Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:46, 29 April 2007

This template must be substituted. Replace {{Requested move ...}} with {{subst:Requested move ...}}.

Iraq Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iraq, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Iraq on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IraqWikipedia:WikiProject IraqTemplate:WikiProject IraqIraq ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Iran Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iran, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Iran on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please join the project where you can contribute to the discussions and help with our open tasks.IranWikipedia:WikiProject IranTemplate:WikiProject IranIran ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality. The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality. The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

The photo that isnt

The photo purporting to show the Arvand/Shatt al-Arab plainly isnt. There isnt a bridge. It is probably taken from one of the three bridges in Khoramshah, none of which cross the Shatt-al-Arab, nor is it actually visible in the photo. Eregli bob 08:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

On moving the article to Arvand/Shatt al-Arab

Should this page not be moved over to Arvand/Shatt al-Arab and 'this' page be made a redirect ? Much of the Iran/Iraq war was about this river and its control - hence the naming is also POV Refdoc 17:34, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

relatively recently

The article uses the phrase "relatively recently" to describe when the Tigris and Euphrates ran different courses to the Gulf (specifically, when the Shatt al-Arab didn't exist and the rivers either converged further west before hitting the Gulf, or each drained separately into the Gulf). Can anyone give an actual circa date? Did the change happen in historical times (which would incidentally start when the people in this very region invented writing circa 3800 BC)? Or was it way further back, although still "relatively recently" on the geological scale, like 15,000 ya, 30,000 ya? JDG 17:08, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

37 meters? Don't think so.

I just used Google Earth to slowly pan along the entire length of the Shatt al-Arab. Nowhere did it come close to being only 37 meters wide, as stated in the article. The "Enclyclopedia Iranica", apparently a trustworthy source affiliated with Columbia University, describes the width as varying between 400-1500 meters (see http://www.iranica.com/articles/ot_grp5/ot_shatt_al_arab_20040909.html ), and that's consistent with my Google Earth survey... This project (I mean all of Misplaced Pages) needs to do a massive fact check. I'm running across too many gaping errors on simple matters of fact like this. Jimbo needs to declare an upcoming month "Accuracy Month" or something, thousands of editors checking simple stuff like this... I could barely even find a source for the true width because all the Misplaced Pages clones kept insisting 37m. Jeez, if we're going to blot out all other info sources on the Web we'd damn well better not be getting things like the width of a major waterway wrong by 300 meters. JDG 23:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Width should be between around 234 meters and 800 meters (mouth of the river, leading to Persian Gulf). GeeGee --213.196.229.104 09:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Please remove this "Aravandrud" from the title

this waterway is Called Shatt Al-Arab, a One country (Iran) calling it Arvandrud isnt a reason to put it beside Shatt al Arab, a good example their crusade against the Arabian Gulf being mentioned in the Persian gulf topic is a good example, although Arabian gulf is used by many countries in the region while "Arvandrud" is not known, if you are so desperate in showing that name, i dont mind as long as its mentioned that its used by Iranians and not commonly used term which is a FACT and mention this name in the first paragraph not the title which is confusing. thnx. Ioj 12:37, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

The river is owned by Iran and Iraq. Thus whatever official name that is recognized by the either side is used. Persin Gulf is an international body of water. Kaveh 17:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Arvavand!

Since when Persian people lived near that river to give it a name, even the Iranian side was and is inhibited with Arab people. Arab and many Persian people in Iran still uses shatt al-arab, but Iran uses "change the name" policy against every thing arab in occupied Arabistan, anyway why dont the arabian gulf be named Arabian/Persian Gulf?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by MARVEL (talk • contribs) 03:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Re:Arvavand!

I tell you since when:

since 2000BC, when most of Iraq was setteled by the Medes (modern day's Kurdish people that are of Iranian origin). Once upon a time there was this city called Ctesiphon the capital of the Persian Empire, after a series of failed attempts by islamic army to invade Persia, the empire eventually fell to Arabs, then they left eating lizards and started using their brain to re-name the cities in the captured area. they did so and did so and did so, but alas that they didnt realise they forgot about Baghdaad - meaning 'Given By God' in Persian Language. dont sleep yet, the story's not finished.

They even went as far as re-naming the Persian Gulf, yet all their attempts failed. They kept on renaming and renaming and renaming that they almost forgot about their own people and their own culture to the point where Kurdish - an Iranian Language- got a co-official status in Iraq. you see? not very clever, nor latteral thinking, is it?

So the very same story applies to Arvandrud, Iraq, Persian Gulf, Al-Anbar Province, etc. etc.

Bro you cannot change the past, you have the accept the historical facts and just learn from them, we have been almost one nation - after unification of Media and Persia ie Kurds and Persians. So why are u people keep coming up with this ridiculous ideas about re-naming your cities, regions, etc?

Long-Live All the Iranian Races, The Kurdish, The Persians, Afghans, Tajiks, Azeris, Baluchis, and other indigenous people of Greater Iran--Sorkhadem 15:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

haha. you burned them. Good text. --Arad 01:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Arad do not get so excited:

• the Medes lived in northern Iraq not southern Iraq.
• Native people of Iraq were Assyrian and Chadian who are Semitic people as Arabs. Therefore, Persians are not the native people of Iraq.
• Persians invaded Iraq and used Semitic languages such as Aramaic which is very close to Arabic.
• The name Ctesiphon is originally Aramaic and the city existed before the Persian invasion of Iraq.
• Muslims won from the first battle with Sassanid Persians In Iraq which was Alqadisiya.
• The name Shat Al-Arab is officially recognised where as Arvandrud or whatever is not known or used except in Iran.
• What about Persanizing Arabic names such as Khorramshaher (Almuhammara) which was Persinized in 1925.

,Ahvaz =Ahwaz ....etc.

• The name of Baghdad does not mean 'Given By God' It is Persian name which means the garden of Dad.
• I don't really have problem with the name Persian gulf as long as you became neutral with all Arab-Persian articles.
• At least remember something called Alphabetical order when you arrange some controversial sentences.

