Talk:Gulf of Oman

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Arab world Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arab world, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Arab world on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Arab worldWikipedia:WikiProject Arab worldTemplate:WikiProject Arab worldArab world articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Oman Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oman, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Oman on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OmanWikipedia:WikiProject OmanTemplate:WikiProject OmanOman articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Iran Low‑importance Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Pakistan Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pakistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pakistan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PakistanWikipedia:WikiProject PakistanTemplate:WikiProject PakistanPakistan articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

There are at least two errors in the map displaying the Gulf of Oman (or whatever name is applied). Kuwait is missing, and the West Bank is shaded as a sea.

it was always persian sea . or pars sea(daryayeh pars) there was no country named oman 40 years ago,that regin was part of iran since 2500 years ago, and some time in 17th century were occupied by portugees and brits, so its persian sea or pars sea, since it merges to persian gulf,

the description would be improved with a mention of the Strait of Hormuz. Perhaps the omission is political? Wetman 10:50, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Learn something new. I thought the Gulf Of Oman could also regarded as an arm of the Arabian Sea, but it is generally seen as a branch of the Persian Gulf. Alexander 007 09:43, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How in the world is that reference to an obscure video game at all important or necessary? That is absurd.

Because that obscure video game is incredibly popular, and the demo's map takes place in the Gulf of Oman. Having said that, it does seem like it should be separated from the bulk of the article. —Ortchel 18:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seperated from the bulk of the article? It's linked the same way as throughout Wikipedia. By the way, the map is included in the full game, not just the demo. --Lorian^T_C 21:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I meant under a separate header, such as 'Gulf of Oman in popular culture'. It's (arguably) disrespectful to list a video game reference as a primary point of interest for the Gulf. —Ortchel 22:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How is it disrespectful? Someone looking for the BF2 map will search for Gulf of Oman, so I put a link in italics to the correct article at the top of the page. That link doesn't make it a point of interest, it's more of a disambiguation link. These kind of links are seen throughout Wikipedia, I don't see why you are making an issue of it in this article. --Lorian^T_C 06:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did say it was arguable, didn't I? By the by, no issue was made, I only contributed a thought. You never needed to respond at all, let alone with such needless hostility. Go back to your game. —Ortchel 16:15, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really see how my response was "hostile". You contributed a thought, I countered that thought with my own thought. Another thing, stop trying to be provoking by saying "go back to your game," as if me enjoying playing video games somehow make me lower in society than yourself. Don't expect another response. --Lorian^T_C 17:36, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can I just say (that as a Battlefield 2 player) I came here through a link on the BF2 article as Lorian said above. I believe that a reciprical link would have a place here. I cite the Los Angelese Water Reclamation Plant refering to its use in Star Trek, the Gulf of Oman was used in BF2, just my thoughts... ZellDenver

Correct and Offical name of Gulf of Oman in Persian language and Iran is (دریای عمان Daryā-e Omman). Mohsen Abdollahi (talk) 06:36, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111008191433/http://www.iho-ohi.net/iho_pubs/standard/S-23/S23_1953.pdf to http://www.iho-ohi.net/iho_pubs/standard/S-23/S23_1953.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—

Yes, Oman historically country that was founded for more than 2000 years ago, It was the first country to enter Islam. So it's older than 1400 years. You don't know anything and your country doesn't have a history badly. Who are you anyway to tell me about my country? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.154.58.66 (talk) 11:33, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the entire waterbody; this includes the Pakistani coast as well as the Omani. Your edits are disruptive and not neutral. The source that you cited did not include the information that you claimed it did. Please familiarise yourself with Wikipedia's policies before making controversial edits like these, and if in doubt, please discuss them here. Bazonka (talk) 11:50, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that I have requested page protection for this article. Regards, Bazonka (talk) 11:52, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In Oman, a site was discovered in 2011 containing more than 100 surface scatters of stone tools belonging to a regionally-specific lithic industry, the late Nubian Complex, known previously only from Northeast Africa. Two optically stimulated luminescence age estimates place the Arabian Nubian Complex at approximately 106,000 years old. This provides evidence for a distinct Middle Stone Age technocomplex in southern Arabia, around the earlier part of the Marine Isotope Stage 5.[1]

Archaeologists excavating a Middle Stone Age complex in the Dhofar Mountains. The hypothesized departure of humankind from Africa to colonise the rest of the world involved them crossing the Straits of Bab el Mandab in the southern Red Sea and moving along the green coastlines around Arabia and thence to the rest of Eurasia. Such crossing became possible when sea level had fallen by more than 80 meters to expose much of the shelf between southern Eritrea and Yemen; a level that was reached during a glacial stadial from 60 to 70 ka as climate cooled erratically to reach the last glacial maximum. From 135,000 to 90,000 years ago, tropical Africa had megadroughts which drove the humans from the land and towards the sea shores, and forced them to cross over to other continents.The researchers used radiocarbon dating techniques on pollen grains trapped in lake-bottom mud to establish vegetation over the ages of the Malawi lake in Africa, taking samples at 300-year-intervals. Samples from the megadrought times had little pollen or charcoal, suggesting sparse vegetation with little to burn. The area around Lake Malawi, today heavily forested, was a desert approximately 135,000 to 90,000 years ago.

