Persian Gulf Controversial Naming

جزئیات کامل مکاتباتم با ناسا در زمینه حذف نام ع.ر.ب.ی از نقشه های خلیج پارس این شرکت

UPDATE – 8/4/2011 at 3pm GMT The problem was resolved, and they changed their map termed with ‘Persian Gulf’ only. For the details click here. 

---

Click on the Image to View the Larger Version

This one's really funny. The case is NASA's Earth Observatory website has recently posted an article on "Arabian Sand Storm". Well, the article is highly interesting, depicting a huge fast-moving sand storm partially covering parts of the Arabian Peninsula, Persian Gulf, and Iran.

The thing is, over the map partly showing the Persian Gulf, a nonexistent name was termed in the parentheses (here). It is completely unclear what goes on inside the US scientific centers. Once the problem goes with the "National Geographic", and now it's NASA's turn to distress its creditability.

Such an incident had never been happened before among the previous articles illustrating the water body as known for "Persian Gulf" worldwide. [1][2][3]

According to the UN resolution, the name of the water body is "Persian Gulf", and "A-r-a-b-i-a-n Gulf" not only is mostly referred to the "Red Sea" (here), but the naming has not found any acceptance outside of the Arab world, and is not recognized by the United Nations or any other international organization.

Such controversial naming may distress the NASA's Earth Observatory website creditability for sure.

I have played my part sending an email explaining the situation for them, but one email changes nothing for sure.

I need you to forward them an email making them purge the controversy, or else any future article by NASA somehow showing the Persian Gulf is going to suffer from the same issue.

NEW UPDATE - 08/04/2011; here are the correspondences between me and the NASA Earth Observatory Team during the past few days - in chronological order;

From: noreply@eob2.gsfc.nasa.gov [noreply@eob2.gsfc.nasa.gov]
Sent: March 31, 2011 at 1:44 AM
To: Carlowicz, Michael J. (GSFC-613.0)[SIGMA SPACE CORPORATION]; Ward, Kevin A. (GSFC-613.2)[SIGMA SPACE CORPORATION]
Subject: EO Comment: Naming Controversy

From: Kian A.Nezhadi, kianian@gmail.com

Topic: ContentFeedback
Subject: Naming Controversy

Comment/Question:
Dear Earth Observatory Team,

Regarding your article on "Arabian Sand Storm", on the map showing the Persian Gulf, you have mentioned the name "Arabian" in the parentheses. That is while such an incident had never been happened before among the previous articles illustrating the water body as known by "Persian Gulf" worldwide.

According to the UN resolution, the name of the water body is "Persian Gulf", and "Arabian Gulf" not only is mostly referred to the "Red Sea", but the naming has not found any acceptance outside of the Arab world, and is not recognized by the United Nations or any other international organization.

Such controversial naming may distressed the NASA's Earth Observatory website creditability.

In this regard, it is highly appreciated if you may correct the map while in the body of the article you have used the correct "Persian Gulf" term.

Best Regards,

Kian A.Nezhadi, M. Eng.
Ph.D. Candidate in Water Resources Eng.
________________________________________

On March 31, 2011 at 9:25 PM

Kian –

We don't make political statements with our naming conventions. We use the Times Atlas as our reference book (every publication relies on a few style or standards books). See http://www.timesatlas.com/Pages/default.aspx

When there is a location with more than one widely used name, we include both names, though we insert the preferred version first. You will see this with names such as Crete/Kriti or Burma/Myanmar, among others.

It is the best we can do to address the fact that there are differences in the world about proper naming...a debate we'd rather not get into.

Thanks for your note,

Mike Carlowicz
Editor - NASA Earth Observatory - http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov
774-413-5168 (home office)  and  508-566-2620 (cell)
michael.j.carlowicz@nasa.gov
________________________________________

On April 1, 2011 at 4:00 PM

Team,
 
Your explanation was barely satisfying, but I appreciate your attention.
 
I still don't get it. In fact, it is somehow confusing why you have suddenly decided to change your own previous naming approach in terming the regarding body of water.

I have been your reader for the past three years, and never had happened for a map or an article on your website to bear any other name but "Persian Gulf" for the regarding body of water. You may refer to the following links in this regard, while there are still much more if you refer to your own archive:
 
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=37632
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=38384
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=8500
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=49575
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=43030
 
So, in this case there are two scenarios going on within NASA, and more specifically your team.
 
The first scenario is that you have not been following any specific convention or standard until very recently, and then suddenly you have decided to get organized by following a source (Times Atlas) which refers to a body of water as "The Gulf" which is known as "Persian Gulf" by the UN as the biggest worldwide organization, and so many other authentic organizations. Everybody knows that it's a gulf and not a pool. It's just like calling the Pacific Ocean; The Ocean!
 
The second scenario is that somebody whether Arabs or else have forced you to neglect the UN conventions by adopting what they mostly prefer to use in their own countries which is quite okay and out of objection.
 
Well, the first scenario is really irrational considering such a well-organized administration as NASA, but the second one although irrational as well (since it invalidates your independence which is not the case), but is more acceptable.
 
If the case is you want to mention every name which is widely used to address a location, then I think you may face a real problem soon since there are thousands of locations worldwide which is called with different names, each by millions of people.
 
I know an email or two won't change anything in this regard, but at least it became quite evident for me and many others that the world is still not going towards the right direction.
 
Still I enjoy your posts, so then,

Good Job,

Kian A.Nezhadi, M. Eng.
Ph.D. Candidate in Water Resources Eng.
________________________________________

On April 6, 2011 at 1:45 AM

Kian --

You made some good points, and have led us to take a fresh look at things. It seems that while we intended to closely follow a reference, being human we were uneven in our execution. We need to fix that, though I am not sure how it will turn out.

As for your insinuations about our politics -- I don't appreciate that at all. We have no interest in politics here. I am not interested in the quibbling over land and names for tribal or diplomatic reasons. I don't work in a political or diplomatic office, nor do I take directions from either. My/our only interest is in presenting names and information that are recognizable to the largest audience and as close to the truth as the facts will allow.

We are human beings. We make errors. I suspect you do, too. So be careful about throwing stones.

Mike Carlowicz
Editor - NASA Earth Observatory - http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov
774-413-5168 (home office) and 508-566-2620 (cell)
michael.j.carlowicz@nasa.gov
________________________________________

On April 8, 2011 at 3:28 AM

Michael,
 
Well, at least the good part is that you have considered the situation, and now are trying to fix it, rather than whitewashing the whole problem. I am really grateful for that. You have dismissed both scenarios I have proposed, and that was really a good news as well.  
 
You are quite right; everyone makes mistakes, that's an integral part of our nature. I am not good at politics, nor do I have any interests in that. However, once I feel that it is trying to change even the most matured and perfect conventions and notions around me, I may turn into a perfect politician shielding those conventions. Those conventions say that politics should be kept away from everything or else it would become polluted with politics. That's what you were insisting on as well, Nice.
 
So, I was not trying to insult you, that was just the same tactic – I just mentioned - I employed, cause that was the time when I had become disturbed watching a map bearing an unconventional name due to what I then believed to be political intrusion into what I mostly referred to for scientific purposes.

I don't know what terming approach you are going to take in the future regarding the body of water, but as least now it has become utterly clear that there are still people out there concerned with providing the best they can as you do, and I appreciate that.

Now, it seems that an email or two could indeed make some changes!

In this regard, that would be great if you may keep me informed on whatever develops.

Kian A.Nezhadi, M. Eng.
Ph.D. Candidate in Water Resources Eng.