Finally, what's wrong with you guys?! Why you always try to make conflicts, we can agree at some points...Just chill out :)--Aziz1005 22:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Merge them

Merge the articles, the other one was made mistakeningly anyways.Khosrow II 23:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

NPOV - Minimize use of names

Since the two coutries on the two sides of the river have two different names for it, I think it is obvious we must keep the double-title as it is (Arvand-Rud/Shatt-al-Arab). Within the text, except for the first instance (or any specific discussion of the name controversy), we should refrain from using any names to keep the article NPOV, and simply refer to it as "the river". What do you think? Shervink 10:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)shervink

2007 seizure of royal navy personel

There is nothing to say this occured in the shatt al arab and unless someone can say it did, it should be removed from this article. The only thing that involves it is that they were escorted up the Shatt al-arab /after/ they were captured. Narson 15:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Have rewritten the entire section. Batmanand | Talk 16:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

This article used as source by Associated Press

I was reading an article on CNN about the seizure of the British Marines, and they pointed to an article about the historic tensions in the waterway, so I jumped to Misplaced Pages to see what was here, and found that the AP had pulled sections of the article to write their story.

Check out the CNN link here: — Preceding unsigned comment added by MauriceReeves (talk • contribs) 17:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Startegic Purpose

If the waterway was in fact used for humanitarian aid and not just control of an important oil shipping lane, there needs to be some kind of evidence to support this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.58.69.113 (talk • contribs) 19:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Renaming Arvandrud to Arvand

Since rud simply means river, and Arvand, not Arvandrud is the more recognized name both locally in Iran and specially abroad, I think its better to rename Arvandrud to Arvand in the article. any objections? --Gerash77 14:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I object...unless we change "Rio Grande" to "Grande" or "Amu Darya" to "Amu"......rud is an integral part of the name and we need to retain it DLinth67.142.130.24 00:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was move to Shatt al-Arab. Not to throw this age-old mantra out there, but please remember this is not a vote. It has been conclusively presented that Shatt al-Arab is a far more common name in the English language. This is somewhat similar to the long-standing dispute over at Persian Gulf; nevertheless, we have Persian Gulf, instead of Persian Gulf/Arabian Gulf. Looking over the poll, we have a large number of people who advocated Shatt al-Arab as well a couple additional people (under #Move to Shatt al-Arab.2FArvandrud) who acknowledge that Shatt al-Arab is a more common name. There is an IP !vote under #Keep at Arvandrud.2FShatt al-Arab that can be discounted and another, indented !vote that might be considered another !vote in support of Shatt al-Arab (depending on who wrote it). The lack of support for the name Arvandrud alone is tell-tale; it's obvious that Shatt al-Arab is the more common name, at least in the English-speaking world, even though there is still controversy over its name. -- tariqabjotu 14:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

There still doesn't appear to be a clear-cut consensus for the page move, so I've reverted it for the time being. Khoikhoi 01:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand. Is the discussion continuing or is it closed? It seems that one person decided the proper outcome of the discussion and another decided they were wrong. What is the procedure for these things?--Conjoiner 09:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

Arvandrud/Shatt al-Arab → Shatt al-Arab/Arvandrud — Shatt name used by over 80% of world's nations, atlases, books; Iran is primary user of Arvandrud name, which should be listed only secondarily as the upper 110 km of the 200 km river is entirely in Iraq. Other views? DLinth 15:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Note: the format has been modified in accordance to "Proposed change of format: move to Shatt al-Arab", to simplify the discussion and thus help the closing WP:RM administrator.

So, the new format is:

Arvandrud/Shatt al-Arab → Arvandrud or Shatt al-Arab or Shatt al-Arab/Arvandrud

Comments signed before 20:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC) were made under the old format, and their authors may modify them soon. - Best regards, Ev 20:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Add  # '''Move'''  or  # '''Keep'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.

Keep at Arvandrud/Shatt al-Arab

1. Support This is a local body of water, under the exclusive sovereignty of Iran and Iraq. Therefore both local names should be used, in an alphabetical order.--Mardavich 16:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
   • The purpose of this English Misplaced Pages is to communicate with English-speakers, not mediate between nationalisms. The UN exists to do that; and is better paid than we are. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
     • Arvand river is also common in English. Neither name is English to begin with, so both local names should be used in alphabetical order. --Mardavich 17:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
2. Support The name Arvand is also historically correct, as per Encyclopedia Iranica: . Let us not forget that Afghanistan, Tajikistan, and a few other Central Asian states speak Persian, and hence naturally refer to "Arvand". It is not just Iran.--Zereshk 18:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
3. Support per above --62.56.91.114 23:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
   This template must be substituted. - Ev 00:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
4. Support per Mardavich and Zereshk. Also we should not forget that the Iran-Iraq War was fought over this issue and over a million people lost their lives because Saddam wanted it completely in the name of Pan-Arab nationalisml. Misplaced Pages's NPOV policy clearly shows that the current title is not only proper but consistent with policy. The Persian name predates the Arabic name and like Zereshk says Persian is one of the "lingua francas" of West and Central Asia. Claiming that only Iran uses this name is not only incorrect, it is born out of pure ignorance unfortunately. Khorshid 12:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

   I find it hard to believe that Saddam fought a war to change a placename. He fought a war to get the oil. Persian might be the language for many people, but this is an English Misplaced Pages, so I think the common name used by English speakers should take precedence. As I said, as someone with just a passing interest (I'm your typical Misplaced Pages reader) I thought it was odd to see Arvandrud and found it confusing. At least it should be Shatt al-Arab/Arvandrud, don't you think? I've nothing against Iran or Iranians or the Persian language, it's just a matter of clarity.--Conjoiner 13:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

   The war was not fought over oil! Please, if you don't know what you're talking about, then don't make such uneducated comments. The primary reason for the outbreak of war was due to long-standing issues between Iran and Iraq over control of the Arvandrud/Shatt al-Arab waterway. That was the main and primary reason. If you don't accept that, tough. Go read the history. The second reason was that Saddam wanted to conquer and occupy most of southwestern Iran, partly because of the oil, but also because of the large Arab minority there. After 1982 Saddam gave up on that and the war continued because of Khomeini wanting to conquer Iraq because of the Shia majority. But the official and technical justification from beginning to end was the full control of the waterway, which Arabs call "Shatt al-Arab" and what Iranian-speaking peoples call "Arvandrud". Khorshid 02:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

