پس لطفا بگویید چرا وقتی نام این خلیج را به عربی تغییر دادند نظری از ایران پرسیده نشد؟
آیا آن موقع ایران حق نظر نداشت؟
So please tell me why Iran was not asked for an opinion when they changed the name of this bay to Arabic?
Didn’t Iran have the right to comment at that time?
تمرکز شما بیشتر روی ترجمه نام است. ولی مشکل ما خود نام است.
این خلیج در زبانهای انگلیسی یا عربی یا فارسی یا … “خلیج فارس” خوانده میشود.
ترجمه مشکل ما نیست. نام اینجا را به خلیج عربی تغییر داده اند. این یک ترجمه نیست. نام کلا چیز دیگری شده و معنی آن فرق کرده است.
خلیج عربی نام قدیم دریای سرخ است. (این جمله تکراریست و در ابتدا نیز بیان کرده بودم)
Your focus is more on name translation. But our problem is the name itself.
This bay is called “Persian Gulf” in English, Arabic, or Persian languages.
Translation is not our problem. The name here has been changed to the Arabian Gulf. This is not a translation. The name has become something else and its meaning has changed.
The Arabian Gulf is the old name of the Red Sea. (This sentence is repeated and I had stated it at the beginning)
مواردی که صحبت کردید جالب اند البته در مورد من و کسانی که اینجا را خلیج فارس مینامند نیست. توجه داشته باشید فارسی زبانان نظرشان را تحمیل نکرده اند. اگر خوب نگاه کنید میبینید که در برچسب اصلی نام نوشته اند خلیج عرب.
پس کسانی که نظرشان را تحمیل کرده اند، موافقان با نام خلیج عرب هستند. حتی برای این تغییر نظرسنجی انجام نداده اند.
و اینکه شما باز هم تمرکزتان روی ترجمه است ولی مشکل خود اسم است. به عنوان مثال انگلستان در همه زبان ها و با هر شکل نوشتاری یک معنی میدهد: انگلستان
The things you talked about are interesting, but not about me and those who call this place the Persian Gulf. Note that Persian speakers have not imposed their opinion. If you look carefully, you will see that the name Arab Gulf is written on the main label.
So those who have imposed their opinion are in favor of the name Arab Gulf. They have not even conducted a survey for this change.
And that you still focus on translation, but the problem is the name itself. For example, England has the same meaning in all languages and in any form of writing: England
It seems like half a lifetime ago, but earlier in this thread you said:
So then at least it sounds like you think that you were consulted, and joined this thread as a result.
A bit like my comment about the United Nations earlier, everyone with a fixed view and an unwillingness to try and empathise with “the other side” will always be able to find some “evidence” that supports them. That doesn’t help anyone - both sides with fixed views can continue making the same statements and this thread will still be salted-snack-worthy for many years to come (although maybe things will die down after the legislative elections tomorrow, perhaps).
I suspect that solutions aren’t going to come from people with fixed views. I also suspect that, despite what is said above, having maps that preferably show name:xx tags where xx is a tag more likely to be politically favourable with the viewer will reduce the complaints a bit, although there will still be cases where people will argue (as NE found with POV maps) that an opposing political position to theirs isn’t just a difference of opinion, it is simply “wrong”.
– Andy
(for the avoidance of doubt, writing in a personal capacity)
جالب است حتی بر اساس قانون The on-the-ground (“OTG”) هم ویکی با به رسمیت شناختن بین المللی موافق است.
متن ویکی:
OpenStreetMap جهان را همانطور که وجود دارد ترسیم می کند و شامل نقشه برداری از مرزها و کشورها بر اساس وضعیت فعلی واقعی است و نه یک موقعیت مطلوب یا ایده آل.
در حال حاضر، ما مجموعه‌ای را ثبت می‌کنیم که، به عقیده مشارکت‌کنندگان OpenStreetMap، به طور گسترده در سطح بین‌المللی شناخته شده است و به بهترین وجه با واقعیت‌های موجود در زمین، به طور کلی به معنای کنترل فیزیکی است.
در این خلیج نام خلیج فارس از قبل بوده و خلیج عرب به صورت یک ادعا و بدون نظرخواهی و به صورت تحمیلی در برچسب اصلی قرار داده شده.
Interestingly, even under the On-the-Ground (“OTG”) rule, the wiki agrees with international recognition.
Wiki text:
OpenStreetMap maps world as it exists, and includes mapping borders and countries according to actual current situation and not a preferred or ideal situation.
