In a recent reply in this blog, you say Reuters uses the Gulf instead of Persian Gulf because the latter implies the body of water belongs to Iran. So with that logic, the Gulf of Mexico should be changed to the Gulf because it implies it belongs to Mexico even though it borders the U.S. And the Indian Ocean should be changed to The Ocean because it implies it belongs to India while it borders Africa. Your statement is illogical. If someone has a problem with history, they need to deal with it, not change it.
Sean
There is no gulf on the face of our planet that is called The Gulf. I will be keeping a very close eye on what your organization decides to do next. If the term is not corrected to the PERSIAN GULF, I will have no option but to boycott your news agency and start to inform everyone about your biased and dishonest reporting practices. Further I will make a formal complaint to the UK Press Complaints Commission, to stop this irresponsible course of action.
Dean A.
As you can see from comments attached to that blog posting, many readers disagree with our style on The Gulf. Paul Holmes, our general news and political editor, says:
Reuters is among a number of news organisations that refer to this body of water as the Gulf, rather than the Persian Gulf or the Arabian Gulf or, in the case of some news services, both. As readers point out, the historical name is the Persian Gulf and it is one that the United Nations Group of Experts on Geographical Names regards as correct.
References to the Arabian Gulf became more common in the 1950s and 1960s with the rise of Arab nationalism and it has been our policy at Reuters for as long as I can remember to refer to the body of water simply as the Gulf. The reasons have a lot to do with the very valid desire of news organisations to report the news, not become the news. Iran has been particularly insistent over the years that there should be no revisionism in the naming of the Gulf, as National Geographic magazine and the British Council in Tehran have found out.
Reuters is very sensitive to the political impact of geographical names and changing style is not something we take lightly because of the implications. During the war between Britain and Argentina in 1982, we referred to the Falkland Islands and to Las Malvinas to make clear that Reuters did not support either side in the conflict in the South Atlantic. It took us considerable time and debate to switch to Mumbai from Bombay for the Indian city because of differences over the origins and intent of the original name change. We opted for Mumbai last year, when we changed style on several cities including Kolkata, formerly Calcutta.
Also last year, we dropped our long-standing style on the Lebanese Islamist group Hezbollah, which we had previously called Hizbollah. We did that because research showed that the transliteration Hezb was far more common and thus more likely for readers to use in Internet searches. We continue to write East Timor rather than the post-independence name Timor-Leste, because the former is better known to readers, though we long ago gave up Burma in favour of Myanmar. Were still discussing whether to change our style on South Korean place names.
As a result of this debate, well look again at our style on the Gulf. The review will involve staff from Iran and the Middle East and outside experts as needed. I will let readers know the outcome by June 1 and I promise we wont do what the U.S. Navy Style Guide does for news about the Navy and have it both ways. Heres their entry: “Persian Gulf - Stories originating from U.S. 5th Fleet area of operation use “Arabian Gulf.” Stories originating from everywhere except U.S. 5th Fleet area of operation use “Persian Gulf.” “Gulf” is acceptable in second reference.”
– GBU Editor
Trackback
14 comments so far
(1) On this issue, I recommend that everyone read the entry “Persian Gulf naming dispute” at wikipedia.org.
(2) I would have expected that Reuters has a policy such as the following to determine geoographic names: (a) Pick an international authority for geographical names and use that in each case, with exceptions for: (b) If a given geographical name is “disputed” as far as the United Nations authority on international geographic names is concerned, then follow a sensible editorial policy of specifying the “most commonly used” name first, followed by the disputed name in parenthesis, or something similar to identify the alternative disputed name.
(3) “The reasons have a lot to do with the very valid desire of news organisations to report the news, not become the news.” This is only weakly followed by most national and international private-sector Western news organization, including Reuters. I say this keeping in mind one of the most glaring areas of news reportage, the U.S. stock markets, where Reuters’s propensity to quote mere rumors of market participants, thereby actually “making” news where there very likely is none, while showing de facto partiality in rumor collection, and de facto imparting additional market influence on those Reuters choosing to interview and “quote.”
- Posted by PTSo, just to continue the hair-splitting, if the name The Gulf is preferred, how come there was this caption in one of your photographs today (April 3) in the Editor’s choise selection? “Adrienne Madden (L) kisses her husband Elijah Madden (C) … before he departs on the aircraft carrier USS Nimitz … which is deploying to the Persian Gulf …” Or does this fall into the category of “Stories originating from everywhere except U.S. 5th Fleet area of operation”?