   I take great exception to being accused of being uneducated, especially when you go on to endorse what I said by admitting that oil was one of the reasons for the invasion. While I cannot claim to be a Middle East expert, I am a native English speaker and I've never heard of the name "Arvandrud" and I also find it illogical that one million people would be killed in a war fought over a placename. I assume that most people who are voting to make the article Arvandrud are probably Iranian and not native English speakers. Whatever their grievances about Saddam Hussein, they must recognise the fact that the vast majority of English language sources call it Shatt al-Arab and that's how we refer to it. Instead of calling me uneducated, perhaps you can recognise that as a native English speaker I have some insight into the placenames we use.--Conjoiner 12:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

   • Oppose. The proposed title (Shatt al-Arab/Arvandrud) would be just as bad as the current one (Arvandrud/Shatt al-Arab), since both are double titles, and unnecessarily so. – In accordance to our naming conventions, the article should be titled following common English usage, which in this case clearly is Shatt al-Arab (see examples of usage below).
     This opinion may be read as "Support move to Shatt al-Arab" :-) Ev 17:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

     This opinion was expressed before the modification of the request's format. It remains here for clarity. - Ev 20:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

5. Support I think when 2 countries disagree on the name of one place and both of the names are accepted by international community as formal names we can't remove one of them and leave the other and the best order is alphabetical order. But we can remove one name if it is informal name among international community. Popularity of one name in the media isn't a good criteria. --Sa.vakilian(t-c) 04:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

   Misplaced Pages articles' are not named following the forms accepted by the Iraqi and Iranian governments, nor those used by the UN or the international community, but in accordance to Misplaced Pages's own naming conventions, which call for reflecting common English usage (in this specific case, this means "Shatt al-Arab"). - Regards, Ev 07:49, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

6. Support Altough naming of this article seems to be controversial but it has been stable for a long time which shows good faith and NPOV of the editors. According to Misplaced Pages:Naming_conventions#Controversial_names If an article name has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should remain. Therefor, I think current name should remain.(Arash the Archer 05:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC))

   But in this case there is a good reason to change it: our naming conventions' request that we reflect common English usage, which in this specific case means "Shatt al-Arab" :-) Regards, Ev 05:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

7. Support per Mardavich --Rayis 17:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
8. Support per Mardavich / Arash the Archer --Gerash77 18:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
9. Support per Mardavich and Zereshk. Shervink 14:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Move to Arvandrud

Move to Shatt al-Arab

1. Move. In accordance to our general naming conventions, and those on using English & on geographic names, the article should be titled following common English usage, which in this case clearly is Shatt al-Arab (see examples of usage below). - Ev 20:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
2. Move to "Shatt al-Arab", per Ev above. The title should reflect English usage, not the usage in Iran or central Asia. Usage is clearly in favour of Shatt al-Arab, as proven by Ev below. WP:NCON clearly demands a single name, and, since Shatt al-Arab is by far the most common, it must be used. Bastin 18:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
3. Move as the most common name in the English-language world. Iranians also have a different name for the Caspian Sea; should we rename that article? Iranians can take comfort in the fact that Persian Gulf, not Arabian Gulf, is the most common name for that body of water. --Groggy Dice T | C 22:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
4. Move As an English-speaking layman with an interest in what is going on in the Middle East, I know Shatt al-Arab and where it is but I've never heard of Arvandrud (I've actually heard of the Gulf being referred to as both Persian and Arabian). I'm not denying that this is the name commonly used in Iran, but it isn't used in English. I am not entirely sure what the controversy is about. It's nothing to do with Saddam Hussein or being anti-Iranian (which I am not), it's just what we call that stretch of water, just as we use English Channel and not La Manche. At the very least, Shatt al-Arab should come first as it is the most commonly known, but I prefer keeping it as just Shatt al-Arab with Arvandrud mentioned as the alternative Iranian name in the first paragraph.--Conjoiner 23:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
5. Support I think the case here has already been made; I don't really have anything to add to what is above; except to note that our WP:NCGN deprecates double names. Because of move requests to change the order, like this one, they are not stable. Which single name? Shatt al-Arab, the one conventionally used in English; not the name this literate anglophone has never heard before. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
6. Support Alternative names should be in the first line, not in the title. Markussep 21:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
7. Move To Shatt al-Arab the most common name --Aziz1005 20:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment This illustrates my point: "Known to Arabs and in the English-speaking world as the Shatt al-Arab and to the Iranians as the Arvand Roud ..." There also seems to be a difference in spelling. This article makes the Iranian name into two separate words. I still haven't heard of it and Shatt al-Arab is the commonly used word in the English language.--Conjoiner 16:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Move to Shatt al-Arab/Arvandrud

1. Weak Support; this is an improvement, but the article should be Shatt al-Arab as the name primarily used and understood by anglophones, per WP:NAME. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
2. Support, I was the first one who tried to do this, but I think Aravandrud must also be mentioned on the title. --Pejman47 16:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
3. Support, most NPOV --TheFEARgod (Ч) 13:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

   TheFEARgod, NPOV doesn't call for double titles at all. See "Is the name biased ?" below.

   In any case, if NPOV were read to advocate such double titles in these cases, then lots of other Misplaced Pages articles should be moved also, starting with almost all Kosovo-related ones: a double Serbo-Croatian/Albanian format would thus reflect the fact that Serbo-Croatians forms still remain common English usage, but the Albanian ones are also used in English, many of them to a much larger extent than "Arvandrud" in relation to "Shatt al-Arab". - Best regards, Ev 15:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments:

Proposed change of format: move to Shatt al-Arab

As Septentrionalis/PMAnderson points above, the river is commonly known in the English-speaking world as Shatt al-Arab. In fact, before seeing this move request I hadn't come across the Persian name :-)

Misplaced Pages's naming conventions clearly state that "generally, article naming should prefer what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize", and the naming conventions on using English further clarifies that "if you are talking about a , use the most commonly used English version of the name for the article, as you would find it in other encyclopedias and reference works."