Currently, we record one set that, in OpenStreetMap contributor opinion, is most widely internationally recognised and best meets realities on the ground, generally meaning physical control.
In this bay, the name of the Persian Gulf was already there, and the Arabian Gulf was placed in the original label as a claim and without asking for opinion.
@SomeoneElse عزیز
در واقع مشورتی با من صورت نگرفته بلکه وقتی دیدم این اتفاق افتاده از یکی از مسئولین “گروه کاری داده” (دی‌دبلیوجی) پرسیدم که چرا شما نام را تغییر داده اید؟
به من گفتند که: با من بحث نکن و در جامعه مطرح کن!
قبل از اینکه من به این جامعه بیایم و وارد بحث شوم نام اصلی یعنی خلیج فارس را به خلیج عربی تغییر داده بودند بدون هیچ نظرسنجی. این یک حقیقت است.
وقتی این کار انجام شد کسی نپرسید که آیا همه موافق اند یا نه. اما برای بازگردانی به نام بین المللی میگویید هیچ سندی قبول نیست حتی اگر بین المللی باشد. میگویید باید نظرسنجی شود.
در سازمان ملل نیز مدارک 75 سال کودک کشی در فلسطین را قبول نمی کنند ولی اسرائیل را بدون هیچ شرطی به عنوان حق قبول میکنند.
Dear @SomeoneElse
In fact, I was not consulted, but when I saw this happened, I asked one of the officials of DWG, why did you change the name?
They told me that: don’t argue with me and raise it in society!
Before I came to this community and entered the discussion, they had changed the original name of the Persian Gulf to the Arabian Gulf without any polls. This is a fact.
When this was done, no one asked if everyone agreed or not. But to return to the international name, you say that no document is accepted, even if it is international. You say there should be a survey.
In the United Nations, they do not accept the evidence of 75 years of infanticide in Palestine, but they accept Israel as a right without any conditions.
Yes, that is how it happens on low zoom levels (zoomed out to whole planet etc). But did you actually try Americana? When you zoom in to the country (i.e. what would happen when you were on the ground), and that is what actually happens - it then shows your specified preferred name and a local on-the-ground name. (Exactly for the reasons you noticed)
Yes, that was the idea. There is no perfect solution for anything in this world, but there is often better than current solution.
Sure, so you would buy maps from those who provide them in a format/languages that you prefer. Just like you do today (if you use paper maps, of course - i.e. if I were to buy a map at Croatian fuel pump, I might buy one in Croatian, and someone else might prefer buying one in English or in German or whatever…)
Yes, but as you note in “maybe this goes too far”, it doesn’t really matter. When I (hypothetically) choose Croatian and Ukrainian in OSM Americana, it does not necessarily mean that my nationality/ethnicity is half-Croatian half-Ukrainian, just that the output that I would prefer to see from the map is one using name:hr or (failing that) one using name:uk tags from OSM.
There are no translations there. Meaning of combination of words can be translated from one language to another to explain what was meant; but purpose of Names is not that. Purpose of Name is to identify certain locality.
Each language has names for places, sometimes copied, sometimes changed a little, sometimes changes a lot, and sometimes completely invented. Sometimes those names might have words that mean something, and sometimes they do not mean anything. And even when they do happen to mean something, it is irrelevant - because that is not the purpose of names. Their purpose is to identify places, so we can know we talk about the same place.
For example, Germans might call their homeland “Deutschland”, yet British might call it “Germany” - which is just a different name. They use different name for the same place – they do not try to learn what that word might mean in native language and then try to translate it correctly with that meaing.
There exist historical science of origin or the words, which might construct idea to meaning of names of some places. For example, if you were to look into etymology of “Deutschland”, you’d learn that the name might have come from the meaning roughy of “Land of the people”.
Yet do Germans insist that other countries literally translate “Land of the people” to their languages and call Germany that? Of course they do not, it would be ridiculous idea. They are content that other people have their own names for their country. As it should be.
As fun fact, we Croatians (and some other Slavic people nearby) call Germany “Njemačka” (or similar), which again has nothing to do with how people who live there choose to call it, or with any translations from German whatsoever.
If one were to dive deep into etymology of that and attempt to translate roots of it, they’d most likely (but note that history of words is full of guessing!) come up with explanation that we call it “country of mutes / people who can’t speak” (from “n(i)jem” - “unable to speak” + ending “-čka” meaning “pertaining to”, in case of female-gendered-subject when it is ending in “c”).