- Posted by Anukaisa JokelaTo answer Anukaisa — the caption she refers to falls into the category of proof that trying to ensure consistency of style in a news organisation the size of Reuters (2,400 journalists) is a bit like painting the Golden Gate Bridge. It’s a never-ending task.
To answer PT - We have a very strict policy at Reuters that we do not report rumours. However, when a rumour has a significant market impact, which is sometimes the case, we will report the market move and cite the rumour that triggered it. We will seek at the same time to establish whether the rumour is right or wrong and report that element too.
- Posted by Paul HolmesI’m form the Arabic side of the gulf and I know that this gulf name’s is the Persian gulf. if we allow the radical sunnis to rename the gulf then they should be allowed to re name and conquer Span or as Arab still name it Andulas ( I have been taught that Spain, south of france, Austaria, most all Asia, and all Africa belong to the Sunni Arab and they should take it back after they kill every one who is not Sunni Arab
- Posted by AliWhile you’re at it, why don’t you change the name of North America to “the continent” so that you don’t offend Canadians and Mexicans who don’t like to be generalized as Americans. How dare you tamper with a name that has been in existance since the start of recorded history. You should be ashamed of yourself. State the correct name or lose your credibility forever.
- Posted by DisgustedI think it’s ridiculous, to be honest. You’re not printing an atlas. There are names of countless places under debate (for example, what do you call the body of water between Korea and Japan? How about the one north of Poland?) — and you will soon find yourself unintelligible if you call everyplace “the Gulf”, “the City”, or “the Sea”. Why don’t you just buy an atlas and use it?
- Posted by Killer of GiantsIt is interesting to note that the question of use of Gulf versus Persian Gulf has came to light, when there is a growing dispute between US and Iran.
The increasing interest by US based and some western media to point out the differences between Iran and its Arab neighbors only underlines the direct or indirect connection between the media and US governments foreign policy.
Shiia vs. Sunni, Arabs vs. Persians, movies such as 300 and Alexander, this Persian Gulf debate, Shat Al Arab vs. Karoon River, and disputes over various islands in the Persian Gulf are few subjects that have been used or will be exploited in your local news media in very near future.
US friendly regional Arab countries are also lending a hand by fanning the flames. You ask why? I believe it is to prepare the politically naive American public, and easily antagonized Midwesterners for the eventual conflict with Iran. One has to only look back to news broadcasted by western media during the Iran-Iraq of the late 80s to see the similarities.
- Posted by NewsJunkyTypo…Middleasterners
- Posted by NewsJunkyIf there is to be voting, I vote for “Persian Gulf.”
As for my reasons, in case anyone is interested,
1. Historical usage, which seems strongly to favor “Persian Gulf,” is probably the only fair or rational way to resolve any such dispute, something like listing actors in alphabetical order in movie credits. Both are mechanical methods of resolving otherwise unanswerable questions. All parties should be able to endorse such a convention.
2. “Persia” is not even the modern name of any country. Therefore one could say with reason that rather than favoring any contemporary country, one was referring back only to a different age in which nation-states did not even exist as we know them. In that sense “Persia” has never been the name of a “country” in the contemporary sense of that word.
- Posted by RalphUsing “The Gulf” just strikes me as foolishly vague in an attempt to be overly politically correct. After all, there are lots of Gulfs: the Gulf of Maine, Gulf of Mexico, Gulf of Cambay, Gulf of Kutch and the Gulf of Mannar, just to name a few. Since there is an international body that has weighed in on the validity of “Persian Gulf” as a name for the geographic area in question, step up and use it. To fail to do so makes Reuters the news instead of the reporter.
- Posted by Veronica MorrisSeems interesting that Reuters’ editor says they wish to “report” rather than “become” the news. Then why change the name? That’s the news, not the other way around. It really makes the organization appear political, and so we should be skeptical of what we read here.
- Posted by GrahamThat is just being too specific.
- Posted by Political MajorityI note that you state that you did not want to support either Argentina or the UK in the Falklands war. As the war was between a liberal democracy and a military junta, aren’t people justified in asking whether Reuters by asserting impartiality is actually demonstrating a bias against liberal democracy?
- Posted by David LongThis implicit bias is also evident in Reuters naming Hezbollah as an “Islamist organisation” rather than an “Islamic terrorist organisation”. Is it becasue you don’t want to offend Hezbollah’s members or maybe Iran that you don’t call a spade a spade?
To answer David Long - It’s not our job at Reuters to tell readers what to think. It’s our job to report events accurately and dispassionately so they can think for themselves.
- Posted by Paul Holmes