The naming conventions on geographic names state: "The title: When a widely accepted English name, in a modern context, exists for a place, we should use it. This often will be a local name, or one of them; but not always. If neither of these apply, the modern official name should be used . All applicable names can be used in the titles of redirects."

In other words, Misplaced Pages's naming conventions clearly call for articles to follow common English usage, and relegate "modern official names" only to those cases in which no common English usage exists.

I believe it's quite clear that Shatt al-Arab represents current common English usage, and thus should be used for the article's title. Just in case, see some examples of usage below.

So, to simplify discussion in this move request, I propose to change its format to:

• Move to Shatt al-Arab
• Move to Shatt al-Arab/Arvandrud
• Keep at Arvandrud/Shatt al-Arab

If someone whishes to do so, I wouldn't mind adding "Move to Arvandrud" too :-)

Best regards, Ev 00:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Please reformat. I agree completely. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I boldly went ahead and modified the format, without making any alteration to any comment but my own, and notifying all editors involved. I hope this will simplify the discussion and thus help the closing WP:RM administrator - Best regards, Ev 20:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Examples of usage

• Google Print test: "Shatt al-Arab" ca. 505; Arvandrud OR Arvand ca. 60 books in English.
• Google Scholar test: "Shatt al-Arab" river 681; river Arvandrud OR Arvand 36 results.
• Amazon.com test: "Shatt al-Arab" river 87; Arvandrud or Arvand river 20 books.
• Amazon.com test: "Shatt al-Arab" 738; Arvandrud or Arvand 141 books.

The ratios are:
Google Print test 8.4:1 — Google Scholar test 18.9:1 — Amazon.com test 4.3:1 (and 5.2:1)

• The New York Times: "Shatt al-Arab" 56; Arvandrud or Arvand 3 results.
• The Times: Shatt+al-Arab 131; Arvandrud or Arvand 2 results.
• International Herald Tribune: "Shatt al-Arab" 58; Arvandrud or Arvand 18 results.
• The Economist:"Shatt al-Arab" 9; Arvandrud or Arvand 0 results.
• BBC: "Shatt al-Arab" 105; Arvandrud or Arvand 4 results.

National Geographic Society maps:

• Caspian Sea, issued May 1999, uses Shatt al-Arab only.
• Heart of the Middle East, issued October 2002, uses Shatt al-Arab only.

Other encyclopedias:

• Britannica's article is named Shatt Al-'Arab.
• Encarta's article is named Shatt al-Arab.

Best regards, Ev 00:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Examples of double name usage, including both "Name1/Name2" 'and "Name1 (Name2)":

• Google Print test: "Shatt al-Arab/Arvandrud" or "Shatt al-Arab/Arvand Rud" 3; "Arvandrud/Shatt al-Arab" or "Arvand Rud/Shatt al-Arab" 1 books in English.
• Google Scholar test: "Shatt al-Arab/Arvandrud" or "Shatt al-Arab/Arvand Rud" 3; "Arvandrud/Shatt al-Arab" or "Arvand Rud/Shatt al-Arab" 0 results.
• Amazon.com test: "Shatt al-Arab/Arvandrud" or "Shatt al-Arab/Arvand Rud" 2; "Arvandrud/Shatt al-Arab" or "Arvand Rud/Shatt al-Arab" 0 books.

• The New York Times: "Shatt al-Arab/Arvandrud" or "Shatt al-Arab/Arvand Rud" 0; "Arvandrud/Shatt al-Arab" or "Arvand Rud/Shatt al-Arab" 0 results.
• International Herald Tribune: "Shatt al-Arab/Arvandrud" or "Shatt al-Arab/Arvand Rud" 0; "Arvandrud/Shatt al-Arab" or "Arvand Rud/Shatt al-Arab" 0 results.
• BBC: "Shatt al-Arab/Arvandrud" or "Shatt al-Arab/Arvand Rud" 0; "Arvandrud/Shatt al-Arab" or "Arvand Rud/Shatt al-Arab" 0 results.

The double form is not commonly used in the English language, and thus it shouldn't be used for the article's title. - Best regards, Ev 16:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

On the hand, WP:Naming states that:

"In a few cases of naming conflicts, editors have been unable to reach a strong consensus to support one name above another name. In these instances, both names are allowed."

and:

"Editors are strongly discouraged from editing for the sole purpose of changing one controversial name to another."

Secondly, you are quoting sources that are not impartial to begin with. These same sources also call the language of Iran "Farsi", while the correct is Persian. If the proper name is based on what most people refer to, then we should move United States to America, because thats what 90% of the world refers to when calling the American state.

By choosing one name over the other, we are simply taking sides in a dispute which Iran and Saddam fought a war over. Please please please letr us refrain from taking sides. Keep the current "Arvand/Shatt-al-Arab" name, and mention in the very beginning that it is alphabetically ordered.--Zereshk 21:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

To mantain an orderly discussion, I copied Zereshk's comments at "Is there a naming conflict ?" & "Is the name biased ?" below, and answered there. - Regards, Ev 22:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

On using a double title

I am not a fan of polls but i got my 2¢. Can someone here explain to me what the heck is going on? A double titled article?!!! It is obvious that one title should be used while redirecting the other. Which one to redirect? It is up to the usual contributors of this article to reach a concensus about this. The important thing is to avoid double titling. -- FayssalF - 13:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I fully agree with FayssalF on the importance of avoiding double titles. This is one of those cases in which it's good to state what may seem obvious :-) Regards, Ev 17:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

There is no policy to back that up. Unless you can quote policy, it has no bearing here. If you want such policy, you will have to propose it, going through the right channels. This is not the place to set a "precedent". Best regards, Khorshid 02:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

This river has 2 name and both of them are recognized by UN, as I know. We can't remove one of them and leave the other.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 03:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Sa.vakilian, Misplaced Pages articles don't follow UN usages, but are named in accordance to our own naming conventions. - Best regards, Ev 16:13, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

< - - - - - reset indent
Khorshid, our current policies and guidelines do discourage the use of double titles:

• Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions: "Generally, article naming should linking to those articles easy and second nature."
• Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (common names): "When choosing a name for a page ask yourself: What word would the average user of the Misplaced Pages put into the search engine?"
  "Titles should be as simple as possible without being too general."
• Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (common names)#Subpage feature (creating a subpage with a slash) disabled in main namespace: "Slashes may be used freely when present in original titles, or usual terminology. Examples: Face/Off, Input/output." — This clearly isn't our case, as the examples of usage show.
• Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (geographic names): "The title: When a widely accepted English name, in a modern context, exists for a place, we should use it. This often will be local name. All applicable names can be used in the titles of redirects."