And just to clarify, that name is not chosen so that we annoy Germans 
, but likely related to Croatians being part of “Slaveni” (Slavic people, from “Sl[ao]vo” = “Letter”; meaning “literate people / people who can read/write/speak fluently”) which in distant past made contact with others on western borders who could not understand them and could not answer back when being talked to in that Proto-Slavic variants, thus giving impression of “being unable to speak” and thus “being mutes”. So the name might have come from random encounters in the distant past, yet it stuck and that is what we call it nowadays.
Perhaps we might call them differently some day (languages change all the time, albeit somewhat slowly on human lifetime timescale) – but hopefully not because Germany decided they need to force us to do it. Although, have they chosen to interpret the translation of how we call their homeland, they might be very annoyed, yes? But it would be stupid to get all worked up about meanings of Names.
Another fun fact: my nationality, Hrvati (what British choose to call Croats instead), literally means “The owners of many lands”. You’ll note however that I do not require you to translate that to your language and call us that, but that I’m content that you have whatever name you have for us (even if such name might not be how we call it, or even accurate translation of it!)
TL;DR: Let each person use the names of places that they prefer. It is their right to have free will and power of speech, as much as it is your right too. Or better yet, give up on names and stick to (more precise and less contested) WGS-84 coordinates, preferably in geo: URI format. Or, this being OSM, refer to proper OSM name of r9326283 if it needs to include whole area instead of specific point. Our AI overlords will prefer that anyway to puny human names, so better start practicing early.
What I wanted to say is that independent of your nationality, language preferences, ethnic,… you might prefer one or the other of a disputed name.
E.g. What was presented as the simple solution of showing “Arabian Gulf” in Arabic and “Persian Gulf” in Farsi, could be assumed fitting for many users.
Still some reading Farsi might want to see “Arabian Gulf” (in Farsi), where others reading Arabic might want to see “Persian Gulf” (in Arabic).
So this shows that an unresolved (maybe unresolvable) naming dispute, cannot be solved with translation or removal of the “name” key.
But as it was already said: yes, it can help to cool a conflict down, when with this approach less people feel intimidated.
There are reasonably large populations of people who call the body of water either the Persian Gulf or the Arabian Gulf. I do not see that there can be a dispute over this.
Depending on how you count the populations you can get different results for which is more popular, but it is clear the feature has multiple English names. This has come up before and OSM does not have a good way of handling features with multiple names in the same language. To be fair, there isn’t a good way outside OSM as attempts to resolve the naming of Stroke City have shown.
I think the best option is to tag name:en-IR, name:en-SA, and other tags as there is clarity on what the feature is called in English in those countries. We are not going to find a good answer for the name:en tag as the feature has multiple English names and previous attempts at dispute resolution have been eventful.
if the prefix contains a country, I think we are speaking about official_name and less about name?
In this specific instance, in German (Germany) just like in English and many other languages, the long standing name is “Persischer Golf” (or similar), but there is also some usage of “Arabischer Golf”, the latter is tagged as an “alt_name”, this is what usually is done if there is an alternative name in a language.
If there are multiple common languages relevant for an area, we usually put all of them in the “name” tag, currently it is strange there is just one language for the area where 2 languages are dominant, particularly as it is not in English despite the fact a significant part are international waters: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/9326283
Yes, wasn’t the original post about the name tag, not about name:en?
Putting both the Farsi for Persian Gulf and the Arabic for Arabian Gulf would not make everyone happy but surely it’s better than the present situation?
No.
en-IR means the Iranian dialect of English. It’s not what Iran regards as the official name in English.
So should we in addition to name:xx also have alt_name:xx and decide for every language which name is the more popular in this language?
Edit: seems that already exists. So is the whole “problem” only about the value of “name”? 
That’s my reading of the original post, yes:
It’s about what appears on “the map” (standard layer, OSM Carto).
Considering
to me it looks like a case for A/B naming for the name key.
This argument got me distracted, but we should instead ask: is it a reality that things are called like this and especially labeled on the ground?
E.g. do traffic signs have Algonquian names on them? If yes, map it accordingly, otherwise do not.
For the Persian / Arabian Gulf I assume you will find signs with الخليج العربي (Arabian Gulf) and others with خلیج فارس (Persian Gulf) around it (locals might want to prove this).
Like others have already suggested:
The whole problem is that we haven’t come to our senses in deleting the name tag.
I was wrong. Carto doesn’t even render the name tag . Well, apparently it does, but only from zoom level 14, which means you’ll never find it. The only layer on openstreetmap.org that shows it prominently is Tracestrack Topo.