter with their own online maps, then they could reinstate the "Persian Gulf", and rename Washington to "America Incorporated® HQ" while they're at it, then leave it to the reader to decide which is more accurate.
I'll go with that - Google favouring the (Persian) Gulf states they can influence rather than the one they can't.
Why don't google put all the names its known by on the map - they are an information provider after all.
I tried putting the question to google direct "what is the gulf near iran called" I typed and the top answer was "Persian Gulf".
When an autocracy or theocracy (and I don't care how many 'elections' Iran stages, this still applies) starts to get belligerent over the little things - like names on a foreign map - then it's time for the international community to either smile, nod and back away or to smack down hard.
History will bear this out.
The illegitimate country. threatning everyone with war? the country who secretly (wll not so secret) try to produce weapon(s) of mass destruction? the country ruled by religion, where every human (pass, present and futur) are been squash every day?
you the world will take them seriously.....
"Iran? The illegitimate country. threatning everyone with war?"
Illegitimate? It's one of the oldest continuously existing countries in the world. It goes back millenia and has had more or less the same borders for a long, long time. Even the name change from Persia to Iran is little more than an artifact of the revolution popularizing a name that goes back centuries in place of another name that goes back centuries (it's akin to swapping in Britain in place of United Kingdom - there are some actual differences, but it's the same basic political entity. The country has at least as much right to exist as any other.
As to threatening war? You have to be either massively biased or massively misinformed. Iran absolutely does not war. Currently the USA is running around organizing embargoes, sanctions and pretty much every political credit it can call in to try and isolate and pressure Iran. They have also run active operations in Iran, e.g. trying to forment revolution. Congress under the Bush administration approved millions to fund CIA operations within Iran. And you think Iran is the aggressor? The USA is pulling out all the diplomatic stops to try and get Iran to do as it is told for two reasons: One, with US power in the Middle East looking shaky, Iran is the natural alternative that Middle Eastern countries turn to. The USA does not want Iran to be the major power in the region. Two, the USA desperately wants to avoid Israel, which really is threatening war, to actually attack. If they do, then we likely see an enormous wave of violence engulf the Middle East and the USA will undoubtedly get dragged in.
Even many of the anti-government ex-pats I've seen discussing this are up in arms over this one.
It does look like it may be a nationalistic common cause for people to rally around, which is arguably a win for the theocracy.
I tried politely using some of the same arguments in this thread, but they didn't wash. It really does seem to be a big deal - although I didn't get a straight answer as to why.
The International Hydrographic Organization refers to the gulf as the "Gulf of Iran (Persian Gulf)", and defines its southern limit as "The Northwestern limit of Gulf of Oman". This limit is defined as "A line joining Ràs Limah (25°57'N) on the coast of Arabia and Ràs al Kuh (25°48'N) on the coast of Iran (Persia)". It is not and never has been called the Arabian Gulf. Not naming it at all on Google Earth is simply ridiculous by Google.
According to the informative Wikipedia page that AC 12:17 gave the link to earlier (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_Gulf_naming_dispute) the following countries and organisations side with Iran on this:
United Nations
United States of America
United Kingdom
Group of Experts on Geographical Names
International Hydrographic Organization
National Geographic Society
Associated Press
Just saying.
I'm glad to see Iran joining the fight to protect the English language, in which that particular body of water's correct and proper name is the Persian Gulf, from erosion and manipulation by the same sinister Arab cabal that oversees the boycott of Israel!
For once, even if, no doubt, for the wrong reasons, they're on the side of the angels!
Of course you think it is a song. Probably because it is a very famous song
Recorded cover versions
Recording artists and groups known to have covered this song include:
Edmundo Ros (1953)
Bing Crosby with Ella Fitzgerald (1953)
Frankie Vaughan (1954)
Caterina Valente (1954)
Renato Carosone
Darío Moreno (1954, in French)
Jacques Hélian et son Orchestre (1950s, in French as "Istamboul")
Lou Busch (as "Joe Fingers Carr & his Ragtime Band")
Ota Čermák (1959)
Santo & Johnny (1962)
Bruno & the Gladiators, instrumental surf rock band, though titled "Istanbul" (1963)[5][6]
Leo Addeo, (1965)
Bette Midler for the live album "Live At Last" (1977)
Harvard Din & Tonics have sung this song since the group's inception in 1979.
They Might Be Giants (1990)
Lee Press-on and the Nails (1998).
Belmont Playboys, Instrumental titled "Istanbul" (1999)
Ac Rock, Acapella version "Istanbul" (1999)
Oscar Aleman Instrumental version titled "Estambul" (2005)
Ska Cubano (2006)
PJ Harvey sampled the original for her song "Let England Shake" (2011).
Terrance Zdunich sings this song as Count Tarakan, the Badass Russian (2011).
And first by the Four Lads in 1953.
Anyway, thanks for the memory.
Isn't that a song? I think it's a song. :o)
"Even old New York was once New Amsterdam"
That one was renamed in the usual and accepted way. It was first settled by the Dutch, native American people of course excepted. Then King Charles II, having taken it by force following the Second Anglo-Dutch War, awarded it to his brother, the Duke of York (later King James II).
I would prefer to call it Persian, because that is what I am used to, and what I am used to, matters to me more than the opinion of the entire human race, even if enforced at pain of death. BUT. If Iran wants it, I'd rather call it the Brooklyn Gulf. Or maybe Bush or Clinton would be both more accurate and more offensive to Iranians...offending Iranians is my goal hear lol
It is as stupid as that arab people wants to pay the google to rename every where in the world. Do not surprise some years later that they pay the money and omit the name every whrer or change the name of U.S.A. with something like United States of Arab,s.
Just be fair. the stupid act of google is not acceptable.
according to UN archives the onle name that is acceptabe is Perian Gulf.
"according to UN archives the onle name that is acceptabe is Perian Gulf."
The "Perian" Gulf?
Is that the one named after Peri, the scantily-clad assistant in Doctor Who that Peter Davison transformed into Colin Baker to save?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peri_Brown
Strikes me as ironic that someone making such a fuss about it misspells it *twice* (once in the title, once in the example above).
sorry for bad typing.
persisn gulf is forever persian gulf
It is as stupid as that arab people wants to pay the google to rename every where in the world. Do not surprise some years later that they pay the money and omit the name every whrer or change the name of U.S.A. with something like United States of Arab's .Just be fair. the stupid act of google is not acceptable.
according to UN archives the onle name that is acceptabe is Persian Gulf.
This 'Persian', 'Iran' naming thing... a lot of countries are not called by their English names in their own country, Germany:Deutschland, Japan: 'Nihon', etc. Iran is called 'Faris' in the Middle East and South Asia, 'Iranian' (the language) being Farsi in that context, though 'Pakistani' being 'Urdu' doesn't work in reverse. Not forgetting the French though who call Wales 'le Pays de Galles' for whatever historical reason.
"Bahrain" is a good one, English speakers calling it 'Bah-rain' almost sounds rude. The French got that one right, or better at least, 'Bahreïn'. Then again, say the Arabic/French version, and you will not be understood by many an English speaker.
Anyway isn't the Red Sea also often called the Arabian Gulf? Aren't they being a bit greedy in wanting two?
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