Best regards, Ev 16:13, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Is there a naming conflict ?

WP:Naming states that:

"In a few cases of naming conflicts, editors have been unable to reach a strong consensus to support one name above another name. In these instances, both names are allowed."

and:

"Editors are strongly discouraged from editing for the sole purpose of changing one controversial name to another."

Zereshk 21:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The sources show no real naming conflict here: it is quite clear that, in English, this river is usually referred to as Shatt al-Arab. I really don't see how this name could be seen as controvertial by the English-speaking world, to which this version of Misplaced Pages is intended. - Best regards, Ev 22:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Again stop repeating the same thing in your response. The controversy and conflict has already been described and discussed. If you don't see or understand it, then thats not anyone elses problem but yours. Best regards, Khorshid 02:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

There is controversy in the name. It's even recognized in the media:

"The neighbors don't even agree what to call it. For the Iranians, it is Arvandrud, or Arvand River. To the Iraqis, it is the Shatt al-Arab, or Arab coastline."

and:

"It is interesting that in the UK we know it exclusively by it's arab name (Coast of Arabs) and not the more widely used Persian name, the Arvandrud (the arvand river)."

And you can see the Arvand name in the media as well:

And speaking of the UN, the UN uses Arvand river as well:.

I hope this helps.--Zereshk 04:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't dispute that the Persian name is sometimes used in English: I saw clear evidence of it when searching for examples of usage. But, in English-language publications, the use of "Arvand" is only marginal, while "Shatt al-Arab" overwhelmingly represents common English usage, the main criterion upon which the English Misplaced Pages's naming conventions rely.

The Persian name may well be more widely used if we consider all languages toghether, or how many times a day the name is pronounced by a human being (I really have no clue about what parameters were used to make that affirmation :-). But this clearly isn't the case if we restrict ourselves to the English language only, in which "Shatt al-Arab" predominates by an overwhelming margin. This latter situation is the one relevant to the English Misplaced Pages's naming conventions.

As for the naming conflict or controversy, it's something restricted to Arabs, Iranians, etc... and to some aspects of diplomacy. But, for the specific purposes of the English Misplaced Pages's naming conventions, the names by which Arabs or Iranians refer to this body of water (and the controversies those Arabic or Persian usages may generate with Arabs and Iranians) have no significance whatsoever: the only thing that matters is what English-language reliable sources call this river (especially those from the UK, USA, Ireland, Australia, NZ, etc.) and whether the English language is experiencing a controversy on what name to use for it. As far as I know, there's no such controversy, and "Shatt al-Arab" predominates by an overwhelming margin (again, see examples of usage).

I should point out that I don't see both names being used in the titles of the corresponding articles in the Arabic and Persian Wikipedias (شط العرب & اروندرود). - Best regards, Ev 04:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Is the name biased ?

, you are quoting sources that are not impartial to begin with. These same sources also call the language of Iran "Farsi", while the correct is Persian. If the proper name is based on what most people refer to, then we should move United States to America, because thats what 90% of the world refers to when calling the American state.

By choosing one name over the other, we are simply taking sides in a dispute which Iran and Saddam fought a war over. Please please please letr us refrain from taking sides. Keep the current "Arvand/Shatt-al-Arab" name, and mention in the very beginning that it is alphabetically ordered.--Zereshk 21:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Even if the majority of English-language publications were biased, anti-Iranian, pro-Saddam or something similar, that biased, anti-Iranian, pro-Saddam name would still constitute common English usage, and thus should be used as the article's title.

This doesn't mean we're taking anybody's side, but merely that we're using the name most English-speakers would be familiar with, as required by Misplaced Pages's naming conventions.

Misplaced Pages restricts itself to passively reflect common English usage, instead of actively spearheading the "correction" of what some users may percieve to be biased usages. - Best regards, Ev 22:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Your argument is flawed because the case at hand is a controversial issue, as Zereshk already showed. Also the first part of your argument would not conform to WP policy if it were true, which it is not. Anyway from your point of logic, if the majority of English sources used "The Gulf" instead of "Persian Gulf" (which they do in the UK and Australia) we should move Persian Gulf to The Gulf. Thats just stupid. Anyway there is no policy against having a double article title and the outcome of this will probably be "no consensus" no matter how zealously some people want to change it to only "Shatt al-Arab". Khorshid 02:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

< - - - - - reset indent
Khorshid, our neutral point of view policy merely requires us to "represent fairly and without bias all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." It doesn't go as far as requiring us to use double naming to include in article titles alternative names seldom used in English-language reliable sources, even at the expense of the clarity & simplicity required by our naming conventions & naming conventions on using common names, and despite the existence of a clear common English usage required by our general naming conventions & those on using English & on geographic names.

If NPOV were read to advocate such double titles in these cases, then lots of other Misplaced Pages articles should be moved also, probably starting with a move to "Arabian Gulf/Persian Gulf", to reflect the fact that the "Persian Gulf" remains common English usage, but the "Arabian Gulf" form is also used in English.

In fact, it would mean double titles to a large proportion of articles, to reflect the myriad of alternative names used by different countries. As I said before, our naming conventions clearly ask us to avoid such double titles as less clear, cumbersome and not representative of current English usage.

Furthermore, since the NPOV policy is mentioned, it should be pointed out that the usage in article titles of seldom-used alternative names probably infringes the undue weight clause, since it gives the alternative name a prominence it doesn't currently have in the English language. - Best regards, Ev 15:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Format change

Please note that I changed votes for those voting to keep article at current title from "Oppose" to "Support", due to Ev's confusing and unilateral format change, and the least he/she could have done was to do this. The way it was, it almost seems like an attempt to influence the closing admin, who would know nothing of the format change, thinking that the "Oppose" votes were those in opposition to keeping. In the future, do not make such format changes especially when dealing with such controversial topics. Furthermore I suggest to people like Ev to tone it down and let people make their case without coming forward and repeating previous arguments in response. If you have no personal interest in this matter, then you should not be zealous. Khorshid 02:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I sincerely apologize for the inconveniences caused by the format modification, and also for any comment on my part that could have been percieved as zealous or impolite.