There have been discoveries of Palaeolithic stone tools in caves in southern and central Oman, and in the United Arab Emirates close to the Straits of Hormuz at the outlet of the Persian Gulf (UAE site (Jebel Faya).[2][3] The stone tools, some up to 125,000 years old, resemble those made by humans in Africa around the same period.

Luminescence dating is a technique that measures naturally occurring radiation stored in the sand. Data culled via this methodology demonstrates that 130,000 years ago, the Arabian Peninsula was relatively more warm which caused more rainfall, turning it into a series of lush habitable land. During this period the southern Red Sea’s levels dropped and was only 2.5 miles or 4 km wide. This offered a brief window of time for humans to easily cross the sea and cross the Peninsula to opposing sites like Jebel Faya. These early migrants running away from the climate change in Africa, crossed the Red Sea into Yemen and Oman, trekked across Arabia during favourable climate conditions. 2,000 kilometres of inhospitable desert lie between the Red Sea and Jebel Faya in UAE. But around 130,000 years ago the world was at the end of an ice age. The Red Sea was shallow enough to be crossed on foot or on a small raft, and the Arabian peninsula was being transformed from a parched desert into a green land. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.154.58.66 (talk • contribs)

Well, that's all very interesting, but how is it relevant to the content of this article about the Gulf of Oman? Bazonka (talk) 12:20, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seems that (or at least part of it) was copied from other Wikipedia pages. Vsmith (talk) 13:31, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the bad thing is your Information that has no Recognitions, i've Shown the IHO International Hydrographic Organization and it's in the Organization that RECOGNISES AS Gulf of Oman Only which proves my Information, As of the Limits of the Oceans and Seas. What's about the edited information upward that says Oman is just 40 years old that has no proves or citations!!? The sad thing is you're giving false information and not Deleting the Users that posting up false information. Is This Fair???! Of Course Not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omani112233 (talk • contribs) 18:00, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What on earth are you talking about? There is nothing in this article about the age of Oman. The IHO is the authoritative source on marine waterbody definitions, but this doesn't mean that other names and definitions aren't also used. You can't use IHO source as proof that nothing else exists. However, having said that, I can't find a source that calls the whole waterbody "Sea of Makran" - this name seems to just refer to the Iranian/Pakistani coastal waters. Bazonka (talk) 17:53, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My replay was for the first Comment as you can see not to everyone, IHO International HydroGraphic organisation, says it International by it's name, recognised by all the countries worldwide which is correct shown in the term of LIMITS of the OCEANS and SEAS, and its a Reliable SOURCE By all the countries. "You're right "Sea of Makran" doesn't exist. Some users replace Gulf of Oman by Sea of Makran which is wrong and without any citations, or RECOGNITION which isn't fair!!? and no one is asking them for citations which is BAD. Wikipedia should only carry reliable information, not what people says. Wikipedia is trusted.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Omani112233 (talk • contribs) 16:19, 8 February 2017 (UTC)‎[reply]

You seem to have changed your tune. At first you were saying that the waterbody is called the Sea of Oman not the Gulf of Oman, and now you're saying that the IHO source is correct - this calls it Gulf of Oman. And I did not say that the Sea of Makran doesn't exist; just that (according to the sources that I can find) it doesn't cover the same area as the Gulf of Oman. Please remember to sign your posts in the future. Bazonka (talk) 18:27, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a sig for our new user above. I would think the images of both east and west shores/port facilities should be included in the article once the protection has ended. After all the waterbody is international and not "owned" by any single country. Also the ugly all caps bit should be fixed. Vsmith (talk) 00:27, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How did i Change the tune? You're the one Typing the word "Sea" of Oman and "Sea' of Makran, as from where did you get the information about "Sea of Makran or the word Sea itself?? You're an administrator but keep editing a false information which isn't recognised. and Makran Isn't recognised by any single organisation worldwide. How come you're an admisistrator and the information you paste is actually Incorrect. You said it, there's no source saying it's called "Sea" Of Makran, So why are you using it Again and Again as a SPAM? I Gave a reliable worldwide source. The IHO Organization. The CAPS words is written inside the IHO PDF file itself, and i've written it the same way. Whatever i type is in the reference. Persian Gulf is persian by the recognition of the IHO and the Omani Gulf is Omani by the recognition of the IHO. Check the organization's Pasted reference and how all the countries rely on it. It's reliable source. What does Oman gulf have to do with Pakistan area "Makran"?? Makran is an area and doesn't have a sea and it's found in Pakistan! Oman is officially a country name used for the Gulf! We can't use city names on the Seas???! Are you serious? It's like Going to the page "The Persian Gulf" And giving it a new name and adding information about other countries far away! Persian is persia: IRAN Today. Oman: is the Sultanate of Oman. Add Correct information not a false information that really doesn't help the Wikipedia users!! We really need an administrators that understands everything of the past and today.