Yes, I modified the format without waiting to form a clear consensus on doing so, and I did felt somewhat uneasy in doing so. My initial intention was to wait longer, but Septentrionalis/PMAnderson's agreement and ultimately Bastin8's opinion, along with the thought that making the changes later on would be even more problematic, made me feel confident enough in the benefits of boldly doing the changes today, with the stated aim of improving the discussion by making it clearer (both for us and for the closing admin).

I clearly stated at "Proposed change of format: move to Shatt al-Arab" (20:09, 31 March 2007 UTC) that I had made no alteration to any comment but my own, choosing instead to notify all editors involved and let each user change its own comments if he/she felt the need to do so. By doing so I intended to assure everyone that their opinions had not been changed in any way, much less distorted or misrepresented.

Because some comments required an adjustment to the new format, I took care in adding a note immediatly after the nomination's argument, stating that comments signed before 20:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC) were made under the old format, and their authors may modify them soon.

The sole objective of that sentence was (and still is) to make both new users and closing admins aware of the format change and its short-term consequences (that is, context problems until all editors have time to modify their original comments). It's the exact opposite of "an attempt to influence the closing admin".

I was further assured by the fact that this move request had been filed yesterday, and thus it would have taken at least three days for an admin to close the discussion. I considered that this was time enough to modify all comments.

Again, I apologize for any problems the format change caused, but I must emphasize that it was done in good faith and with the sole intention of improving this discussion. I believe it was the right thing to do, and I'm happy with it. - Best regards, Ev 03:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The oldest version was Shat al-arab

THIS IS THE OLDEST VERSION It says Shat Al-Arab The common name is Shat al-Arab which is used by the UN the other name is only used in Iran although more than 75% of the river passes through Iraq which is an Arabic country.Some Unknown Ip Adresses, users or perhaps ADMINS trying to take sides and therefore moved this article to Arvand or whatever for some reason .Remember the name is still the same in all other wikipedias ;Do you want to move it as well???!!!!BTW why dont you apply these policies to the Persian gulf article .Misplaced Pages is really suffering from these kind of people --Aziz1005 20:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Thalweg principle

The author/editor of this article did not understand the "Thalweg" principle, obviously. The Thalweg principle is about the line of steepest descent along the stream bed. The picture on this webpage (pls see link below) displays that the term "Thalweg" (old german spelling of the word Talweg : Tal = valley, weg = channel,path,route) does NOT refer to the middle of the stream, at all.

http://www.fgmorph.com/fg_3_14.php

True, but "line of steepest descent" (above) is misleading. A thalweg is not the median or middle of the river or river bed, but is the median of the deepest channel....often abbreviated to simply "the deepest channel."DLinth 18:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

So, I've corrected the respective part in the article, but it would be perfect if someone could create/upload/request (i'm a "once in a while-wikipedian" only, so i don't know how to do it, also, I don't know if my german wiki-login works on en-wiki :p) an image that displays the Thalweg principle. It would easily explain one of the reasons for the (ongoing) dispute about the border in that area where, additionally, the course of the river, and even more important --> the deepest line (thus the border), may have changed significantly due to regular movements (i.e. according to season, general weather conditions, development or movement of sand banks, etc.) at one or another point. That said, applying the Thalweg principle, which was agreed on (1913?), would not have been a hassle-free solution.

There is a trend (not sure when it started, probably in the 1960s/1970s, prior to the international maritime law-treaty in 1982) that, if a river refines the natural border between 2 countries, the respective countries would agree on declaring the middle of the river as ultimate border. This trend had been adopted in 1982, when forming the treaty mentioned above. Many countries have signed the treaty (for example, all European countries afaik) ..... the USA didn't sign it, by the way. :-)

GeeGee --213.196.229.104 09:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Inappropriate comparison to Persian Gulf/Arabian Gulf

The comparison between Arvandrud/Shatt al-Arab and Persian Gulf/Arabian Gulf is very wrong. "Arabian Gulf" is a very recent name, invented in the 1960s by the Egyptian Arab nationalist Nasserites. It is not a historically valid name, and is not accepted by the UN or any international body, and is used in only a small number of Arab states that are antagonistic to anything "Persian". But "Arvandrud" and "Shatt al-Arab" are both historically correct names, with Arvandrud of course being the older name. Khorshid 02:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Older only than the Arabic name, of course.  :-) Tomer 17:24, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

What is your evidence that The Persian name is older than Tha Arabic name.Also the name is used by the UN ,all English speakers countries and Arab world states !!.Arabian gulf name is used by UN for documents which are written in Arabic for Arab world states--Aziz1005 09:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I was joking, but if you think about it just briefly, the Persians were in the area over a millennium before any Arabic speakers were anywhere nearby in sufficient numbers to get away with renaming the river after themselves...  :-p My "only" is based on the supposition that the river almost certainly had Aramaic and Akkadian names long before Persian had a word for it. Tomer 00:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Oops:' that area is actually an Alluvial Plain therefore in 4000 years ago or about this river perhaps did not exist until Arabs came in :).--Aziz1005 16:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Image question

The image purports to be of the Arvand/Shatt al-Arab, showing a bridge, apparently on the road between Khorramshahr and Abadan, both of which are in Iran, and located on the eastern bank of the river in question. If the bridge is over the Arvand, it clearly is not between these two cities, as they both lie on the same side of the river. If, on the other hand, the bridge is between the two cities, it clearly is not bridging the Arvand. Something is not correct...either the picture is of a bridge over some other river, and the text and image should therefore be removed, or the caption is incorrect. Tomer 17:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Requested move to Shatt al-Arab

Arvandrud/Shatt al-Arab → Shatt al-Arab — Thus moving from a double "Persian/Arabic" title to the Arabic-language name alone, to reflect common English usage, in accordance to Misplaced Pages's naming conventions. — See some examples of usage below, and the previous move request above (which took place 30 March to 6 April 2007). - - Ev 02:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Add  # '''Move'''  or  # '''Keep'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.

Please remember that this survey is not a vote, so please provide an explanation for your recommendation.

Survey - Move to Arvandrud

1. Support as my second choice per my rational below and the fact that "Arvandrud" (Arvand River) is considered the historically correct name , unlike "Shatt al-Arab" (Waterway of Arabs) - a modern term laden with ethnic, political and territorial overtones. --Mardavich 06:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
2. Support. I feel that "Arvandrud," being the older name should take more precedence over "Shatt al-Arab". -- Aivazovsky 11:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
3. Support per Mardavich --Gerash77 18:16, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
4. Support per user:Mardavich and user:Aivazovsky - Fedayee 23:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Survey - Keep at Arvandrud/Shatt al-Arab

1. Support, These are two local names which are used in English, yet neither is English. So this is the most suitable title per controversial names "if an article name has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should remain." WP:NC also states that "In a few cases of naming conflicts, editors have been unable to reach a strong consensus to support one name above another name. In these instances, both names are allowed." --Mardavich 05:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

   Let me stress "and there is no good reason to change it". In this case, following our naming conventions by reflecting common English usage is a good reason to change it. - Ev 14:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

2. Support. I agree with Mardavich on this. -- Aivazovsky 11:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
3. Support As I said in section ,I think because both names are non English , both of them have to be here : Wiki is an Encyclopedia and both names need to be addressed . --Alborz Fallah 13:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

   Although none of the names are English, only one of them (Shatt al-Arab) is widely used in English-language publications (see examples of usage). Both names need to be addressed, of course, but not in the article's title; Arvandrud already is mentioned in the article's first paragraph and already is the title of a redirect. - Ev 14:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

4. Support. My reasons: 1. Both names are not English to begin with any way. 2. There clearly is a dispute over the name. 3. WP:NC clearly states that "In a few cases of naming conflicts, editors have been unable to reach a strong consensus to support one name above another name. In these instances, both names are allowed.--Zereshk 17:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
5. Support per Mardavich and Zereshk --Gerash77 18:16, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
6. Support This river is a border line and it is considered one of the reasons if Iran-Iraq war that had near 1 million casualties. So it is very irresponsible to use only one of the names that Iran or Iraq use. It is an editable encyclopedia, if we choose only one of the names every once in a while someone comes and changes the name to the other one and it never becomes stable. Therefore, it is better to keep this name which is stable, less controversial and consistent with Misplaced Pages policy. (Arash the Archer 21:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC))
7. Support per Arash the Archer, Mardavich and Zereshk. It is pretty stable and neutral to chose both names. - Fedayee 23:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Survey - Move to Shatt al-Arab

1. Move, as nominator. - Ev 02:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
2. Support, common English usage. Markussep 11:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Examples of usage in English

The simple usual tests, to give a general idea:

• Google Print test: "Shatt al-Arab" ca. 505; Arvandrud OR Arvand ca. 60 books in English.
• Google Scholar test: "Shatt al-Arab" river 681; river Arvandrud OR Arvand 36 results.
• Amazon.com test: "Shatt al-Arab" river 87; Arvandrud or Arvand river 20 books.
• Amazon.com test: "Shatt al-Arab" 738; Arvandrud or Arvand 141 books.

The ratios are:
Google Print test 8.4:1 — Google Scholar test 18.9:1 — Amazon.com test 4.3:1 (and 5.2:1)

Best regards, Ev 00:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how much is it reliable to count on Internet searching tool "test"results .There may be technical bias as fallows:

Alternative "Google Print test" : "Shatt al-Arab" ca. 505;Arwand OR Arvand ca.497 !

Alternative "Google Scholar test": "Shatt al-Arab" river ca.681; Arvand OR Arwand ca.845!

and so on ...! --Alborz Fallah 20:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Has Alborz looked at these results, or has he merely counted them? I have never seen such an array of false positives in my life; more at #False positive below. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Press usage:

• The New York Times: "Shatt al-Arab" 54; Arvandrud or Arvand 3 results.
• The Times: Shatt+al-Arab 147; Arvandrud or Arvand 3 results.
• International Herald Tribune: "Shatt al-Arab" 26; Arvandrud or Arvand 0 results.
• The Guardian: "Shatt al-Arab" 117; Arvandrud or Arvand 3 results (and one more mentioning "the Iranian town of Arvand Kenar" ).
• The Economist:"Shatt al-Arab" 10; Arvandrud or Arvand 0 results.
• BBC: "Shatt al-Arab" 112; Arvandrud or Arvand 3 results.
• CNN: "Shatt al-Arab" 28; Arvandrud or Arvand 0 results.

National Geographic Society maps:

• Caspian Sea, issued May 1999, uses Shatt al-Arab only.
• Heart of the Middle East, issued October 2002, uses Shatt al-Arab only.

Other encyclopedias:

• Britannica's article is named Shatt Al-'Arab.
• Encarta's article is named Shatt al-Arab.

Best regards, Ev 02:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Examples of double name usage, including both "Name1/Name2" 'and "Name1 (Name2)":

• Google Print test: "Shatt al-Arab/Arvandrud" or "Shatt al-Arab/Arvand Rud" 3; "Arvandrud/Shatt al-Arab" or "Arvand Rud/Shatt al-Arab" 1 books in English.
• Google Scholar test: "Shatt al-Arab/Arvandrud" or "Shatt al-Arab/Arvand Rud" 3; "Arvandrud/Shatt al-Arab" or "Arvand Rud/Shatt al-Arab" 0 results.
• Amazon.com test: "Shatt al-Arab/Arvandrud" or "Shatt al-Arab/Arvand Rud" 2; "Arvandrud/Shatt al-Arab" or "Arvand Rud/Shatt al-Arab" 0 books.