Vsmith should be reported or terminated from wikipedia for Over spamming and adding information which is not reliable. I hope any administrators could help. This isn't Fair. Wikipedia needs Trusted information not false information by spamming and erasing the true information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omani112233 (talk • contribs) 03:33, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide some evidence for your attack; I have not taken any admin actions here. Vsmith (talk) 23:51, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please can the following edits be made to this article?

1. Remove the sentence about the International Hydrographic Organization from the lede. This is unnecessary and appears to be POV pushing. (Alternatively, if you feel that this is controversial, retain the sentence but add a space before "(IHO)", uncapitalise "Limits of Oceans and Seas", and fix the reference so that it is not a duplicate of reference 2.)
2. In the Extent section, change "Sea of Oman" to "Gulf of Oman" as per the source and the article title.
3. Reinstate the image of Gwadar Port which was removed without explanation. See here for the image details.
4. Remove the external link to the Omani Ministry of Foreign Affairs. This is not directly relevant to the subject matter.

Thanks, Bazonka (talk) 10:24, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1- International Hydrographic Organization is a citation that wouldn't be removed, is it necessary. 2- IHO Is capitalise so what's the problem? 3- Reference 1 and 2 are needed. They're reliable references. 4- Gawader port removed because it has nothing to do with Gulf of Oman, The main port of gulf oman is the Muscat port known as the Muttrah port. Pakistan has nothing to do with the gulf or even the area Makran, even pakistan hasn't said such thing about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omani112233 (talk • contribs)

1. It is my view that we do not need to mention the IHO in the lede - it mentioned later on in a more appropriate place. (I'm prepared to accept that this may not pass the "uncontroversial edits" test, hence my alternative suggestion to clean up the sentence.)
2. No problem saying "IHO" in capitals, but "LIMITS OF OCEANS AND SEAS" mustn't be all caps. See
   MOS:ALLCAPS
   .
3. Yes, the references are needed, but they are the same. Rather than putting the same reference code twice (and hence it appears twice in the reference list), we can put the reference code in just once and refer to it in two places. This is an uncontroversial technical fix and does not affect the content. See
   WP:REFNAME
   .
4. The port of Gwadar is very much definitely on the Sea of Oman, on the Pakistani coast. The IHO definition, of which you are so fond, clearly shows this. And it doesn't matter that Muttrah is a bigger port - there's no problem with having two pictures. This really should be an uncontroversial edit, but it seems that you want to rewrite the international definition...

For future reference, please DO NOT delete other people's comments from Talk pages. Add your comments at the end, indented with colons, and remember to sign your posts with four tildes (~). See

WP:TPG. Thanks. Bazonka (talk) 20:07, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

I stand corrected! The IHO definition puts the northeastern limit of the Gulf on the Pakistan coast at 61°43'E, whereas Gwadar is outside the Gulf at 62°19'E. So I withdraw my request to reinsert the image. Sorry about that. But, we should probably include a different image of somewhere else on the Iran/Pakistan coast of the Gulf. Bazonka (talk) 20:30, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IHO References are different, 1st one isn't the same as 2nd one just because it carries the organisation name IHO, since people like you need such references or they'll delete other people edits, and we got it and you're still refusing it. Iran has persian gulf and all the gulf countries. Gulf of oman, has only muttrah port mainly to be used, and other omani ports used for the "Arabian Sea". It doesn't mean it's your view so you can change whatever you want, Wikipedia has rules and administrators to help in this situation, wikipedia lets any person to edit since he has the reliable reference. Just stand with the truth and stop spamming without giving citation or an organisation source that recognises what you're saying — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omani112233 (talk • contribs) 21:19, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're right that the references are different (I stand corrected again!), but the first reference is draft, and the content is essentially the same anyway. Both refer to the "Gulf of Oman". The second reference would work just as well.

The port of Chabahar in Iran lies on the Gulf of Oman. (The IHO's definition includes this within the Gulf's extent.) So I would suggest including a picture of Chabahar's port in the article as well, to give it more balance. Bazonka (talk) 21:42, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Yes I definitely agree with the latter half of point 1, that is; International Hydrographic Organization(IHO) -> International Hydrographic Organization (IHO) and "LIMITS OF OCEANS AND SEAS" -> Limits of Oceans and Seas. I also support point 2. the article should be consistent. Everywhere outside of the lede, the article should reference the "Gulf of Oman" and not any of its aliases. I have no opinion on point 4. at this time. Mr rnddude (talk) 22:40, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done Requests 1 and 2 done per consensus. Request 3 withdrawn. Request 4 done per lack of opposition. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:19, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to suggest that, to be more geopolitically instructive, the current map shown at the top of this article be replaced by one that identifies the countries surrounding it. I would try to do this myself but don't dare to as I lack both sufficient editing experience and knowledge of the copyright requirements. Can anybody advise me or point me to the wikipedia page where this kind of info resides? Thanks in advance. Maude Frickert (talk) 18:02, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]