• The New York Times: "Shatt al-Arab/Arvandrud" or "Shatt al-Arab/Arvand Rud" 0; "Arvandrud/Shatt al-Arab" or "Arvand Rud/Shatt al-Arab" 0 results.
• International Herald Tribune: "Shatt al-Arab/Arvandrud" or "Shatt al-Arab/Arvand Rud" 0; "Arvandrud/Shatt al-Arab" or "Arvand Rud/Shatt al-Arab" 0 results.
• BBC: "Shatt al-Arab/Arvandrud" or "Shatt al-Arab/Arvand Rud" 0; "Arvandrud/Shatt al-Arab" or "Arvand Rud/Shatt al-Arab" 0 results.

The double form is not commonly used in the English language, and thus it shouldn't be used for the article's title. - Best regards, Ev 16:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

False positives

When attempting to determine English usage, it is preferable to count usages in English, and for this river. Albroz;s data fails egregiously to do this. I trust this is mere carelessness, not willingness to distort the data for nationalist purposes.

Let us consider the first few hits, on the Google books search.

• Arvand is the name of robots specially designed....
  • Not this Arvand.
• (Arwand) See ... for coins sometimes assigned to Arwand. ...
  • Quote is from the index. The book itself shows: "or Arvand and taken to be equivalent to Alvand, the large mountain near Hamadān" Np a river at all
• the Arvand Rud, (the great portion of the waters of which flow from sources in Iran
  • A genuine hit at last.
• online coach for Sharif-Arvand soccer simulation team
  • Not this Arvand
• greater than other waters except the Arvand (Orontes)
  • Not this Arvand
• greater than other waters except the Arvand (Orontes)
  • Same false positive; in fact same book.
• Welford, SM, Hebert, SP, Deneen, B., Arvand, A., and Denny
  • Not this Arvand, a person.
• Arvand; so lautet auch der Name eines mittelalterlichen Gaues von Isfahan
  • Not English; not this Arvand
• On the way to the Shatt-ul-Arab (or Arvand Rud) and the Persian Gulf it touches or traverses the provinces of Lorestan, Bakhtiyari,
  • Another genuine hit; that it shows that even Persians writing in English give preference to Shatt al-Arab is another matter.
• Nabel der Gewässer, weil von ihm der Same des Wassers, Arvand genannt komme, durch welches schönere Pferde erzeugt werden
  • Not English; actually reading the source indicates that this is another reference to the mountain Alvend/Orontes.
• Eugène Burnouf (2), qu'on plaçait dans cette montagne une source Arvand
  • Not English, same mountain.

...and so on. The google scholar source has the same problems. That's two genuine references out of eleven. (While there are some false positives on Shatt al-Arab, they are many fewer.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

PMAnderson/Septentrionalis description is accurate. This is precisely why on my "Google Print test" ("Shatt al-Arab" ca. 505; Arvandrud OR Arvand ca. 60 books in English) I took care to check the results and consider only those related to our river.

• The search for "Shatt al-Arab" actually gives 538 results, of which only ca. 505 refer to our river & are in English.
• The search for Arvandrud OR Arvand actually gives 339 results, of which only ca. 60 refer to our river & are in English.

Because of the time it takes to check all results, I didn't repeat it in the other usual tests, but restricted myself to count the results, despite the fact that here too some of the results for "Arvand" are false positives (while the vast majority of the results for "Shatt al-Arab" refer to our river).

I invite everyone to take the necessary time and check the results before giving their opinions. - Best regards, Ev 00:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments:

This move request has been announced at:

1. Misplaced Pages:Requested moves (diff.)
2. Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#Requested move to Shatt al-Arab (diff.)
3. Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Rivers#Arvandrud/Shatt al-Arab (diff.)

Best regards, Ev 14:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

On reflecting common English usage

A remainder of how our naming conventions, call, over and over again, to reflect common English usage:

• Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions: "article naming should prefer what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize."
• Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (common names): "se the most common name. he titles should represent common usage."
• Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (geographic names): "When a widely accepted English name, in a modern context, exists for a place, we should use it. This often will be a local name, or one of them;"
• Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (use English): "if you are talking about a , use the most commonly used English version of the name for the article, as you would find it in other encyclopedias and reference works."

Best regards, Ev 02:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

On using double titles

A remainder of how our naming conventions discourage double titles:

• Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions: "article naming should mak linking to those articles easy and second nature."
• Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (common names): "When choosing a name for a page ask yourself: What word would the average user of the Misplaced Pages put into the search engine?"
  "Titles should be as simple as possible ."
• Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (common names)#Subpage feature (creating a subpage with a slash) disabled in main namespace: "Slashes may be used freely when present in original titles, or usual terminology. Examples: Face/Off, Input/output." — This clearly isn't our case, as the examples of usage show.
• Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (geographic names): "When a widely accepted English name, in a modern context, exists for a place, we should use it. All applicable names can be used in the titles of redirects."

Best regards, Ev 02:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:NCON table

The table proposed in the guideline on naming conflicts:

1. The examples of usage clearly show that the "most commonly used name in English" is Shatt al-Arab.
2. I assume that each name is officially used in each country.
3. A river doesn't have a "self", and thus is unable of giving itself a name, of identifying itself.

Best regards, Ev 02:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

• "Most commonly used name in English" is a reflection of how many times the English language persons had encountered with the local names: that means none of the names can be considered as dominant in English with confidence. As an example, in choosing between English Channel and Manche (mer) ; there is no doubt about using the first in the English Misplaced Pages and the second in the French Misplaced Pages , but there is uncertinity in choosing between Russian Iturup and Japanese Etorofu (look at Kuril Islands dispute) , just because the Island is a Russian / Japanese topic and not an English language people one. So I think both Iranian and Iraqi names have to mentioned. --Alborz Fallah 10:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
  • There is uncertainty, but usually (when the issue is not poisoned with nationalism) resolvable uncertainty. For example, there is a major city in Germany which the Germans call Nürnberg, and the French Nuremberg. Most (not absolutely all) anglophones write Nuremberg, and English speakers are far more likely to understand Nuremberg. So we use it in this English wikipedia. The same thing applies here. We should of course, and will, include Arvandrud in the first line. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

• Unassessed Iraq articles
• Unknown-importance Iraq articles
• WikiProject Iraq articles
• Unassessed Iran articles
• Unknown-importance Iran articles
• WikiProject Iran articles
• Misplaced Pages requested images of Iran
• Misplaced Pages requested images of Iraq